Foram encontradas 110 questões.
The Internet at Risk
Some 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for a United Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over the assignment of Web site addresses (for example, http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail accounts (for example, johndoe@aol.com). The delegates' argument is that unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why should the United States continue to control the registration of French and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's historic role in democratizing travel was.
The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and dangerous in practice. In an ideal world, unilateralism should be avoided. But in an imperfect world, unilateral solutions that run efficiently can be better than multilateral ones that 51...
The job of assigning domain names offers huge opportunities for abuse. 52... controls this function can decide to keep certain types of individuals or organizations offline (dissidents or opposition political groups, for example). Or it can allow them on in exchange for large fees. The striking feature of U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not occurred.
It's possible that a multilateral overseer of the Internet might be just as efficient. But the ponderous International Telecommunication Union, the U.N. body that would be a leading candidate to take over the domain registry, has a record of resisting innovation - including the advent of the Internet.
Moreover, a multilateral domain-registering body would be caught between the different visions of its members: on the one side, autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China that want to restrict access to the Internet; on the other side, open societies that want low barriers to entry. These clashes of vision would probably make multilateral regulation inefficiently political.
You may say that this is a fair price to pay to uphold the principle of sovereignty. If a country wants to keep certain users from registering domain names (Nazi groups, child pornographers, criminals), then perhaps it has a right to do so. But the clinching argument is that countries can exercise that sovereignty to a reasonable degree without controlling domain names. They can order Internet users in their territory to take offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China. The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest control of the Internet from the United States, because they already have it.
(Adapted from Washington Post, November 21, 2005; A14)
No segundo parágrafo, should indica
Provas
The Internet at Risk
Some 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for a United Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over the assignment of Web site addresses (for example, http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail accounts (for example, johndoe@aol.com). The delegates' argument is that unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why should the United States continue to control the registration of French and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's historic role in democratizing travel was.
The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and dangerous in practice. In an ideal world, unilateralism should be avoided. But in an imperfect world, unilateral solutions that run efficiently can be better than multilateral ones that 51...
The job of assigning domain names offers huge opportunities for abuse. 52... controls this function can decide to keep certain types of individuals or organizations offline (dissidents or opposition political groups, for example). Or it can allow them on in exchange for large fees. The striking feature of U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not occurred.
It's possible that a multilateral overseer of the Internet might be just as efficient. But the ponderous International Telecommunication Union, the U.N. body that would be a leading candidate to take over the domain registry, has a record of resisting innovation - including the advent of the Internet.
Moreover, a multilateral domain-registering body would be caught between the different visions of its members: on the one side, autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China that want to restrict access to the Internet; on the other side, open societies that want low barriers to entry. These clashes of vision would probably make multilateral regulation inefficiently political.
You may say that this is a fair price to pay to uphold the principle of sovereignty. If a country wants to keep certain users from registering domain names (Nazi groups, child pornographers, criminals), then perhaps it has a right to do so. But the clinching argument is that countries can exercise that sovereignty to a reasonable degree without controlling domain names. They can order Internet users in their territory to take offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China. The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest control of the Internet from the United States, because they already have it.
(Adapted from Washington Post, November 21, 2005; A14)
Segundo o texto, Henry Ford
Provas
The Internet at Risk
Some 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for a United Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over the assignment of Web site addresses (for example, http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail accounts (for example, johndoe@aol.com). The delegates' argument is that unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why should the United States continue to control the registration of French and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's historic role in democratizing travel was.
The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and dangerous in practice. In an ideal world, unilateralism should be avoided. But in an imperfect world, unilateral solutions that run efficiently can be better than multilateral ones that 51...
The job of assigning domain names offers huge opportunities for abuse. 52... controls this function can decide to keep certain types of individuals or organizations offline (dissidents or opposition political groups, for example). Or it can allow them on in exchange for large fees. The striking feature of U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not occurred.
It's possible that a multilateral overseer of the Internet might be just as efficient. But the ponderous International Telecommunication Union, the U.N. body that would be a leading candidate to take over the domain registry, has a record of resisting innovation - including the advent of the Internet.
Moreover, a multilateral domain-registering body would be caught between the different visions of its members: on the one side, autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China that want to restrict access to the Internet; on the other side, open societies that want low barriers to entry. These clashes of vision would probably make multilateral regulation inefficiently political.
You may say that this is a fair price to pay to uphold the principle of sovereignty. If a country wants to keep certain users from registering domain names (Nazi groups, child pornographers, criminals), then perhaps it has a right to do so. But the clinching argument is that countries can exercise that sovereignty to a reasonable degree without controlling domain names. They can order Internet users in their territory to take offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China. The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest control of the Internet from the United States, because they already have it.
(Adapted from Washington Post, November 21, 2005; A14)
Ainda no primeiro parágrafo, os dois períodos Why should the United States continue to control the registration of French and Chinese Internet addresses? e It doesn't control the registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's historic role in democratizing travel was. podem ser ligadas, sem alteração de sentido, pela conjunção
Provas
The Internet at Risk
Some 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for a United Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over the assignment of Web site addresses (for example, http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail accounts (for example, johndoe@aol.com). The delegates' argument is that unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why should the United States continue to control the registration of French and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's historic role in democratizing travel was.
The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and dangerous in practice. In an ideal world, unilateralism should be avoided. But in an imperfect world, unilateral solutions that run efficiently can be better than multilateral ones that 51...
The job of assigning domain names offers huge opportunities for abuse. 52... controls this function can decide to keep certain types of individuals or organizations offline (dissidents or opposition political groups, for example). Or it can allow them on in exchange for large fees. The striking feature of U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not occurred.
It's possible that a multilateral overseer of the Internet might be just as efficient. But the ponderous International Telecommunication Union, the U.N. body that would be a leading candidate to take over the domain registry, has a record of resisting innovation - including the advent of the Internet.
Moreover, a multilateral domain-registering body would be caught between the different visions of its members: on the one side, autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China that want to restrict access to the Internet; on the other side, open societies that want low barriers to entry. These clashes of vision would probably make multilateral regulation inefficiently political.
You may say that this is a fair price to pay to uphold the principle of sovereignty. If a country wants to keep certain users from registering domain names (Nazi groups, child pornographers, criminals), then perhaps it has a right to do so. But the clinching argument is that countries can exercise that sovereignty to a reasonable degree without controlling domain names. They can order Internet users in their territory to take offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China. The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest control of the Internet from the United States, because they already have it.
(Adapted from Washington Post, November 21, 2005; A14)
No primeiro parágrafo, reflects no more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins significa
Provas
The Internet at Risk
Some 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for a United
Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates want an end to the
U.S. Commerce Department's control over the assignment of Web site
addresses (for example, http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail
accounts (for example, johndoe@aol.com). The delegates' argument is that
unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects
no more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why
should the United States continue to control the registration of French
and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the registration of
French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's historic role in
democratizing travel was.
The reformers'
argument is attractive in theory and dangerous in practice. In an ideal
world, unilateralism should be avoided. But in an imperfect world,
unilateral solutions that run efficiently can be better than
multilateral ones that ......
The job of assigning domain names offers huge opportunities for abuse. ......
controls this function can decide to keep certain types of individuals
or organizations offline (dissidents or opposition political groups, for
example). Or it can allow them on in exchange for large fees. The
striking feature of U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not occurred.
It's possible that a multilateral overseer of the Internet
might be just as efficient. But the ponderous International
Telecommunication Union, the U.N. body that would be a leading candidate
to take over the domain registry, has a record of resisting innovation -
including the advent of the Internet.
Moreover, a
multilateral domain-registering body would be caught between the
different visions of its members: on the one side, autocratic regimes
such as Saudi Arabia and China that want to restrict access to the
Internet; on the other side, open societies that want low barriers to
entry. These clashes of vision would probably make multilateral
regulation inefficiently political.
You may say that
this is a fair price to pay to uphold the principle of sovereignty. If a
country wants to keep certain users from registering domain names (Nazi
groups, child pornographers, criminals), then perhaps it has a right to
do so. But the clinching argument is that countries can exercise that
sovereignty to a reasonable degree without controlling domain names.
They can order Internet users in their territory to take offensive
material down. They can order their banks or credit card companies to
refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed,
governments' ample ability to regulate the Internet has already been
demonstrated by some of the countries pushing for reform, such as
authoritarian China. The sovereign nations of the world have no need to
wrest control of the Internet from the United States, because they
already have it.
(Adapted from Washington Post, November 21, 2005; A14)
No texto, a palavra que preenche corretamente a lacuna em vermelho é
Provas
The Internet at Risk
Some 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for a United Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over the assignment of Web site addresses (for example, http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail accounts (for example, johndoe@aol.com). The delegates' argument is that unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why should the United States continue to control the registration of French and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's historic role in democratizing travel was.
The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and dangerous in practice. In an ideal world, unilateralism should be avoided. But in an imperfect world, unilateral solutions that run efficiently can be better than multilateral ones that ......
The job of assigning domain names offers huge opportunities for abuse. ...... controls this function can decide to keep certain types of individuals or organizations offline (dissidents or opposition political groups, for example). Or it can allow them on in exchange for large fees. The striking feature of U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not occurred.
It's possible that a multilateral overseer of the Internet might be just as efficient. But the ponderous International Telecommunication Union, the U.N. body that would be a leading candidate to take over the domain registry, has a record of resisting innovation - including the advent of the Internet.
Moreover, a multilateral domain-registering body would be caught between the different visions of its members: on the one side, autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China that want to restrict access to the Internet; on the other side, open societies that want low barriers to entry. These clashes of vision would probably make multilateral regulation inefficiently political.
You may say that this is a fair price to pay to uphold the principle of sovereignty. If a country wants to keep certain users from registering domain names (Nazi groups, child pornographers, criminals), then perhaps it has a right to do so. But the clinching argument is that countries can exercise that sovereignty to a reasonable degree without controlling domain names. They can order Internet users in their territory to take offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China. The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest control of the Internet from the United States, because they already have it.
(Adapted from Washington Post, November 21, 2005; A14)
No texto, o verbo que preenche corretamente a lacuna em vermelho é
Provas
A questão refere-se ao texto apresentado abaixo.
O segredo da acumulação primitiva neoliberal
Numa coluna publicada na Folha de São Paulo, o jornalista Elio Gaspari evocava o drama recente de um navio de crianças escravas errando ao largo da costa do Benin. Ao ler o texto - que era inspirado -, o navio tornava-se uma metáfora de toda a África subsaariana: ilha à deriva, mistura de leprosário com campo de extermínio e reserva de mão-de-obra para migrações desesperadas.
Elio Gaspari propunha um termo para designar esse povo móvel e desesperado: "os cidadãos descartáveis". "Massas de homens e mulheres são arrancados de seus meios de subsistência e jogados no mercado de trabalho como proletários livres, desprotegidos e sem direitos." São palavras de Marx, quando ele descreve a "acumulação primitiva", ou seja, o processo que, no século XVI, criou as condições necessárias ao surgimento do capitalismo.
Para que ganhássemos nosso mundo moderno, foi necessário, por exemplo, que os servos feudais fossem, à força, expropriados do pedacinho de terra que podiam cultivar para sustentar-se. Massas inteiras se encontraram, assim, paradoxalmente livres da servidão, mas obrigadas a vender seu trabalho para sobreviver.
Quatro ou cinco séculos mais tarde, essa violência não deveria ter acabado? Ao que parece, o século XX pediu uma espécie de segunda rodada, um ajuste: a criação de sujeitos descartáveis globais para um capitalismo enfim global.
Simples continuação ou repetição? Talvez haja uma diferença - pequena, mas substancial - entre as massas do século XVI e os migrantes da globalização: as primeiras foram arrancadas de seus meios de subsistência, os segundos são expropriados de seu lugar pela violência da fome, por exemplo, mas quase sempre eles recebem em troca um devaneio. O protótipo poderia ser o prospecto que, um século atrás, seduzia os emigrantes europeus: sonhos de posse, de bem-estar e de ascensão social.
As condições para que o capitalismo invente sua versão neoliberal são subjetivas. A expropriação que torna essa passagem possível é psicológica: necessita que sejamos arrancados nem tanto de nossos meios de subsistência, mas de nossa comunidade restrita, familiar e social, para sermos lançados numa procura infinita de status (e, hipoteticamente, de bem-estar) definido pelo acesso a bens e serviços. Arrancados de nós mesmos, deveremos querer ardentemente ser algo além do que somos.
Depois da liberdade de vender nossa força de trabalho, a "acumulação primitiva" do neoliberalismo nos oferece a liberdade de mudar e subir na vida, ou seja, de cultivar visões, sonhos e devaneios de aventura e sucesso. E, desde o prospecto do emigrante, a oferta vem se aprimorando. A partir dos anos 60, a televisão forneceu os sonhos para que o campo não só devesse, mas quisesse, ir para a cidade.
O requisito para que a máquina neoliberal funcione é mais refinado do que a venda dos mesmos sabonetes ou filmes para todos. Trata-se de alimentar um sonho infinito de perfectibilidade e, portanto, uma insatisfação radical. Não é pouca coisa: é necessário promover e vender objetos e serviços por eles serem indispensáveis para alcançarmos nossos ideais de status, de bem-estar e de felicidade, mas, ao mesmo tempo, é preciso que toda satisfação conclusiva permaneça impossível.
Para fomentar o sujeito neoliberal, o que importa não é lhe vender mais uma roupa, uma cortina ou uma lipoaspiração; é alimentar nele sonhos de elegância perfeita, casa perfeita e corpo perfeito. Pois esses sonhos perpetuam o sentimento de nossa inadequação e garantem, assim, que ele seja parte inalterável, definidora, da personalidade contemporânea.
Provavelmente seria uma catástrofe se pudéssemos, de repente, acalmar nossa insatisfação. Aconteceria uma queda total do índice de confiança dos consumidores. Bolsas e economias iriam para o brejo. Desemprego, crise, etc.
Melhor deixar como está. No entanto, a coisa não fica bem. Do meu pequeno observatório psicanalítico, parece que o permanente sentimento de inadequação faz do sujeito neoliberal uma espécie de sonhador descartável, que corre atrás da miragem de sua felicidade como um trem descontrolado, sem condutor, acelerando progressivamente por inércia - até que os trilhos não agüentem mais.
(Contardo Calligaris, Terra de ninguém. São Paulo: Publifolha, 2002)
Nota: O autor desse texto, Contardo Calligaris, é psicanalista e foi professor de estudos culturais na New School de Nova York. Faz parte do corpo docente do Institute for the Study of Violence, em Boston. É também colunista da Folha de S. Paulo.
No contexto em que ocorre a afirmação de que
Provas
A questão refere-se ao texto apresentado abaixo.
O segredo da acumulação primitiva neoliberal
Numa coluna publicada na Folha de São Paulo, o jornalista Elio Gaspari evocava o drama recente de um navio de crianças escravas errando ao largo da costa do Benin. Ao ler o texto - que era inspirado -, o navio tornava-se uma metáfora de toda a África subsaariana: ilha à deriva, mistura de leprosário com campo de extermínio e reserva de mão-de-obra para migrações desesperadas.
Elio Gaspari propunha um termo para designar esse povo móvel e desesperado: "os cidadãos descartáveis". "Massas de homens e mulheres são arrancados de seus meios de subsistência e jogados no mercado de trabalho como proletários livres, desprotegidos e sem direitos." São palavras de Marx, quando ele descreve a "acumulação primitiva", ou seja, o processo que, no século XVI, criou as condições necessárias ao surgimento do capitalismo.
Para que ganhássemos nosso mundo moderno, foi necessário, por exemplo, que os servos feudais fossem, à força, expropriados do pedacinho de terra que podiam cultivar para sustentar-se. Massas inteiras se encontraram, assim, paradoxalmente livres da servidão, mas obrigadas a vender seu trabalho para sobreviver.
Quatro ou cinco séculos mais tarde, essa violência não deveria ter acabado? Ao que parece, o século XX pediu uma espécie de segunda rodada, um ajuste: a criação de sujeitos descartáveis globais para um capitalismo enfim global.
Simples continuação ou repetição? Talvez haja uma diferença - pequena, mas substancial - entre as massas do século XVI e os migrantes da globalização: as primeiras foram arrancadas de seus meios de subsistência, os segundos são expropriados de seu lugar pela violência da fome, por exemplo, mas quase sempre eles recebem em troca um devaneio. O protótipo poderia ser o prospecto que, um século atrás, seduzia os emigrantes europeus: sonhos de posse, de bem-estar e de ascensão social.
As condições para que o capitalismo invente sua versão neoliberal são subjetivas. A expropriação que torna essa passagem possível é psicológica: necessita que sejamos arrancados nem tanto de nossos meios de subsistência, mas de nossa comunidade restrita, familiar e social, para sermos lançados numa procura infinita de status (e, hipoteticamente, de bem-estar) definido pelo acesso a bens e serviços. Arrancados de nós mesmos, deveremos querer ardentemente ser algo além do que somos.
Depois da liberdade de vender nossa força de trabalho, a "acumulação primitiva" do neoliberalismo nos oferece a liberdade de mudar e subir na vida, ou seja, de cultivar visões, sonhos e devaneios de aventura e sucesso. E, desde o prospecto do emigrante, a oferta vem se aprimorando. A partir dos anos 60, a televisão forneceu os sonhos para que o campo não só devesse, mas quisesse, ir para a cidade.
O requisito para que a máquina neoliberal funcione é mais refinado do que a venda dos mesmos sabonetes ou filmes para todos. Trata-se de alimentar um sonho infinito de perfectibilidade e, portanto, uma insatisfação radical. Não é pouca coisa: é necessário promover e vender objetos e serviços por eles serem indispensáveis para alcançarmos nossos ideais de status, de bem-estar e de felicidade, mas, ao mesmo tempo, é preciso que toda satisfação conclusiva permaneça impossível.
Para fomentar o sujeito neoliberal, o que importa não é lhe vender mais uma roupa, uma cortina ou uma lipoaspiração; é alimentar nele sonhos de elegância perfeita, casa perfeita e corpo perfeito. Pois esses sonhos perpetuam o sentimento de nossa inadequação e garantem, assim, que ele seja parte inalterável, definidora, da personalidade contemporânea.
Provavelmente seria uma catástrofe se pudéssemos, de repente, acalmar nossa insatisfação. Aconteceria uma queda total do índice de confiança dos consumidores. Bolsas e economias iriam para o brejo. Desemprego, crise, etc.
Melhor deixar como está. No entanto, a coisa não fica bem. Do meu pequeno observatório psicanalítico, parece que o permanente sentimento de inadequação faz do sujeito neoliberal uma espécie de sonhador descartável, que corre atrás da miragem de sua felicidade como um trem descontrolado, sem condutor, acelerando progressivamente por inércia - até que os trilhos não agüentem mais.
(Contardo Calligaris, Terra de ninguém. São Paulo: Publifolha, 2002)
Nota: O autor desse texto, Contardo Calligaris, é psicanalista e foi professor de estudos culturais na New School de Nova York. Faz parte do corpo docente do Institute for the Study of Violence, em Boston. É também colunista da Folha de S. Paulo.
Considere as seguintes afirmações:
I. Tomando como ponto de partida um comentário de outro jornalista sobre um fato recente da época, o autor dispõe-se a compreender esse fato à luz de uma expressão de Marx - "cidadãos descartáveis" -, que já previa o processo migratório de trabalhadores no século XX.
II. A expressão "acumulação primitiva" é considerada pelo autor como inteiramente anacrônica, incapaz, portanto, de sugerir qualquer caminho de análise do neoliberalismo contemporâneo.
III. Acredita o autor que na base do mundo moderno, do ponto de vista econômico, está o fim do feudalismo, está a transformação dos servos feudais em trabalhadores que precisavam vender sua força de trabalho.
Em relação ao texto está correto SOMENTE o que se afirma em
Provas
- Desenvolvimento e Crescimento Econômico
- História Econômica
- MacroeconomiaCrescimento EconômicoModelo de Solow
- MacroeconomiaEconomia Internacional na Macroeconomia
Provas
Provas
Caderno Container