Questões de Inglês

Are You A Digital Native or A Digital Immigrant?

 

[1] We all know that we are living in an increasingly

technologically driven world. Living here in the heart

of Silicon Valley I certainly feel it every day. In fact, I

don’t think I know a single couple in my neighborhood,

[5] other than my wife and I, who don’t work in the

technology field in some capacity. Our local companies

are Facebook, Apple, Google, Yahoo, and so many

venture capital firms that I can’t keep them straight.

But you don’t have to live in Silicon Valley to feel

[10] that the world is getting more and more technology

centered, focused, and driven. We can debate the

pros and cons of this reality but we can’t deny that

the world has changed very quickly in head spinning

ways. Two recent comments led me to finally enter

[15] the 21st century by getting a smart phone this week,

kicking and screaming.

First, I mentioned to one of my undergraduate

classes at Santa Clara University that I didn’t have

a smart phone, but rather I had a dumb phone. My

[20] phone can make and receive phone calls and that’s

about it. No email, internet, and so forth. So one of my

students looked at me in an odd and curious way, like

she was talking to someone from another planet, and

stated in a matter of fact manner, “Professor Plante,

[25] even 2^nd graders have smart phones.” Ouch!

Second, I was talking with a producer at the

PBS NewsHour who wanted me to do a live interview

within a few hours of his call regarding some late

breaking news about clergy sexual abuse, which is

[30] my specialty. I was out of the office and driving my

car when he called and in a matter of fact manner

he said that he wanted to send me some important

information to my smart phone to best prepare me for

the upcoming interview. When I told him that I couldn’t

[35] receive anything since I had a dumb phone and not a

smart phone, there was a long silence. He then said

he’d have to just read it to me over the phone as a

Plan B. He wasn’t happy ... neither was I.

In case you haven’t noticed, the 21st century is

[40] really upon us and to live in it one really does need

to be connected in my view. Although I often consider

myself a 19th or 20th century guy trapped in the 21st

century we really do need to adapt. For most of us

we are just living in a new world that really demands

[45] comfort with and access to technology.

This notion of digital native vs. digital immigrant

makes a great deal of sense to me. Young people

in our society are digital natives. They seem to be

very comfortable with everything from iPhones to TV

[50] remotes. Digital immigrants, like me, just never feel

that comfortable with these technologies. Sure we

may learn to adapt by using email, mobile phones,

smart ones or dumb ones, Facebook, and so forth but

it just doesn’t and perhaps will never be very natural

[55] for us. It is like learning a second language ... you can

communicate but with some struggle.

This has perhaps always been true. I remember

when I was in graduate school in the 1980s trying to

convince my grandparents that buying a telephone

[60] answering machine as well as a clothes dryer would

be a good idea. They looked at me like I was talking

in another language or that I was from another planet.

Perhaps we have a critical period in our lives for

technology just like we do for language. When we are

[65] young we soak up language so quickly but find it so

much harder to learn a new language when we are

older. The same seems to be true for technology.

So, this week I bought my first smart phone and

am just learning to use it. When questions arise, I turn

[70] to my very patient teenage son for answers. And when

he’s not around, I just look to the youngest person

around for help.

So, what about you? Are you a digital native or

a digital immigrant and how does it impact your life?

Adapted from “Digital Native vs Digital Immigrant? Which are you?” Published on July 24, 2012 by Thomas G. Plante, Ph.D., ABPP in Do the Right Thing  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201207/ digital-native-vs-digital-immigrant-which-are-you retrieved on July 28, 2012

The author uses the expression “a matter of fact manner” (. 24 and . 31) twice in the text.
Inferring from the context in which it is used, “a matter of fact manner” is

Are You A Digital Native or A Digital Immigrant?

 

[1] We all know that we are living in an increasingly

technologically driven world. Living here in the heart

of Silicon Valley I certainly feel it every day. In fact, I

don’t think I know a single couple in my neighborhood,

[5] other than my wife and I, who don’t work in the

technology field in some capacity. Our local companies

are Facebook, Apple, Google, Yahoo, and so many

venture capital firms that I can’t keep them straight.

But you don’t have to live in Silicon Valley to feel

[10] that the world is getting more and more technology

centered, focused, and driven. We can debate the

pros and cons of this reality but we can’t deny that

the world has changed very quickly in head spinning

ways. Two recent comments led me to finally enter

[15] the 21st century by getting a smart phone this week,

kicking and screaming.

First, I mentioned to one of my undergraduate

classes at Santa Clara University that I didn’t have

a smart phone, but rather I had a dumb phone. My

[20] phone can make and receive phone calls and that’s

about it. No email, internet, and so forth. So one of my

students looked at me in an odd and curious way, like

she was talking to someone from another planet, and

stated in a matter of fact manner, “Professor Plante,

[25] even 2^nd graders have smart phones.” Ouch!

Second, I was talking with a producer at the

PBS NewsHour who wanted me to do a live interview

within a few hours of his call regarding some late

breaking news about clergy sexual abuse, which is

[30] my specialty. I was out of the office and driving my

car when he called and in a matter of fact manner

he said that he wanted to send me some important

information to my smart phone to best prepare me for

the upcoming interview. When I told him that I couldn’t

[35] receive anything since I had a dumb phone and not a

smart phone, there was a long silence. He then said

he’d have to just read it to me over the phone as a

Plan B. He wasn’t happy ... neither was I.

In case you haven’t noticed, the 21st century is

[40] really upon us and to live in it one really does need

to be connected in my view. Although I often consider

myself a 19th or 20th century guy trapped in the 21st

century we really do need to adapt. For most of us

we are just living in a new world that really demands

[45] comfort with and access to technology.

This notion of digital native vs. digital immigrant

makes a great deal of sense to me. Young people

in our society are digital natives. They seem to be

very comfortable with everything from iPhones to TV

[50] remotes. Digital immigrants, like me, just never feel

that comfortable with these technologies. Sure we

may learn to adapt by using email, mobile phones,

smart ones or dumb ones, Facebook, and so forth but

it just doesn’t and perhaps will never be very natural

[55] for us. It is like learning a second language ... you can

communicate but with some struggle.

This has perhaps always been true. I remember

when I was in graduate school in the 1980s trying to

convince my grandparents that buying a telephone

[60] answering machine as well as a clothes dryer would

be a good idea. They looked at me like I was talking

in another language or that I was from another planet.

Perhaps we have a critical period in our lives for

technology just like we do for language. When we are

[65] young we soak up language so quickly but find it so

much harder to learn a new language when we are

older. The same seems to be true for technology.

So, this week I bought my first smart phone and

am just learning to use it. When questions arise, I turn

[70] to my very patient teenage son for answers. And when

he’s not around, I just look to the youngest person

around for help.

So, what about you? Are you a digital native or

a digital immigrant and how does it impact your life?

Adapted from “Digital Native vs Digital Immigrant? Which are you?” Published on July 24, 2012 by Thomas G. Plante, Ph.D., ABPP in Do the Right Thing  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201207/ digital-native-vs-digital-immigrant-which-are-you retrieved on July 28, 2012

The text suggests that nowadays the world is divided into two groups of people

Is It Better to Walk or Run?

By GRETCHEN REYNOLDS

 

[1] Walking and running are the most popular physical activities for American

adults. But whether one is preferable to the other in terms of improving health has long

been debated. Now a variety of new studies that pitted running directly against walking

are providing some answers. Their conclusion? It depends almost completely on what

[5] you are hoping 5 to accomplish.

If, for instance, you are looking to control your weight, running wins, going

away. In a study published last month in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, and

unambiguously titled “Greater Weight Loss From Running than Walking,” researchers

combed survey data from 15,237 walkers and 32,215 runners enrolled in the National

[10] Runners and Walkers Health Study — a large survey being conducted at Lawrence

Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California.

Participants were asked about their weight, waist circumference, diets and

typical weekly walking or running mileage both when they joined the study, and then

again up to six years later. The runners almost uniformly were thinner than the walkers

[15] when each joined the study. And they stayed that way throughout. Over the years, the

runners maintained their body mass and waistlines far better than the walkers.

The difference was particularly notable among participants over 55. Runners in

this age group were not running a lot and generally were barely expending more calories

per week during exercise than older walkers. But their body mass indexes and waist

[20] circumferences remained significantly lower than those of age-matched walkers.

Why running should better aid weight management than walking is not

altogether clear. It might seem obvious that running, being more strenuous than

walking, burns more calories per hour. And that’s true. But in the Berkeley study and

others, when energy expenditure was approximately matched — when walkers head out

[25] for hours of rambling and burn the same number of calories over the course of a week

as runners — the runners seem able to control their weight better over the long term.

One reason may be running’s effect on appetite, as another intriguing, if small,

study suggests. In the study, published last year in the Journal of Obesity, nine

experienced female runners and 10 committed female walkers reported to the exercise

[30] physiology lab at the University of Wyoming on two separate occasions. On one day,

the groups ran or walked on a treadmill for an hour. On the second day, they all rested

for an hour. Throughout each session, researchers monitored their total energy

expenditure. They also drew blood from their volunteers to check for levels of certain

hormones related to appetite.

[35] After both sessions, the volunteers were set free in a room with a laden buffet

and told to eat at will. The walkers turned out to be hungry, consuming about 50

calories more than they had burned during their hour-long treadmill stroll. The runners,

on the other hand, picked at their food, taking in almost 200 calories less than they had

burned while running.

[40] Of course, few walkers match the energy expenditure of runners. 40 “It’s fair to say

that, if you plan to expend the same energy walking as running, you have to walk about

one and a half times as far and that it takes about twice as long,” said Paul T. Williams,

a staff scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories and the lead author of all of

the studies involving the surveys of runners and walkers.

[45] On the other hand, people who begin walking are often more unhealthy than

those who start running, and so their health benefits from the exercise can be

commensurately greater. “It bears repeating that either walking or running is healthier

than not doing either,” Dr. Williams said, whatever your health goals.

Adapted from http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/is-it-better-to-walk-orrun/? ref=health May 29, 2013

In the fragment “After both sessions, the volunteers were set free in a room with a laden buffet and told to eat at will.” (lines 35-36), the expression “eat at will” means that the volunteers were told to eat

Is It Better to Walk or Run?

By GRETCHEN REYNOLDS

 

[1] Walking and running are the most popular physical activities for American

adults. But whether one is preferable to the other in terms of improving health has long

been debated. Now a variety of new studies that pitted running directly against walking

are providing some answers. Their conclusion? It depends almost completely on what

[5] you are hoping 5 to accomplish.

If, for instance, you are looking to control your weight, running wins, going

away. In a study published last month in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, and

unambiguously titled “Greater Weight Loss From Running than Walking,” researchers

combed survey data from 15,237 walkers and 32,215 runners enrolled in the National

[10] Runners and Walkers Health Study — a large survey being conducted at Lawrence

Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California.

Participants were asked about their weight, waist circumference, diets and

typical weekly walking or running mileage both when they joined the study, and then

again up to six years later. The runners almost uniformly were thinner than the walkers

[15] when each joined the study. And they stayed that way throughout. Over the years, the

runners maintained their body mass and waistlines far better than the walkers.

The difference was particularly notable among participants over 55. Runners in

this age group were not running a lot and generally were barely expending more calories

per week during exercise than older walkers. But their body mass indexes and waist

[20] circumferences remained significantly lower than those of age-matched walkers.

Why running should better aid weight management than walking is not

altogether clear. It might seem obvious that running, being more strenuous than

walking, burns more calories per hour. And that’s true. But in the Berkeley study and

others, when energy expenditure was approximately matched — when walkers head out

[25] for hours of rambling and burn the same number of calories over the course of a week

as runners — the runners seem able to control their weight better over the long term.

One reason may be running’s effect on appetite, as another intriguing, if small,

study suggests. In the study, published last year in the Journal of Obesity, nine

experienced female runners and 10 committed female walkers reported to the exercise

[30] physiology lab at the University of Wyoming on two separate occasions. On one day,

the groups ran or walked on a treadmill for an hour. On the second day, they all rested

for an hour. Throughout each session, researchers monitored their total energy

expenditure. They also drew blood from their volunteers to check for levels of certain

hormones related to appetite.

[35] After both sessions, the volunteers were set free in a room with a laden buffet

and told to eat at will. The walkers turned out to be hungry, consuming about 50

calories more than they had burned during their hour-long treadmill stroll. The runners,

on the other hand, picked at their food, taking in almost 200 calories less than they had

burned while running.

[40] Of course, few walkers match the energy expenditure of runners. 40 “It’s fair to say

that, if you plan to expend the same energy walking as running, you have to walk about

one and a half times as far and that it takes about twice as long,” said Paul T. Williams,

a staff scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories and the lead author of all of

the studies involving the surveys of runners and walkers.

[45] On the other hand, people who begin walking are often more unhealthy than

those who start running, and so their health benefits from the exercise can be

commensurately greater. “It bears repeating that either walking or running is healthier

than not doing either,” Dr. Williams said, whatever your health goals.

Adapted from http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/is-it-better-to-walk-orrun/? ref=health May 29, 2013

Mark the CORRECT statement concerning reference.

Is It Better to Walk or Run?

By GRETCHEN REYNOLDS

 

[1] Walking and running are the most popular physical activities for American

adults. But whether one is preferable to the other in terms of improving health has long

been debated. Now a variety of new studies that pitted running directly against walking

are providing some answers. Their conclusion? It depends almost completely on what

[5] you are hoping 5 to accomplish.

If, for instance, you are looking to control your weight, running wins, going

away. In a study published last month in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, and

unambiguously titled “Greater Weight Loss From Running than Walking,” researchers

combed survey data from 15,237 walkers and 32,215 runners enrolled in the National

[10] Runners and Walkers Health Study — a large survey being conducted at Lawrence

Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California.

Participants were asked about their weight, waist circumference, diets and

typical weekly walking or running mileage both when they joined the study, and then

again up to six years later. The runners almost uniformly were thinner than the walkers

[15] when each joined the study. And they stayed that way throughout. Over the years, the

runners maintained their body mass and waistlines far better than the walkers.

The difference was particularly notable among participants over 55. Runners in

this age group were not running a lot and generally were barely expending more calories

per week during exercise than older walkers. But their body mass indexes and waist

[20] circumferences remained significantly lower than those of age-matched walkers.

Why running should better aid weight management than walking is not

altogether clear. It might seem obvious that running, being more strenuous than

walking, burns more calories per hour. And that’s true. But in the Berkeley study and

others, when energy expenditure was approximately matched — when walkers head out

[25] for hours of rambling and burn the same number of calories over the course of a week

as runners — the runners seem able to control their weight better over the long term.

One reason may be running’s effect on appetite, as another intriguing, if small,

study suggests. In the study, published last year in the Journal of Obesity, nine

experienced female runners and 10 committed female walkers reported to the exercise

[30] physiology lab at the University of Wyoming on two separate occasions. On one day,

the groups ran or walked on a treadmill for an hour. On the second day, they all rested

for an hour. Throughout each session, researchers monitored their total energy

expenditure. They also drew blood from their volunteers to check for levels of certain

hormones related to appetite.

[35] After both sessions, the volunteers were set free in a room with a laden buffet

and told to eat at will. The walkers turned out to be hungry, consuming about 50

calories more than they had burned during their hour-long treadmill stroll. The runners,

on the other hand, picked at their food, taking in almost 200 calories less than they had

burned while running.

[40] Of course, few walkers match the energy expenditure of runners. 40 “It’s fair to say

that, if you plan to expend the same energy walking as running, you have to walk about

one and a half times as far and that it takes about twice as long,” said Paul T. Williams,

a staff scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories and the lead author of all of

the studies involving the surveys of runners and walkers.

[45] On the other hand, people who begin walking are often more unhealthy than

those who start running, and so their health benefits from the exercise can be

commensurately greater. “It bears repeating that either walking or running is healthier

than not doing either,” Dr. Williams said, whatever your health goals.

Adapted from http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/is-it-better-to-walk-orrun/? ref=health May 29, 2013

In the fragment “— when walkers head out for hours of rambling” (lines 24-25), “head out” can be substituted by

The man in this cartoon