Questões de Inglês

TRAVEL MORE, STRESS LESS
Pack these essential trip tips from Travel Channel host Don Wildman, touring violinist Joshua Bell, and tennis star Andy Roddick
Illustrations by Rami Niemi, Posted Date: April 10, 2012

[1]    Sleep Like a Local
    Andy Roddick needs quality rest when he lands
in a new city for a tournament. So he starts right in
with forcing his body to adapt to the time zone,
[5] even if he arrived exhausted. "If you fall asleep at
3 p.m., you're dead. You'll be up all night," he
says. "In a new place I normally try to make it to at
least 9 or 10 o'clock the first couple of nights."
    Stay Alert
[10]    You don't need a gym to have your fitness fix. "I
carry a jump rope because it gets my heart beating
in the morning," Wildman says. "And sometimes I'll
take it on shoots with me, and I just do a little rope
jumping for 5 minutes. It wakes me up better than
[15] a cup of coffee."
    Feel at Home in a Hotel
    Roddick's move: “Unpack immediately. That
helps a lot," he says. "If you're tapped out from
being on the road, the last thing you want is to
[20] come back to a couple of bags that look like they
exploded all over the hotel room." Wildman will
even put books on bookshelves. "The least I can
do for myself," he says, "is fool myself into
thinking I'm home."
[25] Find a Decent Meal
    If you return to a city regularly, you could do as
Roddick does and revisit a favorite restaurant each
time. That's a good way to create a feeling of
familiarity, which can be welcome when you're
[30] away from home. Globe-trotting violin virtuoso
Joshua Bell, on the other hand, likes to explore: "I
rarely ask the concierge for advice," Bell says,
"because he is apt to send me to his cousin's
pizzeria around the corner. But I do refer to some
[35] guides and research thoroughly online—Yelp,
Zagat, Open-Table—and I sometimes ask for
recommendations on social networking sites like
ASmallWorld, which is full of travelers like me.”

    Use Downtime Wisely
[40]    "I try to remind myself that 'killing time' is a sin,"
Bell says. "Life is too short as it is, and it's a
shame to wish for it to go by quicker. There's
always something worthwhile to do, even on an
airplane—read a good book, learn a new language
[45] with Rosetta Stone, write to my friends around the
world who haven't heard from me in too long."
When Bell does watch television, it's often on his
iPad: He'll catch episodes of Dexter, Breaking
Bad, Modern Family, and Desperate Housewives.
[50] Joshua Bell is touring to support his new album
French Impressions. Andy Roddick plays this month
at the French Open. Don Wildman's Off Limits airs on
the Travel Channel.
http://www.menshealth.com/travel-center/travel-stress

    In a presentation I’ve been making that has been put together by my colleague Gaurav Mishra, one of the slides talks about the people era we find ourselves in today. When we go online, we no longer interact with information, we interact with other people. So, we aren’t going online to visit websites today, we go online to visit people. That’s a big difference. But that isn’t Facebook’s big impact.
    I believe that the notion of privacy is one of the cornerstones of any social system. All the laws that we write, all the systems of behavior that we see all boil down to a society’s understanding of what’s private and what’s not. If you think about it, privacy is not just two states, it is a continuum — from that which we think of as completely private, our deepest, darkest thoughts that we wouldn’t dream of sharing with anyone, to that which is entirely public, our gender is, for the most part, instantly identifiable.
    In the last ten years, our notions of privacy have changed. For an entire generation, photographs are no longer private. They are to be shared widely, and be easily accessible to others at a time convenient to the viewer, not the person in the photograph.
    I could go on with other aspects of our lives, but the central thought is this: all the conflict we see around the internet boils down to an argument about privacy. Facebook’s big impact is that it is, more often than not, defining what’s private and what isn’t. And that right there is why people ask what’s next.
    As a species, human beings have never been comfortable with centralized authorities controlling privacy. We are also fundamentally opposed to “others” gaining access to information about ourselves that we think of as private. As far as I know, all social systems that have had centralized repositories of information, and have allowed “others” access to information about private citizens have failed, or have been replaced.
(…)
(Adapted from: http://narendranag.com/2011/06/whatcomesafterfacebook/)

    In a presentation I’ve been making that has been put together by my colleague Gaurav Mishra, one of the slides talks about the people era we find ourselves in today. When we go online, we no longer interact with information, we interact with other people. So, we aren’t going online to visit websites today, we go online to visit people. That’s a big difference. But that isn’t Facebook’s big impact.
    I believe that the notion of privacy is one of the cornerstones of any social system. All the laws that we write, all the systems of behavior that we see all boil down to a society’s understanding of what’s private and what’s not. If you think about it, privacy is not just two states, it is a continuum — from that which we think of as completely private, our deepest, darkest thoughts that we wouldn’t dream of sharing with anyone, to that which is entirely public, our gender is, for the most part, instantly identifiable.
    In the last ten years, our notions of privacy have changed. For an entire generation, photographs are no longer private. They are to be shared widely, and be easily accessible to others at a time convenient to the viewer, not the person in the photograph.
    I could go on with other aspects of our lives, but the central thought is this: all the conflict we see around the internet boils down to an argument about privacy. Facebook’s big impact is that it is, more often than not, defining what’s private and what isn’t. And that right there is why people ask what’s next.
    As a species, human beings have never been comfortable with centralized authorities controlling privacy. We are also fundamentally opposed to “others” gaining access to information about ourselves that we think of as private. As far as I know, all social systems that have had centralized repositories of information, and have allowed “others” access to information about private citizens have failed, or have been replaced.
(…)
(Adapted from: http://narendranag.com/2011/06/whatcomesafterfacebook/)

    In a presentation I’ve been making that has been put together by my colleague Gaurav Mishra, one of the slides talks about the people era we find ourselves in today. When we go online, we no longer interact with information, we interact with other people. So, we aren’t going online to visit websites today, we go online to visit people. That’s a big difference. But that isn’t Facebook’s big impact.
    I believe that the notion of privacy is one of the cornerstones of any social system. All the laws that we write, all the systems of behavior that we see all boil down to a society’s understanding of what’s private and what’s not. If you think about it, privacy is not just two states, it is a continuum — from that which we think of as completely private, our deepest, darkest thoughts that we wouldn’t dream of sharing with anyone, to that which is entirely public, our gender is, for the most part, instantly identifiable.
    In the last ten years, our notions of privacy have changed. For an entire generation, photographs are no longer private. They are to be shared widely, and be easily accessible to others at a time convenient to the viewer, not the person in the photograph.
    I could go on with other aspects of our lives, but the central thought is this: all the conflict we see around the internet boils down to an argument about privacy. Facebook’s big impact is that it is, more often than not, defining what’s private and what isn’t. And that right there is why people ask what’s next.
    As a species, human beings have never been comfortable with centralized authorities controlling privacy. We are also fundamentally opposed to “others” gaining access to information about ourselves that we think of as private. As far as I know, all social systems that have had centralized repositories of information, and have allowed “others” access to information about private citizens have failed, or have been replaced.
(…)
(Adapted from: http://narendranag.com/2011/06/whatcomesafterfacebook/)

    In a presentation I’ve been making that has been put together by my colleague Gaurav Mishra, one of the slides talks about the people era we find ourselves in today. When we go online, we no longer interact with information, we interact with other people. So, we aren’t going online to visit websites today, we go online to visit people. That’s a big difference. But that isn’t Facebook’s big impact.
    I believe that the notion of privacy is one of the cornerstones of any social system. All the laws that we write, all the systems of behavior that we see all boil down to a society’s understanding of what’s private and what’s not. If you think about it, privacy is not just two states, it is a continuum — from that which we think of as completely private, our deepest, darkest thoughts that we wouldn’t dream of sharing with anyone, to that which is entirely public, our gender is, for the most part, instantly identifiable.
    In the last ten years, our notions of privacy have changed. For an entire generation, photographs are no longer private. They are to be shared widely, and be easily accessible to others at a time convenient to the viewer, not the person in the photograph.
    I could go on with other aspects of our lives, but the central thought is this: all the conflict we see around the internet boils down to an argument about privacy. Facebook’s big impact is that it is, more often than not, defining what’s private and what isn’t. And that right there is why people ask what’s next.
    As a species, human beings have never been comfortable with centralized authorities controlling privacy. We are also fundamentally opposed to “others” gaining access to information about ourselves that we think of as private. As far as I know, all social systems that have had centralized repositories of information, and have allowed “others” access to information about private citizens have failed, or have been replaced.
(…)
(Adapted from: http://narendranag.com/2011/06/whatcomesafterfacebook/)

    But we’re already asking what’s next … After all, before Facebook became large, MySpace was huge. I have wondered why we’re asking this question. After all, Google’s bigger than Facebook and has had an equally profound impact on us. But, people at dinner parties aren’t asking what comes after Google. I don’t get asked about the next big search engine at every conference I speak at.
    After some thought I’m willing to argue that Google and Facebook are very different in terms of the impact they’re having. Google has democratized information. In earlier times, vast amounts of money have been made by people who knew something before the rest of the world. Today, in an era where the phrase, “information is power” has become a cliche, Google has done more than any other service to give people access to information. Think about it, text searches, image searches, maps, news …
    Facebook’s impact is altogether different. Eben Moglen puts it best: we have lost our anonymity online. Every service preceding Facebook (myspace et all) have been leading up to this one point: each of us now has a permanent, online, identity.