Questões de Inglês

Artist Detained In Growing Crackdown

BEIJING 

[1] Ai Weiwei, China’s most prominent dissident after imprisoned Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo, was detained April 3 at the Beijing airport as  

he tried to board a flight to Hong Kong. Perhaps best known for codesigning the 2008 Beijing Olympic stadium known as the Bird’s  

Nest, Ai is an outspoken critic of the government an has been detained several times. During one period in custody, he was allegedly  

beaten so badly that he required brain surgery. This arrest comes amid a widespread crackdown touched off by online calls for a  

[5] Tunisian-style ―jasmine revolution" Over the past several weeks, at least 26 activists have been detained, 200 have been put under  

house arrest, and more than 30 have disappeared. 

Time, April 18, 2011. 

Segundo o texto, Ai Weiwei 

The Double Mirror 

How Pakistan’s intelligence service plays both sides

By DAVID IGNATIUS 

[1]   (...) I found that I couldn’t capture ISI’s nuances in newspaper columns. So my eighth novel, Bloodmoney, is set largely in  

Pakistan; it centers on a fictional ISI and a CIA whose operations inside Pakistan have spun out of control. I describe the director  

general of my imaginary ISI this way: ―To say that the Pakistani was playing a double game did not do him justice; his strategy was far  

more complicated than that.‖ 

[5]   This Janus-like quality is true of all intelligence services, I suppose, but I have never seen an organization quite like the ISI.  

It is at once very secretive and very open, yet ISI officials get especially peeved at the charge of duplicity: ―I can not go on defending  

myself forever, even when I am not doing what I am blamed for,‖ wrote one of my ISI contacts, after I had written a column noting the  

organization’s ―double game‖ with the U.S. ―I shall do what I think is good for PAKISTAN, my country. I am sure you will do the same  

for US.‖  

[10]   What this official wanted me to understand was that Pakistan was suffering under its own onslaught of terrorism. An ISI  

briefer almost shouted at me in 2010: ―Mr. David Ignatius! Look at the casualties we have suffered fighting terrorism!‖ We’re in  

alongside the U.S., ISI officials insist. Yet they are caught in the backwash of an anti-American rhetoric they help create. The ISI’s  

press cell feeds Pakistani newspapers constantly; presumably, it thinks its U.S.-bashing leaks will hide the reality of the ISI’s  

cooperation. But the puppeteer has gotten caught in the strings. Anti-Americanism has taken a virulent form that threatens the ISI too. 

ISI = Inter-Services Intelligence

Time, May 23, 2011 Essay Adaptado.

A opção que corresponde à expressão the puppeteer has gotten caught in the strings (linha 14) é

The Double Mirror 

How Pakistan’s intelligence service plays both sides

By DAVID IGNATIUS 

[1]   (...) I found that I couldn’t capture ISI’s nuances in newspaper columns. So my eighth novel, Bloodmoney, is set largely in  

Pakistan; it centers on a fictional ISI and a CIA whose operations inside Pakistan have spun out of control. I describe the director  

general of my imaginary ISI this way: ―To say that the Pakistani was playing a double game did not do him justice; his strategy was far  

more complicated than that.‖ 

[5]   This Janus-like quality is true of all intelligence services, I suppose, but I have never seen an organization quite like the ISI.  

It is at once very secretive and very open, yet ISI officials get especially peeved at the charge of duplicity: ―I can not go on defending  

myself forever, even when I am not doing what I am blamed for,‖ wrote one of my ISI contacts, after I had written a column noting the  

organization’s ―double game‖ with the U.S. ―I shall do what I think is good for PAKISTAN, my country. I am sure you will do the same  

for US.‖  

[10]   What this official wanted me to understand was that Pakistan was suffering under its own onslaught of terrorism. An ISI  

briefer almost shouted at me in 2010: ―Mr. David Ignatius! Look at the casualties we have suffered fighting terrorism!‖ We’re in  

alongside the U.S., ISI officials insist. Yet they are caught in the backwash of an anti-American rhetoric they help create. The ISI’s  

press cell feeds Pakistani newspapers constantly; presumably, it thinks its U.S.-bashing leaks will hide the reality of the ISI’s  

cooperation. But the puppeteer has gotten caught in the strings. Anti-Americanism has taken a virulent form that threatens the ISI too. 

ISI = Inter-Services Intelligence

Time, May 23, 2011 Essay Adaptado.

A opção cujo significado mais se aproxima do vocábulo peeved (linha 6) é

The Double Mirror 

How Pakistan’s intelligence service plays both sides

By DAVID IGNATIUS 

[1]   (...) I found that I couldn’t capture ISI’s nuances in newspaper columns. So my eighth novel, Bloodmoney, is set largely in  

Pakistan; it centers on a fictional ISI and a CIA whose operations inside Pakistan have spun out of control. I describe the director  

general of my imaginary ISI this way: ―To say that the Pakistani was playing a double game did not do him justice; his strategy was far  

more complicated than that.‖ 

[5]   This Janus-like quality is true of all intelligence services, I suppose, but I have never seen an organization quite like the ISI.  

It is at once very secretive and very open, yet ISI officials get especially peeved at the charge of duplicity: ―I can not go on defending  

myself forever, even when I am not doing what I am blamed for,‖ wrote one of my ISI contacts, after I had written a column noting the  

organization’s ―double game‖ with the U.S. ―I shall do what I think is good for PAKISTAN, my country. I am sure you will do the same  

for US.‖  

[10]   What this official wanted me to understand was that Pakistan was suffering under its own onslaught of terrorism. An ISI  

briefer almost shouted at me in 2010: ―Mr. David Ignatius! Look at the casualties we have suffered fighting terrorism!‖ We’re in  

alongside the U.S., ISI officials insist. Yet they are caught in the backwash of an anti-American rhetoric they help create. The ISI’s  

press cell feeds Pakistani newspapers constantly; presumably, it thinks its U.S.-bashing leaks will hide the reality of the ISI’s  

cooperation. But the puppeteer has gotten caught in the strings. Anti-Americanism has taken a virulent form that threatens the ISI too. 

ISI = Inter-Services Intelligence

Time, May 23, 2011 Essay Adaptado.

Segundo o texto, a ISI é uma organização

Thursday, Feb. 10, 2011 

2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

By Lev Grossman

[1] (…), Kurzweil believes that we’re approaching a moment when computers will become intelligent, and not just intelligent but more  

intelligent than humans. When that happens, humanity – our bodies, our minds, our civilization – will be completely and irreversibly  

transformed. He believes that this moment is not only inevitable but imminent. According to his calculations, the end of human  

civilization as we know it is about 35 years away.  

[5] Computers are getting faster. Everybody knows that. Also, computers are getting faster faster – that is, the rate at which they’re  

getting faster is increasing. 

True? True. 

So if computers are getting so much faster, so incredibly fast, there might conceivably come a moment when they are capable of  

something comparable to human intelligence. Artificial intelligence. All that horsepower could be put in the service of emulating  

[10] whatever it is our brains are doing when they create consciousness – not just doing arithmetic very quickly or composing piano music  

but also driving cars, writing books, making ethical decisions, appreciating fancy paintings, making witty observations at cocktail  

parties. 

If you can swallow that idea, and Kurzweil and a lot of other very smart people can, then all bets are off. From that point on, there’s no  

reason to think computers would stop getting more powerful. They would keep on developing until they were far more intelligent than  

[15] we are. Their rate of development would also continue to increase, because they would take over their own development from their  

slower-thinking human creators. Imagine a computer scientist that was itself a super-intelligent computer. It would work incredibility  

quickly. It could draw on huge amounts of data effortlessly. It wouldn’t even take breaks to play Farmville. 

(…) 

http://www.time.com/printout/0,8816,2048138,00.html. Acesso em 07/04/2011. Adaptado.

Na sentença They would keep on developing until they were far more intelligent than we are (linhas 14 e 15), o vocábulo grifado poderia ser substituído por 

Thursday, Feb. 10, 2011 

2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

By Lev Grossman

[1] (…), Kurzweil believes that we’re approaching a moment when computers will become intelligent, and not just intelligent but more  

intelligent than humans. When that happens, humanity – our bodies, our minds, our civilization – will be completely and irreversibly  

transformed. He believes that this moment is not only inevitable but imminent. According to his calculations, the end of human  

civilization as we know it is about 35 years away.  

[5] Computers are getting faster. Everybody knows that. Also, computers are getting faster faster – that is, the rate at which they’re  

getting faster is increasing. 

True? True. 

So if computers are getting so much faster, so incredibly fast, there might conceivably come a moment when they are capable of  

something comparable to human intelligence. Artificial intelligence. All that horsepower could be put in the service of emulating  

[10] whatever it is our brains are doing when they create consciousness – not just doing arithmetic very quickly or composing piano music  

but also driving cars, writing books, making ethical decisions, appreciating fancy paintings, making witty observations at cocktail  

parties. 

If you can swallow that idea, and Kurzweil and a lot of other very smart people can, then all bets are off. From that point on, there’s no  

reason to think computers would stop getting more powerful. They would keep on developing until they were far more intelligent than  

[15] we are. Their rate of development would also continue to increase, because they would take over their own development from their  

slower-thinking human creators. Imagine a computer scientist that was itself a super-intelligent computer. It would work incredibility  

quickly. It could draw on huge amounts of data effortlessly. It wouldn’t even take breaks to play Farmville. 

(…) 

http://www.time.com/printout/0,8816,2048138,00.html. Acesso em 07/04/2011. Adaptado.

De acordo com o texto,