Source: http://www.ielts-exam.net/preparing/Sample_reading_text/222/
Vocabulary:
communication facilities
eleven storey building
hull was divided
Text:
From the comfort of our modern lives we tend to look back at the turn of the twentieth century as a dangerous time for sea travellers. With limited communication facilities, and shipping technology still in its infancy in the early nineteen hundreds, we consider ocean travel to have been a risky business. But to the people of the time it was one of the safest forms of transport. At the time of the Titanic’s maiden voyage in 1912, there had only been four lives lost in the previous forty years on passenger ships on the North Atlantic crossing. And the Titanic was confidently proclaimed to be unsinkable. She represented the pinnacle of technological advance at the time. Her builders, crew and passengers had no doubt that she was the finest ship ever built. But still she did sink on April 14, 1912, taking 1,517 of her passengers and crew with her.
B The RMS Titanic left Southampton for New York on April 10, 1912. On board were some of the richest and most famous people of the time who had paid large sums of money to sail on the first voyage of the most luxurious ship in the world. Imagine her placed on her end: she was larger at 269 metres than many of the tallest buildings of the day. And with nine decks, she was as high as an eleven storey building (=andares). The Titanic carried 329 first class, 285 second class and 710 third class passengers with 899 crew members, under the care of the very experienced Captain Edward J. Smith. She also carried enough food to feed a small town, including 40,000 fresh eggs, 36,000 apples, 111,000 lbs of fresh meat and 2,200 lbs of coffee for the five day journey.
C RMS Titanic was believed to be unsinkable because the hull(=casco) was divided into sixteen watertight compartments. Even if two of these compartments flooded, the ship could still float. The ship’s owners could not imagine that, in the case of an accident, the Titanic would not be able to float until she was rescued. It was largely as a result of this confidence in the ship and in the safety of ocean travel that the disaster could claim such a great loss of life.
D In the ten hours prior to the Titanic’s fatal collision with an iceberg at 11.40pm, six warnings of icebergs in her path were received by the Titanic's wireless operators. Only one of these messages was formally posted on the bridge; the others were in various locations across the ship. If the combined information in these messages of iceberg positions had been plotted, the ice field which lay across the Titanic’s path would have been apparent. Instead, the lack of formal procedures for dealing with information from a relatively new piece of technology, the wireless, meant that the danger was not known until too late. This was not the fault of the Titanic crew. Procedures for dealing with warnings received through the wireless had not been formalised across the shipping industry at the time. The fact that the wireless operators were not even Titanic crew, but rather contracted workers from a wireless company, made their role in the ship’s operation quite unclear.
E Captain Smith’s seemingly casual attitude in increasing the speed on this day to a dangerous 22 knots or 41 kilometres per hour, can then be partly explained by his ignorance of what lay ahead. But this only partly accounts for his actions, since the spring weather in Greenland was known to cause huge chunks of ice to break off from the glaciers. Captain Smith knew that these icebergs would float southward and had already acknowledged this danger by taking a more southerly route than at other times of the year. So why was the Titanic travelling at high speed when he knew, if not of the specific risk, at least of the general risk of icebergs in her path? As with the lack of coordination of the wireless messages, it was simply standard operating procedure at the time. Captain Smith was following the practices accepted on the North Atlantic, practices which had coincided with forty years of safe travel. He believed, wrongly as we now know, that the ship could turn or stop in time if an iceberg was sighted by the lookouts.
F There were around two and a half hours between the time the Titanic rammed into the iceberg and its final submersion. In this time 705 people were loaded into the twenty lifeboats. There were 473 empty seats available on lifeboats while over 1,500 people drowned. These figures raise two important issues. Firstly, why there were not enough lifeboats to seat every passenger and crew member on board. And secondly, why the lifeboats were not full.
G The Titanic had sixteen lifeboats and four collapsible boats which could carry just over half the number of people on board her maiden voyage and only a third of the Titanic’s total capacity. Regulations for the number of lifeboats required were based on outdated British Board of Trade regulations written in 1894 for ships a quarter of the Titanic’s size, and had never been revised. Under these requirements, the Titanic was only obliged to carry enough lifeboats to seat 962 people. At design meetings in 1910, the shipyard’s managing director, Alexander Carlisle, had proposed that forty eight lifeboats be installed on the Titanic, but the idea had been quickly rejected as too expensive. Discussion then turned to the ship’s décor, and as Carlisle later described the incident … ’we spent two hours discussing carpet for the first class cabins and fifteen minutes discussing lifeboats’.
H The belief that the Titanic was unsinkable was so strong that passengers and crew alike clung to the belief even as she was actually sinking. This attitude was not helped by Captain Smith, who had not acquainted his senior officers with the full situation. For the first hour after the collision, the majority of people aboard the Titanic, including senior crew, were not aware that she would sink, that there were insufficient lifeboats or that the nearest ship responding to the Titanic’s distress calls would arrive two hours after she was on the bottom of the ocean. As a result, the officers in charge of loading the boats received a very halfhearted response to their early calls for women and children to board the lifeboats. People felt that they would be safer, and certainly warmer, aboard the Titanic than perched in a little boat in the North Atlantic Ocean. Not realising the magnitude of the impending disaster themselves, the officers allowed several boats to be lowered only half full.
I Procedures again were at fault, as an additional reason for the officers’ reluctance to lower the lifeboats at full capacity was that they feared the lifeboats would buckle under the weight of 65 people. They had not been informed that the lifeboats had been fully tested prior to departure. Such procedures as assigning passengers and crew to lifeboats and lifeboat loading drills were simply not part of the standard operation of ships nor were they included in crew training at this time.
J As the Titanic sank, another ship, believed to have been the Californian, was seen motionless less than twenty miles away. The ship failed to respond to the Titanic’s eight distress rockets. Although the officers of the Californian tried to signal the Titanic with their flashing Morse lamp, they did not wake up their radio operator to listen for a distress call. At this time, communication at sea through wireless was new and the benefits not well appreciated, so the wireless on ships was often not operated around the clock. In the case of the Californian, the wireless operator slept unaware while 1,500 Titanic passengers and crew drowned only a few miles away.
K After the Titanic sank, investigations were held in both Washington and London. In the end, both inquiries decided that no one could be blamed for the sinking. However, they did address the fundamental safety issues which had contributed to the enormous loss of life. As a result, international agreements were drawn up to improve safety procedures at sea. The new regulations covered 24 hour wireless operation, crew training, proper lifeboat drills, lifeboat capacity for all on board and the creation of an international ice patrol.
quarta-feira, 26 de outubro de 2016
segunda-feira, 24 de outubro de 2016
6 pontos principais sobre as eleições americanas
Source: http://www.bbc.com/portuguese/internacional-37691468
Em 6 pontos: Tudo o você precisa saber sobre as eleições americanas
In 6 points: Everything you need to know about the American elections
Em janeiro de 2017 os Estados Unidos terão um novo líder, que será escolhido em 8 de novembro após uma longa e custosa campanha. E as últimas semanas antes da votação prometem ser agitadas, com os dois candidatos viajando o país para convencer eleitores.
Quando escolhem um presidente, os americanos não definem apenas o chefe de Estado, mas também o líder do governo e o comandante do maior exército no planeta. Ou seja: a responsabilidade é grande.
In Janurary of 2017 the United States will have a new leader, who will be chosen on 8th of November after a long and expensive campaign. And the last weeks before the election promise to be agitaded, with two candidates travelling the country to persuade voters.
When they chose one president, the American people do not define just the head of state, but also the leader of government and comandant of biggest army of planet. In other words, the responsibility is big.
Mas afinal, como funcionam as eleições presidenciais americanas? Em seis pontos, entenda o processo:
1. Quem pode ser presidente?
Tecnicamente, para se candidatar à Presidência dos Estados Unidos basta ser um cidadão "nascido" no país, ter ao menos 35 anos de idade e ser residente por 14 anos. Parece simples, certo?
Na realidade, porém, quase todos os presidentes escolhidos desde 1933 foram também governadores, senadores ou generais de cinco estrelas.
But after all, how the American presidential elections work? In six points, understand the process:
1. Who can be president?
Technically, to the candidate to Presidency of the United States you just need to be a born citizen in the country, have at least 35 years and be resident for 14 years. It seems simple, right?
Actually, although, almost all chosen president since 1933 were governors as well, senators or general people of five starts.
A eleição deste ano chegou a ter, em determinado momento, dez governadores ou ex-governadores e dez senadores ou ex-senadores na briga, mas a maioria deixou a corrida.
Os partidos Republicano e Democrata escolhem um representante cada para a eleição presidencial.
The election of this years reached to have, in a certain moment, ten governors or ex-governors and ten senators or ex-senators in the fight, but the most left the run.
The Republican parties and democratic chose one representant each one for the presidential election.
2. Como Hillary Clinton e Donald Trump se tornaram os candidatos?
Uma série de eleições são realizadas em cada Estado americano, a partir de fevereiro, para determinar o candidato presidencial de cada partido.
O vencedor de cada eleição coleta um número de "delegados" - membros do partido com poder de votar naquele candidato nas convenções dos partidos em julho, quando os escolhidos são confirmados.
How Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump became the candidates?
One series of elections are realised in each American state, from February, to determine the presidential candidate of each party.
The winner of each election collects one number of delegates - members of party with power to vote in that candidate in the conventions of parties in July when the chosen people are confirmed.
Quanto mais Estados um candidato conquistar, mais delegados votarão nele na convenção.
A democrata Hillary Clinton e o republicano Donald Trump foram os vencedores em 2016. Consequentemente, foram nomeados por seus partidos nas convenções de julho.
Na ocasião, os vice-presidentes também foram anunciados - o senador Tim Kaine da Virginia para Hillary Clinton e o governador Mike Pence de Indiana, para Donald Trump.
3. Quais foram (até agora) as controvérsias da campanha?
Uma série de controvérsias foram motivadas por Donald Trump desde o lançamento de sua campanha, época em que o candidato, por exemplo, descreveu os imigrantes mexicanos como "estupradores e criminosos".
How much more states one candidate conquer, more delegates will vote in him in the convention.
The democratic Hillary Clinton and the Republican Donald were the winners in 2016. Consequently, were named by their parties in the conventions of July.
In the occasion, the vice-presidents were announced as well - the senator Tim Kaine for Hillary and the governor Mike of Indiana, for Donald Trump
3. What were until now the controversies of the campaign?
One series of controveries were motivated by Donald since the launching of his campaign, in those days in which the candidate, for example, described the Mexican imigrants as rappers and criminals.
A candidatura do empresário de Nova York foi marcada por diversos tumultos. Ele travou discussões com um juiz, uma Miss Universo, uma âncora da Fox News e a família muçulmana de um soldado morto. Teve ainda que se defender da não publicação de seu imposto de renda e de especulações de que não pagou impostos por 18 anos, além de questões em torno de sua instituição de caridade.
A última bomba estourou no dia 7 de outubro com a publicação de um vídeo de 2005. Nele, Trump é ouvido se referindo às mulheres em termos sexualmente ofensivos durante uma filmagem.
The candidature of entrepreneur of New York was marked by diverse turmoils. He sparked arguments with one judge, one Miss Universe, and one anchor of Fox News and muçul family of one died soldier. He had to defend of not having published his income tax and of speculations that he didn't pay taxes for 18 years, beyond questions around him of his institution of charity.
The last bomb exploed on 7th October with the publish of one video in 2005. In it, Trump is heard referring to women with aggressive sexual terms during one footage.
O furor que se seguiu obrigou o candidato a se desculpar e tentar convencer os eleitores de que as palavras do vídeo "não refletem quem eu sou". Não foi suficiente para impedir a deserção de dezenas de republicanos, gerando uma guerra civil dentro do partido.
Agora, outras seis mulheres acusam Donald Trump de abuso sexual, e ele se defendeu vigorosamente, acusando-as de serem mentirosas e não atraentes o suficiente para chamar sua atenção.
Hillary Clinton também teve seus momentos de tensão. O estrago causado pelo uso de seu e-mail pessoal para tratar de questões de Estado foi significante. Além disso, questões foram levantadas em relação às doações estrangeiras para a Fundação Clinton.
The fury that was sparked forced the candidate to apologise himself and try to persuade the voters that the words of footage don't reflect what he is now. It was not enough to avoid the desertion of tens of Republican, generating one civial was inside the party.
Now, other six women charge Donald of sexual abuse, and he defended charging them of being liars and not attractive enough to call his atention.
Hillary clinton had her tension moments. The spoil caused by the use of her personal email to treat the questions of State were significant. In addition, questions were raised regarding the foreign donations to the Fundation Clinton.
Em 6 pontos: Tudo o você precisa saber sobre as eleições americanas
In 6 points: Everything you need to know about the American elections
Em janeiro de 2017 os Estados Unidos terão um novo líder, que será escolhido em 8 de novembro após uma longa e custosa campanha. E as últimas semanas antes da votação prometem ser agitadas, com os dois candidatos viajando o país para convencer eleitores.
Quando escolhem um presidente, os americanos não definem apenas o chefe de Estado, mas também o líder do governo e o comandante do maior exército no planeta. Ou seja: a responsabilidade é grande.
In Janurary of 2017 the United States will have a new leader, who will be chosen on 8th of November after a long and expensive campaign. And the last weeks before the election promise to be agitaded, with two candidates travelling the country to persuade voters.
When they chose one president, the American people do not define just the head of state, but also the leader of government and comandant of biggest army of planet. In other words, the responsibility is big.
Mas afinal, como funcionam as eleições presidenciais americanas? Em seis pontos, entenda o processo:
1. Quem pode ser presidente?
Tecnicamente, para se candidatar à Presidência dos Estados Unidos basta ser um cidadão "nascido" no país, ter ao menos 35 anos de idade e ser residente por 14 anos. Parece simples, certo?
Na realidade, porém, quase todos os presidentes escolhidos desde 1933 foram também governadores, senadores ou generais de cinco estrelas.
But after all, how the American presidential elections work? In six points, understand the process:
1. Who can be president?
Technically, to the candidate to Presidency of the United States you just need to be a born citizen in the country, have at least 35 years and be resident for 14 years. It seems simple, right?
Actually, although, almost all chosen president since 1933 were governors as well, senators or general people of five starts.
A eleição deste ano chegou a ter, em determinado momento, dez governadores ou ex-governadores e dez senadores ou ex-senadores na briga, mas a maioria deixou a corrida.
Os partidos Republicano e Democrata escolhem um representante cada para a eleição presidencial.
The election of this years reached to have, in a certain moment, ten governors or ex-governors and ten senators or ex-senators in the fight, but the most left the run.
The Republican parties and democratic chose one representant each one for the presidential election.
2. Como Hillary Clinton e Donald Trump se tornaram os candidatos?
Uma série de eleições são realizadas em cada Estado americano, a partir de fevereiro, para determinar o candidato presidencial de cada partido.
O vencedor de cada eleição coleta um número de "delegados" - membros do partido com poder de votar naquele candidato nas convenções dos partidos em julho, quando os escolhidos são confirmados.
How Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump became the candidates?
One series of elections are realised in each American state, from February, to determine the presidential candidate of each party.
The winner of each election collects one number of delegates - members of party with power to vote in that candidate in the conventions of parties in July when the chosen people are confirmed.
Quanto mais Estados um candidato conquistar, mais delegados votarão nele na convenção.
A democrata Hillary Clinton e o republicano Donald Trump foram os vencedores em 2016. Consequentemente, foram nomeados por seus partidos nas convenções de julho.
Na ocasião, os vice-presidentes também foram anunciados - o senador Tim Kaine da Virginia para Hillary Clinton e o governador Mike Pence de Indiana, para Donald Trump.
3. Quais foram (até agora) as controvérsias da campanha?
Uma série de controvérsias foram motivadas por Donald Trump desde o lançamento de sua campanha, época em que o candidato, por exemplo, descreveu os imigrantes mexicanos como "estupradores e criminosos".
How much more states one candidate conquer, more delegates will vote in him in the convention.
The democratic Hillary Clinton and the Republican Donald were the winners in 2016. Consequently, were named by their parties in the conventions of July.
In the occasion, the vice-presidents were announced as well - the senator Tim Kaine for Hillary and the governor Mike of Indiana, for Donald Trump
3. What were until now the controversies of the campaign?
One series of controveries were motivated by Donald since the launching of his campaign, in those days in which the candidate, for example, described the Mexican imigrants as rappers and criminals.
A candidatura do empresário de Nova York foi marcada por diversos tumultos. Ele travou discussões com um juiz, uma Miss Universo, uma âncora da Fox News e a família muçulmana de um soldado morto. Teve ainda que se defender da não publicação de seu imposto de renda e de especulações de que não pagou impostos por 18 anos, além de questões em torno de sua instituição de caridade.
A última bomba estourou no dia 7 de outubro com a publicação de um vídeo de 2005. Nele, Trump é ouvido se referindo às mulheres em termos sexualmente ofensivos durante uma filmagem.
The candidature of entrepreneur of New York was marked by diverse turmoils. He sparked arguments with one judge, one Miss Universe, and one anchor of Fox News and muçul family of one died soldier. He had to defend of not having published his income tax and of speculations that he didn't pay taxes for 18 years, beyond questions around him of his institution of charity.
The last bomb exploed on 7th October with the publish of one video in 2005. In it, Trump is heard referring to women with aggressive sexual terms during one footage.
O furor que se seguiu obrigou o candidato a se desculpar e tentar convencer os eleitores de que as palavras do vídeo "não refletem quem eu sou". Não foi suficiente para impedir a deserção de dezenas de republicanos, gerando uma guerra civil dentro do partido.
Agora, outras seis mulheres acusam Donald Trump de abuso sexual, e ele se defendeu vigorosamente, acusando-as de serem mentirosas e não atraentes o suficiente para chamar sua atenção.
Hillary Clinton também teve seus momentos de tensão. O estrago causado pelo uso de seu e-mail pessoal para tratar de questões de Estado foi significante. Além disso, questões foram levantadas em relação às doações estrangeiras para a Fundação Clinton.
The fury that was sparked forced the candidate to apologise himself and try to persuade the voters that the words of footage don't reflect what he is now. It was not enough to avoid the desertion of tens of Republican, generating one civial was inside the party.
Now, other six women charge Donald of sexual abuse, and he defended charging them of being liars and not attractive enough to call his atention.
Hillary clinton had her tension moments. The spoil caused by the use of her personal email to treat the questions of State were significant. In addition, questions were raised regarding the foreign donations to the Fundation Clinton.
Investors shaved off the investments in Samsung
Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fatal-mistake-that-doomed-samsungs-galaxy-note-1477248978
Vocabulary:
salvage the company’s
investors have shaved off roughly $20 billion
moving swiftly
lavish event
it would shift production
Text: The X-ray and CT scans showed a pronounced bulge.
After reports of Galaxy Note 7 smartphones catching fire spread in early September, Samsung Electronics Co. executives debated how to respond. Some were skeptical the incidents amounted to much, according to people familiar with the meetings, but others thought the company needed to act decisively.
A laboratory report said scans of some faulty devices showed a protrusion in Note 7 batteries supplied by Samsung SDI Co., a company affiliate, while phones with batteries from another supplier didn’t.
It wasn’t a definitive answer, and there was no explanation for the bulges. But with consumers complaining and telecom operators demanding answers, newly appointed mobile chief D.J. Koh felt the company knew enough to recall 2.5 million phones. His suggestion was backed by Samsung’s third-generation heir apparent, Lee Jae-yong, who has advocated for more openness at one of the world’s most opaque conglomerates.
That decision in early September—to push a sweeping recall based on what turned out to be incomplete evidence—is now coming back to haunt the company.
Two weeks after Samsung began handing out millions of new phones, with batteries from the other supplier, the company was forced to all but acknowledge that its initial diagnosis was incorrect, following a spate of new incidents, some involving supposedly safe replacement devices. With regulators raising fresh questions, Messrs. Lee and Koh decided to take the drastic step of killing the phone outright.
The Galaxy Note series helped make Samsung a smartphone leader, and the Note 7, its most advanced phone ever, had all the makings of a hit. For a moment, it looked like the Galaxy Note could win over users of Apple Inc.’s iPhone and cement Samsung as one of the world’s most dominant technology companies.
Instead, as a result of the flammable phones and the botched recall Samsung’s leaders are now struggling to salvage the company’s credibility. At risk is the expected February launch of its next flagship smartphone, likely to be called the Galaxy S8.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which oversees product recalls in Samsung’s biggest smartphone market, is expected to investigate whether Samsung notified the agency soon enough of dangers posed by the device. Samsung’s decision to launch its own recall, bypassing the CPSC’s formal process for a time, may have prevented regulators from figuring out more about the root cause, some U.S. lawmakers suspect.
Samsung still doesn’t have a conclusive answer for what’s causing some Note 7s to catch fire.
A Samsung spokeswoman said the company worked quickly with regulators and took immediate action when problems arose with the phone. “We recognized that we did not correctly identify the issue the first time and remain committed to finding the root cause,” she said. “Our top priority remains the safety of our customers and retrieving 100% of the Galaxy Note 7 devices in the market.”
Outside experts have pointed to a range of possible culprits, from the software that manages how the battery interacts with other smartphone components to the design of the entire circuit.
Engineers are also looking into the possibility that the battery case may have been too small to house a battery of that capacity, according to one Samsung mobile executive.
Big product recalls are never easy. Consumers, however, are often willing to forgive mistakes if they believe the company is looking out for them and moving swiftly(=rapidamente) to address problems.
“What Samsung should have done, very early on, was to share even its preliminary findings or thoughts” with U.S. regulators rather than pushing its own recall, said Stuart Statler, a former CPSC commissioner and independent product safety consultant in Mooresville, N.C.
Samsung executives have delayed the development of the Galaxy S8 device by two weeks as engineers work to get to the bottom of the Note 7’s overheating problem, according to a member of the Galaxy S8 development team.
Meanwhile, investors have shaved off (=reduced to an amout) roughly $20 billion in Samsung’s market value. The company has said the recall would cost it $5 billion or more, including lost sales.
Introduced in 2011, the Galaxy Note series has served as a point of pride for the South Korean company, which was long derided for following—and sued for allegedly copying—the iPhone.
The bigger-screen phone was in tune with consumer tastes. When iPhones were shrinking in size, the Galaxy Note anticipated the shift to bigger handsets, which earned it the nickname “phablet,” a mashup of phone and tablet.
By the time Samsung released its third iteration in September 2013, the Galaxy Note was a certified hit, selling 10 million units in two months. The next year, Apple released its first Galaxy Note-sized iPhone.
As word reached Samsung executives that only incremental changes were likely for Apple’s iPhone 7 this year, Mr. Koh and other top executives grew confident about their prospects for a head-to-head fall release of the next version. The company decided to skip the number 6 and jump straight to 7, a name change that would invite direct comparisons with Apple’s model.
Samsung’s engineers packed new features, including an iris scanner, water resistance, an improved stylus and about 16% more battery life than its previous Note device. Presales for the Note 7 started strong after Mr. Koh introduced the device at a lavish (=elegante) event at a theater in Midtown Manhattan on Aug. 2. Analysts boosted their projections for Samsung’s earnings, while investors pushed the stock to record highs.
As user reports of overheating began to trickle in days later, company executives were at first unruffled. Some suspected that many of the alleged incidents had been faked, and argued that even a small number of genuine cases shouldn’t overshadow the fact that millions of smartphones were working fine, according to people familiar with their thinking.
Gathering at Mr. Koh’s office at R5, the 27-story office tower overlooking Samsung’s sprawling Digital City campus south of Seoul, he and other mobile executives, including his predecessor, J.K. Shin, and longtime Samsung top lieutenant G.S. Choi, examined the X-ray and CT scan reports of the phone, which appeared to show heat damage to the internal structure of the battery, according to people familiar with the discussions.
Messrs. Lee and Koh believed they had all the evidence they needed to conclude the problem lay with Samsung SDI’s batteries, these people said. They argued it was more important for Samsung to do “the right thing” and act, in the words of one of the people familiar with the matter, rather than wait for more information. Doing so would have left customers in the dark longer and potentially allowed the crisis to get worse.
On Sept. 2, Mr. Koh entered a news conference room in downtown Seoul to address reporters. Without providing names, he said the company had identified a problem with one of its suppliers and it would shift(=transferir) production to another supplier it believed hadn’t caused the problems.
People familiar with the matter say that the supplier Samsung planned to rely on was Amperex Technology Ltd., a unit of Japanese electronic parts maker TDK Corp.
In Washington, Mr. Koh’s announcement came as a surprise to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Typically, companies work jointly with the CPSC to study a problem and plan a recall together.
Samsung didn’t notify the CPSC of the problems until later that day, according to people familiar with the matter—about two weeks after the first reported Note 7 incident.
CPSC regulations require companies to report potential product hazards within 24 hours, though the commission allows companies that are “truly uncertain” about an issue to spend a “reasonable time” investigating the situation.
Samsung also took the little-noticed decision to pursue what’s known as fast-track resolution with the CPSC. The program allows a company to shorten the agency’s sometimes-lengthy investigation of a product problem, while avoiding a formal finding by the CPSC of a defect—a maneuver that can insulate manufacturers from product-liability litigation.
The CPSC warns that some companies might not want a fast-track resolution in situations where “complex technical issues…require more time to resolve.”
At first, Samsung’s recall solution seemed to work. Consumers were turning in their phones and asking for new Note 7 phones in about 90% of the cases, Samsung said. The company’s executives basked in praise, particularly from the South Korean press that Samsung executives read obsessively, who credited Samsung with acting swiftly.
The CPSC, though, appeared unhappy with some of the company’s maneuvers. A week after Mr. Koh’s recall announcement, on Sept. 9, the agency took the unusual step of warning consumers not to use the phones while it did more research, and said it would work to determine whether Samsung’s plan to issue replacement phones was “an acceptable remedy.”
A few days later, Samsung and the CPSC finally agreed to a formal joint recall.
Meanwhile, complaints about overheating replacement phones, and of isolated cases of battery failures, began emerging. A Samsung spokesman said initially there was no safety concern.
In China, where the company used only Amperex-supplied batteries in its Note 7s, the company dismissed reported smartphone fires as fabrications, arguing it was impossible for those batteries to have caused problems.
As it became clear the reported problems were multiplying, employees describe a kind of gallows humor setting in. One mobile division executive described the Galaxy Note 7 as a “radioactive” topic, with staffers afraid of even discussing it in the company canteen.
A local television news crew camped outside the offices at 6 a.m. to film a report about how many lights were on at the company, to illustrate the depth of the company’s crisis.
Then came the evacuation of a Southwest Airlines Co. flight in early October because of a smoking Samsung smartphone.
Top executives from major telecoms operators, including Verizon Communications Inc.’s Lowell McAdam, urged Mr. Lee to quickly kill the Galaxy Note 7 smartphone, according to people familiar with the matter. The executives told Mr. Lee the smartphone was becoming increasingly unsalable.
On Oct. 11, Mr. Lee called Mr. Koh and ordered him to discontinue the smartphone. Later that day, Mr. Koh wrote a letter to the company’s mobile division, a copy of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, calling the crisis “one of the toughest challenges we have ever faced.”
While the decision to abort the Note 7 has halted the damage for now, analysts have raised questions about the future of the Galaxy Note series, arguing that the brand has become too tarnished by the crisis and that the company should retire it altogether.
At least two U.S. senators, Bill Nelson of Florida and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, have asked for more details about Samsung communication with the CPSC and its handling of the phone crisis. Mr. Blumenthal noted in a letter to Samsung released publicly that so far in the current fiasco, Samsung has reported 96 incidents of batteries overheating in the U.S., including 13 burns and 47 cases of property damage.
Last week, at the urging of CPSC Chairman Elliot Kaye, the agency approved a proposal for a wide-ranging inquiry into lithium ion and related batteries in coming months.
“There are few things in life I’m reasonably confident of predicting; one of those is….we’re going to have yet another issue of lithium ion batteries catching fire” from a range of devices, said CPSC commissioner Robert Adler. “This is just a massive problem.”
—Eun-Young Jeong in Seoul, Ryan Knutson in New York and Takashi Mochizuki in Tokyo contributed to this article.
Write to Jonathan Cheng at jonathan.cheng@wsj.com and John D. McKinnon at john.mckinnon@wsj.com
Vocabulary:
salvage the company’s
investors have shaved off roughly $20 billion
moving swiftly
lavish event
it would shift production
Text: The X-ray and CT scans showed a pronounced bulge.
After reports of Galaxy Note 7 smartphones catching fire spread in early September, Samsung Electronics Co. executives debated how to respond. Some were skeptical the incidents amounted to much, according to people familiar with the meetings, but others thought the company needed to act decisively.
A laboratory report said scans of some faulty devices showed a protrusion in Note 7 batteries supplied by Samsung SDI Co., a company affiliate, while phones with batteries from another supplier didn’t.
It wasn’t a definitive answer, and there was no explanation for the bulges. But with consumers complaining and telecom operators demanding answers, newly appointed mobile chief D.J. Koh felt the company knew enough to recall 2.5 million phones. His suggestion was backed by Samsung’s third-generation heir apparent, Lee Jae-yong, who has advocated for more openness at one of the world’s most opaque conglomerates.
That decision in early September—to push a sweeping recall based on what turned out to be incomplete evidence—is now coming back to haunt the company.
Two weeks after Samsung began handing out millions of new phones, with batteries from the other supplier, the company was forced to all but acknowledge that its initial diagnosis was incorrect, following a spate of new incidents, some involving supposedly safe replacement devices. With regulators raising fresh questions, Messrs. Lee and Koh decided to take the drastic step of killing the phone outright.
The Galaxy Note series helped make Samsung a smartphone leader, and the Note 7, its most advanced phone ever, had all the makings of a hit. For a moment, it looked like the Galaxy Note could win over users of Apple Inc.’s iPhone and cement Samsung as one of the world’s most dominant technology companies.
Instead, as a result of the flammable phones and the botched recall Samsung’s leaders are now struggling to salvage the company’s credibility. At risk is the expected February launch of its next flagship smartphone, likely to be called the Galaxy S8.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which oversees product recalls in Samsung’s biggest smartphone market, is expected to investigate whether Samsung notified the agency soon enough of dangers posed by the device. Samsung’s decision to launch its own recall, bypassing the CPSC’s formal process for a time, may have prevented regulators from figuring out more about the root cause, some U.S. lawmakers suspect.
Samsung still doesn’t have a conclusive answer for what’s causing some Note 7s to catch fire.
A Samsung spokeswoman said the company worked quickly with regulators and took immediate action when problems arose with the phone. “We recognized that we did not correctly identify the issue the first time and remain committed to finding the root cause,” she said. “Our top priority remains the safety of our customers and retrieving 100% of the Galaxy Note 7 devices in the market.”
Outside experts have pointed to a range of possible culprits, from the software that manages how the battery interacts with other smartphone components to the design of the entire circuit.
Engineers are also looking into the possibility that the battery case may have been too small to house a battery of that capacity, according to one Samsung mobile executive.
Big product recalls are never easy. Consumers, however, are often willing to forgive mistakes if they believe the company is looking out for them and moving swiftly(=rapidamente) to address problems.
“What Samsung should have done, very early on, was to share even its preliminary findings or thoughts” with U.S. regulators rather than pushing its own recall, said Stuart Statler, a former CPSC commissioner and independent product safety consultant in Mooresville, N.C.
Samsung executives have delayed the development of the Galaxy S8 device by two weeks as engineers work to get to the bottom of the Note 7’s overheating problem, according to a member of the Galaxy S8 development team.
Meanwhile, investors have shaved off (=reduced to an amout) roughly $20 billion in Samsung’s market value. The company has said the recall would cost it $5 billion or more, including lost sales.
Introduced in 2011, the Galaxy Note series has served as a point of pride for the South Korean company, which was long derided for following—and sued for allegedly copying—the iPhone.
The bigger-screen phone was in tune with consumer tastes. When iPhones were shrinking in size, the Galaxy Note anticipated the shift to bigger handsets, which earned it the nickname “phablet,” a mashup of phone and tablet.
By the time Samsung released its third iteration in September 2013, the Galaxy Note was a certified hit, selling 10 million units in two months. The next year, Apple released its first Galaxy Note-sized iPhone.
As word reached Samsung executives that only incremental changes were likely for Apple’s iPhone 7 this year, Mr. Koh and other top executives grew confident about their prospects for a head-to-head fall release of the next version. The company decided to skip the number 6 and jump straight to 7, a name change that would invite direct comparisons with Apple’s model.
Samsung’s engineers packed new features, including an iris scanner, water resistance, an improved stylus and about 16% more battery life than its previous Note device. Presales for the Note 7 started strong after Mr. Koh introduced the device at a lavish (=elegante) event at a theater in Midtown Manhattan on Aug. 2. Analysts boosted their projections for Samsung’s earnings, while investors pushed the stock to record highs.
As user reports of overheating began to trickle in days later, company executives were at first unruffled. Some suspected that many of the alleged incidents had been faked, and argued that even a small number of genuine cases shouldn’t overshadow the fact that millions of smartphones were working fine, according to people familiar with their thinking.
Gathering at Mr. Koh’s office at R5, the 27-story office tower overlooking Samsung’s sprawling Digital City campus south of Seoul, he and other mobile executives, including his predecessor, J.K. Shin, and longtime Samsung top lieutenant G.S. Choi, examined the X-ray and CT scan reports of the phone, which appeared to show heat damage to the internal structure of the battery, according to people familiar with the discussions.
Messrs. Lee and Koh believed they had all the evidence they needed to conclude the problem lay with Samsung SDI’s batteries, these people said. They argued it was more important for Samsung to do “the right thing” and act, in the words of one of the people familiar with the matter, rather than wait for more information. Doing so would have left customers in the dark longer and potentially allowed the crisis to get worse.
On Sept. 2, Mr. Koh entered a news conference room in downtown Seoul to address reporters. Without providing names, he said the company had identified a problem with one of its suppliers and it would shift(=transferir) production to another supplier it believed hadn’t caused the problems.
People familiar with the matter say that the supplier Samsung planned to rely on was Amperex Technology Ltd., a unit of Japanese electronic parts maker TDK Corp.
In Washington, Mr. Koh’s announcement came as a surprise to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Typically, companies work jointly with the CPSC to study a problem and plan a recall together.
Samsung didn’t notify the CPSC of the problems until later that day, according to people familiar with the matter—about two weeks after the first reported Note 7 incident.
CPSC regulations require companies to report potential product hazards within 24 hours, though the commission allows companies that are “truly uncertain” about an issue to spend a “reasonable time” investigating the situation.
Samsung also took the little-noticed decision to pursue what’s known as fast-track resolution with the CPSC. The program allows a company to shorten the agency’s sometimes-lengthy investigation of a product problem, while avoiding a formal finding by the CPSC of a defect—a maneuver that can insulate manufacturers from product-liability litigation.
The CPSC warns that some companies might not want a fast-track resolution in situations where “complex technical issues…require more time to resolve.”
At first, Samsung’s recall solution seemed to work. Consumers were turning in their phones and asking for new Note 7 phones in about 90% of the cases, Samsung said. The company’s executives basked in praise, particularly from the South Korean press that Samsung executives read obsessively, who credited Samsung with acting swiftly.
The CPSC, though, appeared unhappy with some of the company’s maneuvers. A week after Mr. Koh’s recall announcement, on Sept. 9, the agency took the unusual step of warning consumers not to use the phones while it did more research, and said it would work to determine whether Samsung’s plan to issue replacement phones was “an acceptable remedy.”
A few days later, Samsung and the CPSC finally agreed to a formal joint recall.
Meanwhile, complaints about overheating replacement phones, and of isolated cases of battery failures, began emerging. A Samsung spokesman said initially there was no safety concern.
In China, where the company used only Amperex-supplied batteries in its Note 7s, the company dismissed reported smartphone fires as fabrications, arguing it was impossible for those batteries to have caused problems.
As it became clear the reported problems were multiplying, employees describe a kind of gallows humor setting in. One mobile division executive described the Galaxy Note 7 as a “radioactive” topic, with staffers afraid of even discussing it in the company canteen.
A local television news crew camped outside the offices at 6 a.m. to film a report about how many lights were on at the company, to illustrate the depth of the company’s crisis.
Then came the evacuation of a Southwest Airlines Co. flight in early October because of a smoking Samsung smartphone.
Top executives from major telecoms operators, including Verizon Communications Inc.’s Lowell McAdam, urged Mr. Lee to quickly kill the Galaxy Note 7 smartphone, according to people familiar with the matter. The executives told Mr. Lee the smartphone was becoming increasingly unsalable.
On Oct. 11, Mr. Lee called Mr. Koh and ordered him to discontinue the smartphone. Later that day, Mr. Koh wrote a letter to the company’s mobile division, a copy of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, calling the crisis “one of the toughest challenges we have ever faced.”
While the decision to abort the Note 7 has halted the damage for now, analysts have raised questions about the future of the Galaxy Note series, arguing that the brand has become too tarnished by the crisis and that the company should retire it altogether.
At least two U.S. senators, Bill Nelson of Florida and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, have asked for more details about Samsung communication with the CPSC and its handling of the phone crisis. Mr. Blumenthal noted in a letter to Samsung released publicly that so far in the current fiasco, Samsung has reported 96 incidents of batteries overheating in the U.S., including 13 burns and 47 cases of property damage.
Last week, at the urging of CPSC Chairman Elliot Kaye, the agency approved a proposal for a wide-ranging inquiry into lithium ion and related batteries in coming months.
“There are few things in life I’m reasonably confident of predicting; one of those is….we’re going to have yet another issue of lithium ion batteries catching fire” from a range of devices, said CPSC commissioner Robert Adler. “This is just a massive problem.”
—Eun-Young Jeong in Seoul, Ryan Knutson in New York and Takashi Mochizuki in Tokyo contributed to this article.
Write to Jonathan Cheng at jonathan.cheng@wsj.com and John D. McKinnon at john.mckinnon@wsj.com
quinta-feira, 20 de outubro de 2016
Cunha preso e ja elvis
Source: Futebol, chinelada e isolamento: os dias discretos de Cunha antes da prisão
Text:
Na última vez em que apareceu em público desde a cassação de seu mandato de deputado federal, Eduardo Cunha foi alvo de chineladas de uma senhora que tentou agredi-lo no aeroporto Santos Dumont, no Rio de Janeiro, aos gritos de "safado" e "bandido".
O episódio, registrado em vídeo na semana passada, viralizou nas redes sociais - e não foi um caso isolado.
Last time that appeared in public since the nullification of his mandate of federal deputy, Cunha was target of a lady's hits who tried to injure him in the aeroport of Santos, in Rio de Janior, by shouting him as "dishonest" and "thief".
The episode, registered in a footage last week, viralyzed in the social networkings - and it was not an isolated case.
Outras cenas de Cunha recebendo xingamentos - e elogios, incluindo selfies - em saguões em São Paulo e Brasília circularam por timelines afora no último mês. "Não vão me constranger", respondeu, atribuindo os ataques a "petistas".
Desde a interrupção da vida pública, entretanto, o ex-deputado preso nesta quarta-feira pela Polícia Federal preferia falar de futebol.
Other Cunha's scenes receiving and praises, including selfies - in lobbies in Sao Paulo and Braizlia circulated by timelines outside last month. They will not embarass me, he answered, atributing it to the petist attacks.
Since the interruption of public life, however, the ex-deputy was arrested on this Thursday by Federal Police would prefere talk about soccer.
"E o Mengao, (sic) ontem jogou fora uma chance de ouro. Agora depende dos tropeços do Palmeiras", escreveu, frustrado, em uma longa série de tuítes sobre o empate sem gols entre seu time e o São Paulo, em 1º de outubro.
Futebol é uma das paixões de Cunha - ao lado de religião e política. No mesmo dia, ele pediu votos a seu candidato a vereador no Rio de Janeiro, o também peemedebista Chiquinho Brazão, conhecido por investigações que ligam sua família a milícias fluminenses.
Talvez tenha sido esta sua última vitória política: Brazão foi eleito com quase 24 mil votos para seu quarto mandato na Câmara Municipal.
And what about Flamengo, yesterday threw off one gold chance. Now it depends on the Palmeiras' mistakes, he wrote, frustrated, in a long series of twitts about the draw without goals between his team and Sao Paulo, on first of October.
Soccer is one of the Cunha's passions - near to the religion and politics. At the same day, he asked votes to his candidate to councillor in Rio de Janeiro, the peemedbist too, known by ivnestigations that connect his family to fluminense militias.
Perhaps it had been his last political victory: Brazao was elected with almost 24 thousand votes to his fourth mandate in the Municipal Camara.
Isolamento
Habituado à bajulação de políticos, o ex-todo poderoso da Câmara dos Deputados teve que se acostumar com o isolamento desde que perdeu o foro privilegiado em ações penais, com a cassação do mandato em 12 de setembro.
Após uma comemoração que reuniu ministros e governadores, no ano passado, ele festejou seu aniversário de 58 anos no último dia 29 de forma discreta, apenas com a família.
Há pouco mais de um mês, o Congresso decidiu pela cassação de seu mandato e a suspensão de seus direitos políticos por um placar arrebatador: 450 votos a favor, 10 contra e 9 abstenções.
Isolament
Habituated to politician's flattery, the ex-all powerful of Camara of Deputies who have to be accustomed to the isoletion since he had lost the privileged foro in penal actions, with the cassation of mandate in 12th of September.
After one celebration that gathered ministers and governos, last year, he celebrated his anniversary of 58 years on the last day 29th of discret form, just with the family.
From more than one month, the Congress decided by the cassation of his mandate and the suspentino of his political rights for a ravishing score: 450 votes in favor, 10 against and 9 abstentions.
Text:
Na última vez em que apareceu em público desde a cassação de seu mandato de deputado federal, Eduardo Cunha foi alvo de chineladas de uma senhora que tentou agredi-lo no aeroporto Santos Dumont, no Rio de Janeiro, aos gritos de "safado" e "bandido".
O episódio, registrado em vídeo na semana passada, viralizou nas redes sociais - e não foi um caso isolado.
Last time that appeared in public since the nullification of his mandate of federal deputy, Cunha was target of a lady's hits who tried to injure him in the aeroport of Santos, in Rio de Janior, by shouting him as "dishonest" and "thief".
The episode, registered in a footage last week, viralyzed in the social networkings - and it was not an isolated case.
Outras cenas de Cunha recebendo xingamentos - e elogios, incluindo selfies - em saguões em São Paulo e Brasília circularam por timelines afora no último mês. "Não vão me constranger", respondeu, atribuindo os ataques a "petistas".
Desde a interrupção da vida pública, entretanto, o ex-deputado preso nesta quarta-feira pela Polícia Federal preferia falar de futebol.
Other Cunha's scenes receiving and praises, including selfies - in lobbies in Sao Paulo and Braizlia circulated by timelines outside last month. They will not embarass me, he answered, atributing it to the petist attacks.
Since the interruption of public life, however, the ex-deputy was arrested on this Thursday by Federal Police would prefere talk about soccer.
"E o Mengao, (sic) ontem jogou fora uma chance de ouro. Agora depende dos tropeços do Palmeiras", escreveu, frustrado, em uma longa série de tuítes sobre o empate sem gols entre seu time e o São Paulo, em 1º de outubro.
Futebol é uma das paixões de Cunha - ao lado de religião e política. No mesmo dia, ele pediu votos a seu candidato a vereador no Rio de Janeiro, o também peemedebista Chiquinho Brazão, conhecido por investigações que ligam sua família a milícias fluminenses.
Talvez tenha sido esta sua última vitória política: Brazão foi eleito com quase 24 mil votos para seu quarto mandato na Câmara Municipal.
And what about Flamengo, yesterday threw off one gold chance. Now it depends on the Palmeiras' mistakes, he wrote, frustrated, in a long series of twitts about the draw without goals between his team and Sao Paulo, on first of October.
Soccer is one of the Cunha's passions - near to the religion and politics. At the same day, he asked votes to his candidate to councillor in Rio de Janeiro, the peemedbist too, known by ivnestigations that connect his family to fluminense militias.
Perhaps it had been his last political victory: Brazao was elected with almost 24 thousand votes to his fourth mandate in the Municipal Camara.
Isolamento
Habituado à bajulação de políticos, o ex-todo poderoso da Câmara dos Deputados teve que se acostumar com o isolamento desde que perdeu o foro privilegiado em ações penais, com a cassação do mandato em 12 de setembro.
Após uma comemoração que reuniu ministros e governadores, no ano passado, ele festejou seu aniversário de 58 anos no último dia 29 de forma discreta, apenas com a família.
Há pouco mais de um mês, o Congresso decidiu pela cassação de seu mandato e a suspensão de seus direitos políticos por um placar arrebatador: 450 votos a favor, 10 contra e 9 abstenções.
Isolament
Habituated to politician's flattery, the ex-all powerful of Camara of Deputies who have to be accustomed to the isoletion since he had lost the privileged foro in penal actions, with the cassation of mandate in 12th of September.
After one celebration that gathered ministers and governos, last year, he celebrated his anniversary of 58 years on the last day 29th of discret form, just with the family.
From more than one month, the Congress decided by the cassation of his mandate and the suspentino of his political rights for a ravishing score: 450 votes in favor, 10 against and 9 abstentions.
Trump se negou a aceitar a possível derrota
Source: Unable to control himself, Trump confirms everyone’s worst fears
Vocabulary:
she pressed Trump sharply
loses is “rigged” against him
Trump drew from his own arsenal of
strongly endorsed Roe
Oddly for a campaign
overwhelmed
Text: It was a two-track debate. At times, it was the setting for a detailed argument over serious issues in which Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump offered voters a relatively straightforward clash of progressive and conservative perspectives.
But this is 2016, and eventually the third and final debate on Wednesday reached the fundamental issue of the campaign: whether Trump is fit to be president. Despite her substantial lead in the polls, Clinton did not hang back, as many predicted she would. Instead, she pressed Trump sharply(=acentuado) on the entire catalog of his shortcomings, accusing him of being a “puppet” of Russian President Vladimir Putin and denouncing his treatment of women, his mocking a disabled reporter and his habit of saying that any contest he loses is “rigged”(=armado) against him.
And she clearly signaled one of the closing themes of her campaign when she declared that Trump had shown “a pattern of divisiveness, of a very dark and . . . the dangerous vision for our country.” The election, she said, was about “what kind of country are we going to be.”
Trump drew(=tirou) from his own arsenal of favored attacks on Clinton, from the work of the Clinton Foundation to her use of a private email server and her role in the Obama administration’s foreign policy. “She been proven to be a liar,” Trump said.
Had the exchanges come down to an ideological fight and simple tit-for-tat, fire and counterfire, it might have constituted a kind of victory for Trump, given his polling deficit and his gaffes and lies in his earlier debate performances. But as the debate wore on, Trump once again left behind moments that will only reinforce the doubts many voters already have about him.
Repeatedly, he refused to disown Putin, and he once again praised him relative to both Clinton and President Obama. “She doesn’t like Putin because Putin has outsmarted her at every step of the way,” he said.
He did himself no good when he accused the nine women who have said he groped and accosted him of being liars, motivated by a desire for fame.
And again and again, when Clinton repeated things that Trump had actually said, he simply denied saying them, providing fact-checkers with another rich Trumpian trove.
From the start, Chris Wallace, the moderator in Las Vegas, tried to press Clinton and Trump on a series of specific issues — what sort of justices they would nominate, how they viewed the Constitution, where they stood on abortion rights and gun control. In each case, they stressed themes congenial to their core constituencies.
Clinton strongly(=to make a public statement of your approval or support for something or someone) endorsed Roe v. Wade, sharply attacked the Citizens United decision that undercut campaign finance restrictions and stressed that she wanted justices who would stand with ordinary citizens against the wealthy and the powerful.
Trump began with his commitment to the Second Amendment and gun rights and kept coming back to the issue. Although Wallace pressed him repeatedly, Trump refused to say if he wanted Roe overturned, though he predicted that because his Supreme Court appointees would be “pro-life,” Roe would fall. Although Trump no doubt pleased opponents of abortion, Clinton showed passion in the exchange, while Trump seemed to be answering by rote.
Oddly(=estranhamente) for a campaign in which immigration is a central issue, the third debate was the first in which voters were exposed to an extended look at their sharply different approaches.
But since nothing in this campaign is ever destined to look like the Oxford Union or any other stately discussion of public problems, the first track was overwhelmed by the second. Trump’s obvious purpose was to shake voters away from Clinton. And if Clinton was trying to drive up turnout — her fervor on abortion rights and gun control no doubt helped her with women and liberals — Trump may have been attempting to drive it down, figuring that in a smaller electorate, his committed voters would give him a better chance of prevailing.
Yet Trump suffered from what he always suffers from an inability to control his anger or stop himself from interrupting, which only reinforced undecided voters’ worst perceptions of him.
The most important moment of the evening was Trump’s refusal to say that if he lost, he would accept the outcome: “I will look at it at the time,” he said. “I will keep you in suspense.”
Never has a candidate for president challenged the legitimacy of the entire electoral enterprise in which he was engaged. Clinton’s core claim is that Trump is a dangerous man who lacks respect for American institutions and American democracy. On this central issue, Trump chose to prove Clinton right.
Vocabulary:
she pressed Trump sharply
loses is “rigged” against him
Trump drew from his own arsenal of
strongly endorsed Roe
Oddly for a campaign
overwhelmed
Text: It was a two-track debate. At times, it was the setting for a detailed argument over serious issues in which Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump offered voters a relatively straightforward clash of progressive and conservative perspectives.
But this is 2016, and eventually the third and final debate on Wednesday reached the fundamental issue of the campaign: whether Trump is fit to be president. Despite her substantial lead in the polls, Clinton did not hang back, as many predicted she would. Instead, she pressed Trump sharply(=acentuado) on the entire catalog of his shortcomings, accusing him of being a “puppet” of Russian President Vladimir Putin and denouncing his treatment of women, his mocking a disabled reporter and his habit of saying that any contest he loses is “rigged”(=armado) against him.
And she clearly signaled one of the closing themes of her campaign when she declared that Trump had shown “a pattern of divisiveness, of a very dark and . . . the dangerous vision for our country.” The election, she said, was about “what kind of country are we going to be.”
Trump drew(=tirou) from his own arsenal of favored attacks on Clinton, from the work of the Clinton Foundation to her use of a private email server and her role in the Obama administration’s foreign policy. “She been proven to be a liar,” Trump said.
Had the exchanges come down to an ideological fight and simple tit-for-tat, fire and counterfire, it might have constituted a kind of victory for Trump, given his polling deficit and his gaffes and lies in his earlier debate performances. But as the debate wore on, Trump once again left behind moments that will only reinforce the doubts many voters already have about him.
Repeatedly, he refused to disown Putin, and he once again praised him relative to both Clinton and President Obama. “She doesn’t like Putin because Putin has outsmarted her at every step of the way,” he said.
He did himself no good when he accused the nine women who have said he groped and accosted him of being liars, motivated by a desire for fame.
And again and again, when Clinton repeated things that Trump had actually said, he simply denied saying them, providing fact-checkers with another rich Trumpian trove.
From the start, Chris Wallace, the moderator in Las Vegas, tried to press Clinton and Trump on a series of specific issues — what sort of justices they would nominate, how they viewed the Constitution, where they stood on abortion rights and gun control. In each case, they stressed themes congenial to their core constituencies.
Clinton strongly(=to make a public statement of your approval or support for something or someone) endorsed Roe v. Wade, sharply attacked the Citizens United decision that undercut campaign finance restrictions and stressed that she wanted justices who would stand with ordinary citizens against the wealthy and the powerful.
Trump began with his commitment to the Second Amendment and gun rights and kept coming back to the issue. Although Wallace pressed him repeatedly, Trump refused to say if he wanted Roe overturned, though he predicted that because his Supreme Court appointees would be “pro-life,” Roe would fall. Although Trump no doubt pleased opponents of abortion, Clinton showed passion in the exchange, while Trump seemed to be answering by rote.
Oddly(=estranhamente) for a campaign in which immigration is a central issue, the third debate was the first in which voters were exposed to an extended look at their sharply different approaches.
But since nothing in this campaign is ever destined to look like the Oxford Union or any other stately discussion of public problems, the first track was overwhelmed by the second. Trump’s obvious purpose was to shake voters away from Clinton. And if Clinton was trying to drive up turnout — her fervor on abortion rights and gun control no doubt helped her with women and liberals — Trump may have been attempting to drive it down, figuring that in a smaller electorate, his committed voters would give him a better chance of prevailing.
Yet Trump suffered from what he always suffers from an inability to control his anger or stop himself from interrupting, which only reinforced undecided voters’ worst perceptions of him.
The most important moment of the evening was Trump’s refusal to say that if he lost, he would accept the outcome: “I will look at it at the time,” he said. “I will keep you in suspense.”
Never has a candidate for president challenged the legitimacy of the entire electoral enterprise in which he was engaged. Clinton’s core claim is that Trump is a dangerous man who lacks respect for American institutions and American democracy. On this central issue, Trump chose to prove Clinton right.
quarta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2016
Australiana que live sem gastar dinheiro
Source: http://www.bbc.com/portuguese/internacional-37685335
Text: Menos estresse, mais liberdade: a australiana que vive há um ano sem dinheiro
Mais tempo livre para trabalhar no que se gosta, ajudar os outros, plantar os próprios alimentos, caminhar mais, ter uma vida mais simples e saudável e reduzir o impacto ambiental do dia a dia.
Tudo isso caberia facilmente em uma lista de desejos de fim de ano ou de objetivos de vida. Mas, para a australiana Jo Nemeth, essa é a realidade há cerca de um ano e meio, quando decidiu viver sem dinheiro. Nada mesmo, nem um centavo.
Less stress, more liberty: the Australian who lives more than one year without money
More free time to work in what she enjoys, to help others, plant the own foods, walk more, and to have one simpler and healthier life and to reduce the environmental impact of the daily basis. Everything of this would easily fit in a list of desires of end year or of objectives of life. However, to the Australian JO, this is the reality for about one year and a half, when she decided to live without money. It is really nothing, nor one cent.
Ela trabalhava com desenvolvimento comunitário, mas sentia que não estava "fazendo a diferença". Em 2014, após ler um livro sobre um casal que percorreu a costa oeste da Austrália de bicicleta e outro sobre o irlandês Mark Boyle, que viveu três anos sem dinheiro, começou a se planejar.
Em março de 2015, começou o novo estilo de vida: sem dinheiro e com menos impacto ambiental.
"Eu tinha um bom trabalho, mas não achava que estava contribuindo de forma positiva, pelo contrário: precisava dirigir o tempo todo, não tinha tempo de cultivar meus alimentos e, acima disso tudo, eu me sentia estressada e infeliz o tempo todo, tendo que trabalhar para pagar contas. E minha vida tinha um impacto muito grande no meio ambiente", disse ela à BBC Brasil.
She used to work with a community development, but she was feeling she was not doing the difference. In 2014, after she had read a book about one couple that traveled the west coast of Australia by bicycle and another about the Ireland Mark, who lived three years without money, started planning. In march of 2015, started a new lifestyle: without money and with less environmental impact. I had a good job, but I was not thinking that I was contributing in a positive way, on the contrary: I was needing drive all the time, I didn't have time to cultivate my foods and, after all, I was feeling stressful and unhappy all the time, having to work to pay the bills. And my life had one serious impact in the environment, she said to BBC Brazil
Nos primeiros 12 meses, ela viveu numa casinha que construiu com material doado no terreno de amigos, e há dois meses está morando com familiares e amigos até a nova casa - uma espécie de trailer que está reformando e que ficará na fazenda de um amigo - ficar pronta.
"Um dos maiores problemas que enfrento é uma voz interna que diz que 'deveria estar vivendo uma vida normal'. Eu me surpreendi com o quanto é difícil se afastar de um modo antigo de pensar, já que tudo tem um valor monetário", conta.
"Mas já não me sinto tão pressionada como antes, quando estava trabalhando em uma empresa e tinha um chefe. Eu faço o que quero e a gente demora a se acostumar com isso. Eu tenho mais tempo livre, mas ando bastante ocupada também".
In the first 12 months, she lived in a humble house that she constructed with donated material in the field of friends, and from two months she was living with family members and friends until the new house - one species of trailers that is reforming and that will be hosted in a friends' farm - be ready.
One of the most serious problems that I face is an intern voice that says "I would have been living a normal life'. I was surprised with how much is hard to move away in a elder way of thinking, as now everything has a monetary value, she tells.
But I don't feel so pressed like before, when I was working in a compny and had one boss. I do what I want and we take a long time to be accustomed to that. I have more free time, but I've been very busy ultimately.
Cotidiano e necessidades básicas
Jo passa a maior parte do tempo cultivando o próprio alimento - produção que ela ainda consegue trocar por roupa, refeições fora de casa e outros produtos e serviços.
Além disso, ela também passou a ajudar os outros, trabalhando em atividades distintas como lavar roupas, cuidar de crianças, ajudar em pequenos negócios e até ensinar a construir fogões rústicos de tijolos, como o que usa no dia a dia.
Jo Nemeth também precisou se virar para lidar com outras necessidades básicas como roupas e produtos de higiene, além de água quente.
Routine and basic necessities
Jo spends the largest part of time cultivating her own food - production that she is still able to change by cloth, meals outside of the house and other products and services.
Beyond this, she passed to help others, working in distinct activities such as washing clothes, take care of children, help in small business and until teach to construct rustic stoves of bricks, as what she uses on a daily basis.
Jo had to turn to deal with other basic necessities such as clothes and products of hygiene products, beyond hot water.
Para se vestir, ainda usa as roupas que tinha antes de viver sem dinheiro, e ganha muitas coisas de quem não quer mais, como amigos e familiares. Quando precisa, também troca roupas usadas por alimentos orgânicos que ela produz.
Com os produtos de higiene, como xampu, pasta de dente e sabonete, ela pede a conhecidos que guardem itens de hotéis e viagens e também que separem restos de produtos para ela.
Usa panos usados como lenços e também como absorvente íntimo. Para lidar com a necessidade de papel higiênico, uma amiga dona de uma lanchonete guarda guardanapos quase não utilizados, ou com pequenas gotas de café, para que ela possa usar.
To wearherself, she still uses the clothes that she had before living without money, and she earns a lot of things that she does not want anymore, such as friends and family members. Whe she needs, she change used clothes as well by organic foods that she produces.
With hygiene products, ans shampoo, toothpaste, and soap, she asks known people that they keep itens of hotels and trips and to separate rests of products to her.
She used cloths such as sheets and as intimin absorvent. To deal with the necessity of a hygiene paper, one friend owner of a cafeteria keeps napkins almost not used, or with small coffee drops, to her be able to use.
Text: Menos estresse, mais liberdade: a australiana que vive há um ano sem dinheiro
Mais tempo livre para trabalhar no que se gosta, ajudar os outros, plantar os próprios alimentos, caminhar mais, ter uma vida mais simples e saudável e reduzir o impacto ambiental do dia a dia.
Tudo isso caberia facilmente em uma lista de desejos de fim de ano ou de objetivos de vida. Mas, para a australiana Jo Nemeth, essa é a realidade há cerca de um ano e meio, quando decidiu viver sem dinheiro. Nada mesmo, nem um centavo.
Less stress, more liberty: the Australian who lives more than one year without money
More free time to work in what she enjoys, to help others, plant the own foods, walk more, and to have one simpler and healthier life and to reduce the environmental impact of the daily basis. Everything of this would easily fit in a list of desires of end year or of objectives of life. However, to the Australian JO, this is the reality for about one year and a half, when she decided to live without money. It is really nothing, nor one cent.
Ela trabalhava com desenvolvimento comunitário, mas sentia que não estava "fazendo a diferença". Em 2014, após ler um livro sobre um casal que percorreu a costa oeste da Austrália de bicicleta e outro sobre o irlandês Mark Boyle, que viveu três anos sem dinheiro, começou a se planejar.
Em março de 2015, começou o novo estilo de vida: sem dinheiro e com menos impacto ambiental.
"Eu tinha um bom trabalho, mas não achava que estava contribuindo de forma positiva, pelo contrário: precisava dirigir o tempo todo, não tinha tempo de cultivar meus alimentos e, acima disso tudo, eu me sentia estressada e infeliz o tempo todo, tendo que trabalhar para pagar contas. E minha vida tinha um impacto muito grande no meio ambiente", disse ela à BBC Brasil.
She used to work with a community development, but she was feeling she was not doing the difference. In 2014, after she had read a book about one couple that traveled the west coast of Australia by bicycle and another about the Ireland Mark, who lived three years without money, started planning. In march of 2015, started a new lifestyle: without money and with less environmental impact. I had a good job, but I was not thinking that I was contributing in a positive way, on the contrary: I was needing drive all the time, I didn't have time to cultivate my foods and, after all, I was feeling stressful and unhappy all the time, having to work to pay the bills. And my life had one serious impact in the environment, she said to BBC Brazil
Nos primeiros 12 meses, ela viveu numa casinha que construiu com material doado no terreno de amigos, e há dois meses está morando com familiares e amigos até a nova casa - uma espécie de trailer que está reformando e que ficará na fazenda de um amigo - ficar pronta.
"Um dos maiores problemas que enfrento é uma voz interna que diz que 'deveria estar vivendo uma vida normal'. Eu me surpreendi com o quanto é difícil se afastar de um modo antigo de pensar, já que tudo tem um valor monetário", conta.
"Mas já não me sinto tão pressionada como antes, quando estava trabalhando em uma empresa e tinha um chefe. Eu faço o que quero e a gente demora a se acostumar com isso. Eu tenho mais tempo livre, mas ando bastante ocupada também".
In the first 12 months, she lived in a humble house that she constructed with donated material in the field of friends, and from two months she was living with family members and friends until the new house - one species of trailers that is reforming and that will be hosted in a friends' farm - be ready.
One of the most serious problems that I face is an intern voice that says "I would have been living a normal life'. I was surprised with how much is hard to move away in a elder way of thinking, as now everything has a monetary value, she tells.
But I don't feel so pressed like before, when I was working in a compny and had one boss. I do what I want and we take a long time to be accustomed to that. I have more free time, but I've been very busy ultimately.
Cotidiano e necessidades básicas
Jo passa a maior parte do tempo cultivando o próprio alimento - produção que ela ainda consegue trocar por roupa, refeições fora de casa e outros produtos e serviços.
Além disso, ela também passou a ajudar os outros, trabalhando em atividades distintas como lavar roupas, cuidar de crianças, ajudar em pequenos negócios e até ensinar a construir fogões rústicos de tijolos, como o que usa no dia a dia.
Jo Nemeth também precisou se virar para lidar com outras necessidades básicas como roupas e produtos de higiene, além de água quente.
Routine and basic necessities
Jo spends the largest part of time cultivating her own food - production that she is still able to change by cloth, meals outside of the house and other products and services.
Beyond this, she passed to help others, working in distinct activities such as washing clothes, take care of children, help in small business and until teach to construct rustic stoves of bricks, as what she uses on a daily basis.
Jo had to turn to deal with other basic necessities such as clothes and products of hygiene products, beyond hot water.
Para se vestir, ainda usa as roupas que tinha antes de viver sem dinheiro, e ganha muitas coisas de quem não quer mais, como amigos e familiares. Quando precisa, também troca roupas usadas por alimentos orgânicos que ela produz.
Com os produtos de higiene, como xampu, pasta de dente e sabonete, ela pede a conhecidos que guardem itens de hotéis e viagens e também que separem restos de produtos para ela.
Usa panos usados como lenços e também como absorvente íntimo. Para lidar com a necessidade de papel higiênico, uma amiga dona de uma lanchonete guarda guardanapos quase não utilizados, ou com pequenas gotas de café, para que ela possa usar.
To wearherself, she still uses the clothes that she had before living without money, and she earns a lot of things that she does not want anymore, such as friends and family members. Whe she needs, she change used clothes as well by organic foods that she produces.
With hygiene products, ans shampoo, toothpaste, and soap, she asks known people that they keep itens of hotels and trips and to separate rests of products to her.
She used cloths such as sheets and as intimin absorvent. To deal with the necessity of a hygiene paper, one friend owner of a cafeteria keeps napkins almost not used, or with small coffee drops, to her be able to use.
Proximo debate será sobre meio ambiente
Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clinton-and-trump-should-address-climate-in-final-debate/
Vocabulary:
remains stalled in the courts
come up with a breakthrough
Text: Clinton and Trump Should Address Climate in Final Debate
Energy Secretary Moniz says candidates should state their positions on climate solutions
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said he wants tonight’s presidential debate moderator to ask about climate change.
But, he said, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump should be asked more than whether they believe in the science behind man-made warming.
“I think it should be very simple: Basically, state a position on climate solutions,” Moniz offered as a sample debate question last night during a lecture at American University in Washington, D.C.
Climate change was largely absent from the past two presidential debates, as well as the one debate between the major parties’ vice presidential nominees, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine (D) and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R). The omission has frustrated environmental activists and some energy analysts.
Moniz added that debates that begin without stipulating that climate change is occurring and that humans are the dominant cause are nonstarters.
“One of the statements I made in my confirmation hearing ... was that ‘I didn’t come to D.C. to debate what’s not debatable.’ Let’s debate the real stuff, like how are we going to respond [to climate change], how much, how fast, where, etc. I think that’s where the question should go,” he said.
The Obama administration is wrestling with these questions while the president’a signature domestic climate policy, the Clean Power Plan, remains stalled (=If an engine stalls, or if you stall it, it stops working suddenly and without you intending it to happen) in the courts.
Moniz touted (=to advertise, talk about, or praise something or someone repeatedly, especially as a way of encouraging people to like, accept, or buy something) significant progress in the international arena, with the signing of the Paris Agreement on climate change last year and an amendment to the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances cemented over the weekend in Kigali, Rwanda (ClimateWire, Oct. 17). Moniz said the amendment to cut emissions of heat-trapping hydrofluorocarbons would avert up to half a degree Celsius of warming.
Moniz also highlighted Mission Innovation and the Breakthrough Energy Coalition as major accomplishments for the administration. Mission Innovation is an agreement among 20 countries to double their investment in clean energy research and development by 2020. The Breakthrough Energy Coalition is a parallel consortium of private investors pledging to advance clean energy technologies into the real world.
However, a cash injection doesn’t guarantee that the world will come up (=aparecer) with a breakthrough energy miracle to meet the world’s demands for power without harming the planet, Moniz said. “One more question we should ask is, do we have in the United States the capacity to effectively absorb that increased funding?” he said.
He argued that the success of programs like the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, which invests in early-stage energy projects, shows that the United States is ready to put more research dollars to good use.
“We’ve got a lot of capacity left to take advantage of innovation,” he said.
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who introduced Moniz at the lecture, reiterated his suggestion from a column in April that called on the next president to persuade Moniz to keep his job in order to maintain momentum in clean energy and fighting climate change.
Moniz did not answer a direct question about whether he would continue in the next administration.
Reprinted from ClimateWire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net. Click here for the original story.
Vocabulary:
remains stalled in the courts
come up with a breakthrough
Text: Clinton and Trump Should Address Climate in Final Debate
Energy Secretary Moniz says candidates should state their positions on climate solutions
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said he wants tonight’s presidential debate moderator to ask about climate change.
But, he said, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump should be asked more than whether they believe in the science behind man-made warming.
“I think it should be very simple: Basically, state a position on climate solutions,” Moniz offered as a sample debate question last night during a lecture at American University in Washington, D.C.
Climate change was largely absent from the past two presidential debates, as well as the one debate between the major parties’ vice presidential nominees, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine (D) and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R). The omission has frustrated environmental activists and some energy analysts.
Moniz added that debates that begin without stipulating that climate change is occurring and that humans are the dominant cause are nonstarters.
“One of the statements I made in my confirmation hearing ... was that ‘I didn’t come to D.C. to debate what’s not debatable.’ Let’s debate the real stuff, like how are we going to respond [to climate change], how much, how fast, where, etc. I think that’s where the question should go,” he said.
The Obama administration is wrestling with these questions while the president’a signature domestic climate policy, the Clean Power Plan, remains stalled (=If an engine stalls, or if you stall it, it stops working suddenly and without you intending it to happen) in the courts.
Moniz touted (=to advertise, talk about, or praise something or someone repeatedly, especially as a way of encouraging people to like, accept, or buy something) significant progress in the international arena, with the signing of the Paris Agreement on climate change last year and an amendment to the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances cemented over the weekend in Kigali, Rwanda (ClimateWire, Oct. 17). Moniz said the amendment to cut emissions of heat-trapping hydrofluorocarbons would avert up to half a degree Celsius of warming.
Moniz also highlighted Mission Innovation and the Breakthrough Energy Coalition as major accomplishments for the administration. Mission Innovation is an agreement among 20 countries to double their investment in clean energy research and development by 2020. The Breakthrough Energy Coalition is a parallel consortium of private investors pledging to advance clean energy technologies into the real world.
However, a cash injection doesn’t guarantee that the world will come up (=aparecer) with a breakthrough energy miracle to meet the world’s demands for power without harming the planet, Moniz said. “One more question we should ask is, do we have in the United States the capacity to effectively absorb that increased funding?” he said.
He argued that the success of programs like the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, which invests in early-stage energy projects, shows that the United States is ready to put more research dollars to good use.
“We’ve got a lot of capacity left to take advantage of innovation,” he said.
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who introduced Moniz at the lecture, reiterated his suggestion from a column in April that called on the next president to persuade Moniz to keep his job in order to maintain momentum in clean energy and fighting climate change.
Moniz did not answer a direct question about whether he would continue in the next administration.
Reprinted from ClimateWire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net. Click here for the original story.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)