Questões de Inglês

  A baby elephant and her mother had a heartwarming reunion in Thailand after being apart for three and a half years. Mebai was separated from her mother shortly after she was born and was sold into the tourism industry. She worked in a circus and in elephant shows but because she was so young she began to lose weight and could no longer work.

  The little girl walked 62 miles in 4 days to The Elephant Nature Park with the assistance of volunteers carrying food and bringing her to water. When the mother, Mae Yui, saw her daughter she appeared shocked and, shortly after she confirmed that it was her daughter by sniffing her, they began joining trunks, hugging each other, and catching up by communicating.

  The mother daughter duo are now inseparable and the nature park is working to rehabilitate the two so they can return to the wild and live free.

Disponível em: <https://www.aol.com/article/2015/04/09>.Acesso em: mar. 2017.Adaptado.

Barack Obama tells young people that progress is possible

On the final day of his last visit to Britain as US president, Obama told 500 youth leaders at a town hall meeting in London: “I’m here to ask you to reject the notion there are forces we can’t control. As JFK said, our problems are manmade and can be solved by man.”

“You’ve never had better tools to make a difference,” he told the A-level and UK-US exchange students at the Q&A session. “Reject pessimism, cynicism and know that progress is possible. Progress is not inevitable; it requires struggle, discipline and faith.”

But Obama acknowledged the challenges faced by young people: “Not to say your generation has had it easy, in a time of breathtaking change, from 9/11, 7/7 … and during an age of information and Twitter where there’s a steady stream of bad news.”

The audience cheered as the president was introduced and went on to speak about his policies, from healthcare to gay rights and education. He urged the audience to interact with people of different political beliefs: “Seek out people who don’t agree with you, and it will also help you to compromise.”

During the question session, a young British-Pakistani Muslim, Maria Munir, 20, broke down in tears after coming out as non-binary – someone who does not regard themselves as exclusively masculine or feminine. In response to the question about the rights of transgender people, Obama said: “You should feel encouraged social attitudes are changing … [that] doesn’t mean it’s fast enough, but you should keep pushing and it’s in part due to the courageous acts of young people like yourself.”

When asked about his presidential legacy, Obama said he was proud of the healthcare reforms, which received huge cheers from the audience, and said of the US response to the 2008 financial crisis: “Saving the world from great depression – that was quite good.”He also listed diplomatic deals with Iran and the response to the Ebola crisis as highlights during his presidency. “I’m proud; I think I’ve been true to myself during this process.” But he added: “Don’t give up and succumb to cynics if after five years poverty hasn’t been eradicated … It’s OK. Dr [Martin Luther] King says the arc of the [moral] universe is long, but bends towards justice.” Questioned on the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, he said: “The answer to globalisation is not to pull up the drawbridge and shut off,” though it was crucial to pay attention to workers’ rights.

Obama ended the session by taking a question from a young Sikh Londoner who asked about the issue of racial profiling at airports and being mistaken for a Muslim. He said that although there were people with “crazy ideology”, pluralism was important. “I visited a mosque a few months ago and said our greatest allies are American Muslims who are most integrated and economically well-off,” he said. Furqan Naeem, a campaigner from Manchester, said: “I recently visited the [United] States through the US embassy on the community leaders programme and saw firsthand some really important work the president did in celebrating America’s diversity and bringing communities together.”

Obama left the stage to the Clash’s London Calling and people gathered around to take selfies with him.

At:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/23/barack-obamalondon-visit-young-people-key-to-changing-the-world

Barack Obama tells young people that progress is possible

On the final day of his last visit to Britain as US president, Obama told 500 youth leaders at a town hall meeting in London: “I’m here to ask you to reject the notion there are forces we can’t control. As JFK said, our problems are manmade and can be solved by man.”

“You’ve never had better tools to make a difference,” he told the A-level and UK-US exchange students at the Q&A session. “Reject pessimism, cynicism and know that progress is possible. Progress is not inevitable; it requires struggle, discipline and faith.”

But Obama acknowledged the challenges faced by young people: “Not to say your generation has had it easy, in a time of breathtaking change, from 9/11, 7/7 … and during an age of information and Twitter where there’s a steady stream of bad news.”

The audience cheered as the president was introduced and went on to speak about his policies, from healthcare to gay rights and education. He urged the audience to interact with people of different political beliefs: “Seek out people who don’t agree with you, and it will also help you to compromise.”

During the question session, a young British-Pakistani Muslim, Maria Munir, 20, broke down in tears after coming out as non-binary – someone who does not regard themselves as exclusively masculine or feminine. In response to the question about the rights of transgender people, Obama said: “You should feel encouraged social attitudes are changing … [that] doesn’t mean it’s fast enough, but you should keep pushing and it’s in part due to the courageous acts of young people like yourself.”

When asked about his presidential legacy, Obama said he was proud of the healthcare reforms, which received huge cheers from the audience, and said of the US response to the 2008 financial crisis: “Saving the world from great depression – that was quite good.”He also listed diplomatic deals with Iran and the response to the Ebola crisis as highlights during his presidency. “I’m proud; I think I’ve been true to myself during this process.” But he added: “Don’t give up and succumb to cynics if after five years poverty hasn’t been eradicated … It’s OK. Dr [Martin Luther] King says the arc of the [moral] universe is long, but bends towards justice.” Questioned on the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, he said: “The answer to globalisation is not to pull up the drawbridge and shut off,” though it was crucial to pay attention to workers’ rights.

Obama ended the session by taking a question from a young Sikh Londoner who asked about the issue of racial profiling at airports and being mistaken for a Muslim. He said that although there were people with “crazy ideology”, pluralism was important. “I visited a mosque a few months ago and said our greatest allies are American Muslims who are most integrated and economically well-off,” he said. Furqan Naeem, a campaigner from Manchester, said: “I recently visited the [United] States through the US embassy on the community leaders programme and saw firsthand some really important work the president did in celebrating America’s diversity and bringing communities together.”

Obama left the stage to the Clash’s London Calling and people gathered around to take selfies with him.

At:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/23/barack-obamalondon-visit-young-people-key-to-changing-the-world

Can justice be served online?

Jayne R. Reardon

I recently had an experience with online dispute resolution. It all came about when I clicked on an alluring ad for a face cream. I charged $4.95 on my credit card and within a few days received the product in the mail. My enjoyment of the smooth and glowing effects of the face cream came to an abrupt end when the next month’s credit card bill came with a charge for an additional $94.99.

Via email, I disputed the charge, asked for documentation showing I ordered or received the product, disputed the documentation of a recurring monthly charge that the company put forward, and appealed the denial of my dispute. Ultimately, I lost. The credit card company refunded me a portion of the charge to keep me as a customer, but I had to pay for a product I had not ordered and which I definitely did not receive.

could have filed a case in small claims court. According to the National Center for State Courts 2015 report, 75 percent of the cases filed in the state courts involved judgments of less than $5,200. In some instances, the costs of even initiating the lawsuit or making an appearance as a defendant would exceed the value of the case. And contrary to the traditional paradigm of civil litigation being competently handled by attorneys representing both parties, 76 percent of the cases studied in the report had at least one party self-representing.

Trials have been dropping in numbers, and although traditional court filings and trials may be down, disputes are not. As the authors of Getting to Yes asserted over three decades ago, “conflict is a growth industry.” Conflicts inevitably come with the territory of new products and services. As with all things related to the internet, they are coming at a faster rate. Disputes are also arising from the increased complexity in relationships and systems being created and the larger volumes of data being collected, processed and communicated.

In 2012, eBay claimed it handled more than 60 million disputes between buyers and sellers by providing software that assisted the parties to negotiate a satisfactory outcome over 80 percent of the time. Alibaba, as of last year the world’s largest retailer, generating more revenue than Amazon.com and eBay combined, handles hundreds of millions of disputes per year.

That’s where technology enters the picture as a way to efficiently and equitably resolve disputes. The premise of the Digital Justice authors is that access to justice can be enabled by software and mouse clicks just as in the old days, it was affected by the hours a court was open or how distant it was located from one’s home. Experimentation in small claims online courts is happening in the United Kingdom, British Columbia, the Netherlands and spottily in the United States.

Online Dispute Resolution, proponents claim technology can also prevent disputes. What if, similar to a GPS system, parties could learn that the relationship was off track in time to correct course before they were lost or the claim was fully erupted? There is a branch of study in the ODR field called “dispute systems design” that challenges the assumption that we should focus on more efficient tools to address individual disputes on an ad hoc basis. This approach says that technology can be used to address and prevent disputes systematically.

By studying the data uncovered in the dispute resolution processes, eBay has managed to uncover common sources of problems and to structure information and services on its site so that the problems do not recur. Another example of an online ODR system is the one established on Wikipedia. Alongside its dispute resolution efforts, Wikipedia focuses on dispute prevention to study patterns of disputes and effective resolution strategies, and for automatically detecting such problems as illegitimate editing of content and deleting such content immediately, even before it is reported by the users.

The private nature of ODR makes it difficult to document results or study patterns. How can precedent be established? How do users have a feeling of fairness? While exploring new systems of making the law work for our citizens, lawyers and judges need to make sure the values of the third branch are brought forward.

Historically, the public trial in our society has been about not only resolving disputes between parties but also about education, healing and change. Trials can shine the light of justice on what otherwise may fester and grow in the dark recesses of our world. Courts allow the voices of the voiceless to be heard. The public nature of our court system has been emblematic of our democracy.But if the brick-andmortar system is unworkable for the disputes of the online age—we must adapt. This is the time to adapt or be rendered irrelevant.

AT:http://www.abajournal.com/legalrebels/article/can_justice_be_serve d_online/

Can justice be served online?

Jayne R. Reardon

I recently had an experience with online dispute resolution. It all came about when I clicked on an alluring ad for a face cream. I charged $4.95 on my credit card and within a few days received the product in the mail. My enjoyment of the smooth and glowing effects of the face cream came to an abrupt end when the next month’s credit card bill came with a charge for an additional $94.99.

Via email, I disputed the charge, asked for documentation showing I ordered or received the product, disputed the documentation of a recurring monthly charge that the company put forward, and appealed the denial of my dispute. Ultimately, I lost. The credit card company refunded me a portion of the charge to keep me as a customer, but I had to pay for a product I had not ordered and which I definitely did not receive.

could have filed a case in small claims court. According to the National Center for State Courts 2015 report, 75 percent of the cases filed in the state courts involved judgments of less than $5,200. In some instances, the costs of even initiating the lawsuit or making an appearance as a defendant would exceed the value of the case. And contrary to the traditional paradigm of civil litigation being competently handled by attorneys representing both parties, 76 percent of the cases studied in the report had at least one party self-representing.

Trials have been dropping in numbers, and although traditional court filings and trials may be down, disputes are not. As the authors of Getting to Yes asserted over three decades ago, “conflict is a growth industry.” Conflicts inevitably come with the territory of new products and services. As with all things related to the internet, they are coming at a faster rate. Disputes are also arising from the increased complexity in relationships and systems being created and the larger volumes of data being collected, processed and communicated.

In 2012, eBay claimed it handled more than 60 million disputes between buyers and sellers by providing software that assisted the parties to negotiate a satisfactory outcome over 80 percent of the time. Alibaba, as of last year the world’s largest retailer, generating more revenue than Amazon.com and eBay combined, handles hundreds of millions of disputes per year.

That’s where technology enters the picture as a way to efficiently and equitably resolve disputes. The premise of the Digital Justice authors is that access to justice can be enabled by software and mouse clicks just as in the old days, it was affected by the hours a court was open or how distant it was located from one’s home. Experimentation in small claims online courts is happening in the United Kingdom, British Columbia, the Netherlands and spottily in the United States.

Online Dispute Resolution, proponents claim technology can also prevent disputes. What if, similar to a GPS system, parties could learn that the relationship was off track in time to correct course before they were lost or the claim was fully erupted? There is a branch of study in the ODR field called “dispute systems design” that challenges the assumption that we should focus on more efficient tools to address individual disputes on an ad hoc basis. This approach says that technology can be used to address and prevent disputes systematically.

By studying the data uncovered in the dispute resolution processes, eBay has managed to uncover common sources of problems and to structure information and services on its site so that the problems do not recur. Another example of an online ODR system is the one established on Wikipedia. Alongside its dispute resolution efforts, Wikipedia focuses on dispute prevention to study patterns of disputes and effective resolution strategies, and for automatically detecting such problems as illegitimate editing of content and deleting such content immediately, even before it is reported by the users.

The private nature of ODR makes it difficult to document results or study patterns. How can precedent be established? How do users have a feeling of fairness? While exploring new systems of making the law work for our citizens, lawyers and judges need to make sure the values of the third branch are brought forward.

Historically, the public trial in our society has been about not only resolving disputes between parties but also about education, healing and change. Trials can shine the light of justice on what otherwise may fester and grow in the dark recesses of our world. Courts allow the voices of the voiceless to be heard. The public nature of our court system has been emblematic of our democracy.But if the brick-andmortar system is unworkable for the disputes of the online age—we must adapt. This is the time to adapt or be rendered irrelevant.

AT:http://www.abajournal.com/legalrebels/article/can_justice_be_serve d_online/

Can justice be served online?

Jayne R. Reardon

I recently had an experience with online dispute resolution. It all came about when I clicked on an alluring ad for a face cream. I charged $4.95 on my credit card and within a few days received the product in the mail. My enjoyment of the smooth and glowing effects of the face cream came to an abrupt end when the next month’s credit card bill came with a charge for an additional $94.99.

Via email, I disputed the charge, asked for documentation showing I ordered or received the product, disputed the documentation of a recurring monthly charge that the company put forward, and appealed the denial of my dispute. Ultimately, I lost. The credit card company refunded me a portion of the charge to keep me as a customer, but I had to pay for a product I had not ordered and which I definitely did not receive.

could have filed a case in small claims court. According to the National Center for State Courts 2015 report, 75 percent of the cases filed in the state courts involved judgments of less than $5,200. In some instances, the costs of even initiating the lawsuit or making an appearance as a defendant would exceed the value of the case. And contrary to the traditional paradigm of civil litigation being competently handled by attorneys representing both parties, 76 percent of the cases studied in the report had at least one party self-representing.

Trials have been dropping in numbers, and although traditional court filings and trials may be down, disputes are not. As the authors of Getting to Yes asserted over three decades ago, “conflict is a growth industry.” Conflicts inevitably come with the territory of new products and services. As with all things related to the internet, they are coming at a faster rate. Disputes are also arising from the increased complexity in relationships and systems being created and the larger volumes of data being collected, processed and communicated.

In 2012, eBay claimed it handled more than 60 million disputes between buyers and sellers by providing software that assisted the parties to negotiate a satisfactory outcome over 80 percent of the time. Alibaba, as of last year the world’s largest retailer, generating more revenue than Amazon.com and eBay combined, handles hundreds of millions of disputes per year.

That’s where technology enters the picture as a way to efficiently and equitably resolve disputes. The premise of the Digital Justice authors is that access to justice can be enabled by software and mouse clicks just as in the old days, it was affected by the hours a court was open or how distant it was located from one’s home. Experimentation in small claims online courts is happening in the United Kingdom, British Columbia, the Netherlands and spottily in the United States.

Online Dispute Resolution, proponents claim technology can also prevent disputes. What if, similar to a GPS system, parties could learn that the relationship was off track in time to correct course before they were lost or the claim was fully erupted? There is a branch of study in the ODR field called “dispute systems design” that challenges the assumption that we should focus on more efficient tools to address individual disputes on an ad hoc basis. This approach says that technology can be used to address and prevent disputes systematically.

By studying the data uncovered in the dispute resolution processes, eBay has managed to uncover common sources of problems and to structure information and services on its site so that the problems do not recur. Another example of an online ODR system is the one established on Wikipedia. Alongside its dispute resolution efforts, Wikipedia focuses on dispute prevention to study patterns of disputes and effective resolution strategies, and for automatically detecting such problems as illegitimate editing of content and deleting such content immediately, even before it is reported by the users.

The private nature of ODR makes it difficult to document results or study patterns. How can precedent be established? How do users have a feeling of fairness? While exploring new systems of making the law work for our citizens, lawyers and judges need to make sure the values of the third branch are brought forward.

Historically, the public trial in our society has been about not only resolving disputes between parties but also about education, healing and change. Trials can shine the light of justice on what otherwise may fester and grow in the dark recesses of our world. Courts allow the voices of the voiceless to be heard. The public nature of our court system has been emblematic of our democracy.But if the brick-andmortar system is unworkable for the disputes of the online age—we must adapt. This is the time to adapt or be rendered irrelevant.

AT:http://www.abajournal.com/legalrebels/article/can_justice_be_serve d_online/