Enviar respuesta 
 
Calificación:
  • 0 votos - 0 Media
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Buscar en el tema
[Aporte] [Inglés Técnico II - Especialidad K | I ] Final 13/12/17
Autor Mensaje
Omnipresent Sin conexión
Campeon del cubo Rubik
The Winter is Coming...
****

Ing. en Sistemas
Facultad Regional Buenos Aires

Mensajes: 197
Agradecimientos dados: 48
Agradecimientos: 62 en 49 posts
Registro en: Sep 2014
Mensaje: #1
[Aporte] [Inglés Técnico II - Especialidad K | I ] Final 13/12/17 Finales Inglés II
Hola, les paso a dejar el final que tomaron el día 13/12/17.

Lo pueden encontrar acá: Link (no se asusten, es solo hasta la parte de "New Economy?" - página 2).

Por si se cae el sitio, dejo el texto acá también:
Spoiler: Mostrar
How Technology Is Destroying Jobs
By David Rotman - MIT Technology Review Magazine, July/August 2013

Why It Matters
Economic theory and government policy will have to be rethought if technology is indeed destroying jobs faster than it is creating new ones. Given his calm and reasoned academic demeanor, it is easy to miss just how provocative Erik Brynjolfsson’s contention really is. Brynjolfsson, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and his collaborator and coauthor Andrew McAfee have been arguing for the last year and a half that impressive advances in computer technology—from improved industrial robotics to automated translation services—are largely behind the sluggish employment growth of the last 10 to 15 years. Even more ominous for workers, the MIT academics foresee dismal prospects for many types of jobs as these powerful new technologies are increasingly adopted not only in manufacturing, clerical, and retail work but in professions such as law, financial services, education, and medicine.

That robots, automation, and software can replace people might seem obvious to anyone who’s worked in automotive manufacturing or as a travel agent. But Brynjolfsson and McAfee’s claim is more troubling and controversial. They believe that rapid technological change has been destroying jobs faster than it is creating them, contributing to the stagnation of median income and the growth of inequality in the United States. And, they suspect, something similar is happening in other technologically advanced countries.

Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence, according to Brynjolfsson, is a chart that only an economist could love. In economics, productivity—the amount of economic value created for a given unit of input, such as an hour of labor—is a crucial indicator of growth and wealth creation. It is a measure of progress. On the chart Brynjolfsson likes to show, separate lines represent productivity and total employment in the United States. For years after World War II, the two lines closely tracked each other, with increases in jobs corresponding to increases in productivity. The pattern is clear: as businesses generated more value from their workers, the country as a whole became richer, which fueled more economic activity and created even more jobs. Then, beginning in 2000, the lines diverge; productivity continues to rise robustly, but employment suddenly wilts. By 2011, a significant gap appears between the two lines, showing economic growth with no parallel increase in job creation. Brynjolfsson and McAfee call it the “great decoupling.” And Brynjolfsson says he is confident that technology is behind both the healthy growth in productivity and the weak growth in jobs.

It’s a startling assertion because it threatens the faith that many economists place in technological progress. Brynjolfsson and McAfee still believe that technology boosts productivity and makes societies wealthier, but they think that it can also have a dark side: technological progress is eliminating the need for many types of jobs and leaving the typical worker worse off than before. Brynjolfsson can point to a second chart indicating that median income is failing to rise even as the gross domestic product soars. “It’s the great paradox of our era,” he says. “Productivity is at record levels, innovation has never been faster, and yet at the same time, we have a falling median income and we have fewer jobs. People are falling behind because technology is advancing so fast and our
skills and organizations aren’t keeping up.”

Brynjolfsson and McAfee are not Luddites. Indeed, they are sometimes accused of being too optimistic about the extent and speed of recent digital advances. Brynjolfsson says they began writing Race Against the Machine, the 2011 book in which they laid out much of their argument, because they wanted to explain the economic benefits of these new technologies (Brynjolfsson spent much of the 1990s sniffing out evidence that information technology was boosting rates of productivity). But it became clear to them that the same technologies making many jobs safer, easier, and more productive were also reducing the demand for many types of human workers.

Anecdotal evidence that digital technologies threaten jobs is, of course, everywhere. Robots and advanced automation have been common in many types of manufacturing for decades. In the United States and China, the world’s manufacturing powerhouses, fewer people work in manufacturing today than in 1997, thanks at least in part to automation. Modern automotive plants, many of which were transformed by industrial robotics in the 1980s, routinely use machines that autonomously weld and paint body parts—tasks that were once handled by humans. Most recently, industrial robots like Rethink Robotics’ Baxter (see “The Blue-Collar Robot,” May/June 2013), more flexible and far cheaper than their predecessors, have been introduced to perform simple jobs for small manufacturers in a variety of sectors. The website of a Silicon Valley startup called Industrial Perception features a video of the robot it has designed for use in warehouses picking up and throwing boxes like a bored elephant. And such sensations as Google’s driverless car suggest what automation might be able to accomplish someday soon.

A less dramatic change, but one with a potentially far larger impact on employment, is taking place in clerical work and professional services. Technologies like the Web, artificial intelligence, big data, and improved analytics—all made possible by the ever increasing availability of cheap computing power and storage capacity— are automating many routine tasks. Countless traditional white-collar jobs, such as many in the post office and in customer service, have disappeared. W. Brian Arthur, a visiting researcher at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center’s intelligence systems lab and a former economics professor at Stanford University, calls it the “autonomous economy.” It’s far more subtle than the idea of robots and automation doing human jobs, he says: it involves “digital processes talking to other digital processes and creating new processes,” enabling us to do many things with fewer people and making yet other human jobs obsolete.

It is this onslaught of digital processes, says Arthur, that primarily explains how productivity has grown without a significant increase in human labor. And, he says, “digital versions of human intelligence” are increasingly replacing even those jobs once thought to require people. “It will change every profession in ways we have barely seen yet,” he warns.

McAfee, associate director of the MIT Center for Digital Business at the Sloan School of Management, speaks rapidly and with a certain awe as he describes advances such as Google’s driverless car. Still, despite his obvious enthusiasm for the technologies, he doesn’t see the recently vanished jobs coming back. The pressure on employment and the resulting inequality will only get worse, he suggests, as digital technologies—fueled with “enough computing power, data, and geeks”—continue their exponential advances over the next several decades. “I would like to be wrong,” he says, “but when all these science-fiction technologies are deployed, what will we need all the people for?”

Preguntas (no textuales):
Spoiler: Mostrar
1) Explicar a qué se refiere cuando se hace mención a "great decoupling".
2) Explicar a qué se refiere con "economía autónoma". ¿Porqué se relaciona con el argumento del texto?
3) ¿Cuál es la afirmación más polémica que realizan McAfee y Brynjolfsson?
4) En el último párrafo explicar cuál es la relación lógica de las palabras remarcadas. ¿Qué ideas conectan?
5) Explicar la línea: "Brynjolfsson and McAfee are not Luddites.". Indique las razones del autor para realizar dicha afirmación.

Datos plus:
Spoiler: Mostrar
-> Duro 1:30hs. Sobró tiempo, la mayoría lo terminó en una hora.
-> La pregunta 3) es una pregunta abierta. Se podía responder de muchas formas pero era importante atenerse a lo que decía el texto.
-> La longitud del texto era 1 carilla y media (1 hoja A4).
-> Fue interesante el texto jeje

The End wave
(Este mensaje fue modificado por última vez en: 14-12-2017 00:49 por Omnipresent.)
13-12-2017 22:10
Encuentra todos sus mensajes Agregar agradecimiento Cita este mensaje en tu respuesta
[-] Omnipresent recibio 4 Gracias por este post
axelito97 (14-12-2017), H3rnst (14-12-2017), diegomsaiz (14-12-2017), fatiilluch (13-02-2018)
H3rnst Sin conexión
Secretario de la SAE
Overlord
******

Ing. en Sistemas
Facultad Regional Buenos Aires

Mensajes: 619
Agradecimientos dados: 207
Agradecimientos: 77 en 36 posts
Registro en: Sep 2010
Mensaje: #2
RE: [Aporte] [Inglés Técnico II - Especialidad K | I ] Final 13/12/17
Estoy de acuerdo en casi todo con vos, pero me parece que la pregunta 3 hacía referencia a ésta parte del texto (el énfasis y el subrayado son míos)

Spoiler: Mostrar
That robots, automation, and software can replace people might seem obvious to anyone who’s worked in automotive manufacturing or as a travel agent. But Brynjolfsson and McAfee’s claim is more troubling and controversial. They believe that rapid technological change has been destroying jobs faster than it is creating them, contributing to the stagnation of median income and the growth of inequality in the United States. And, they suspect, something similar is happening in other technologically advanced countries.

Creo que la parte en negrita es el gancho para darte cuenta que por ahí está la respuesta, y el subrayado es la respuesta.

Gracias por subirlo thumbup3
14-12-2017 07:19
Encuentra todos sus mensajes Agregar agradecimiento Cita este mensaje en tu respuesta
fatiilluch Sin conexión
Empleado del buffet
Si atas un hilo a tu dedo se p...
*

Ing. en Sistemas
Facultad Regional Buenos Aires

Mensajes: 23
Agradecimientos dados: 45
Agradecimientos: 3 en 2 posts
Registro en: Mar 2016
Mensaje: #3
RE: [Aporte] [Inglés Técnico II - Especialidad K | I ] Final 13/12/17
Muchas Gracias! Voy a rendir ingles II libre mañana y no estaba segura de como sería el examen =)

Una consulta, yo tengo un diccionario pero no creo q me sirva (es viejito), se puede conseguir alguno mas actual en la biblioteca?
13-02-2018 16:21
Visita su sitio web Encuentra todos sus mensajes Agregar agradecimiento Cita este mensaje en tu respuesta
Omnipresent Sin conexión
Campeon del cubo Rubik
The Winter is Coming...
****

Ing. en Sistemas
Facultad Regional Buenos Aires

Mensajes: 197
Agradecimientos dados: 48
Agradecimientos: 62 en 49 posts
Registro en: Sep 2014
Mensaje: #4
RE: [Aporte] [Inglés Técnico II - Especialidad K | I ] Final 13/12/17
fatiilluch Sí, si mal no recuerdo, una hora antes del final la biblioteca comienza a dar los diccionarios que tienen. Solo tenés que dejar tu DNI y te lo prestan.
(Este mensaje fue modificado por última vez en: 13-02-2018 17:53 por Omnipresent.)
13-02-2018 17:53
Encuentra todos sus mensajes Agregar agradecimiento Cita este mensaje en tu respuesta
fatiilluch Sin conexión
Empleado del buffet
Si atas un hilo a tu dedo se p...
*

Ing. en Sistemas
Facultad Regional Buenos Aires

Mensajes: 23
Agradecimientos dados: 45
Agradecimientos: 3 en 2 posts
Registro en: Mar 2016
Mensaje: #5
RE: [Aporte] [Inglés Técnico II - Especialidad K | I ] Final 13/12/17
Buenisimo! muchas gracias =)
13-02-2018 19:12
Visita su sitio web Encuentra todos sus mensajes Agregar agradecimiento Cita este mensaje en tu respuesta
Vahanishe Sin conexión
Empleado del buffet
Sin estado :(
*

Ing. en Sistemas
Facultad Regional Buenos Aires

Mensajes: 6
Agradecimientos dados: 4
Agradecimientos: 2 en 2 posts
Registro en: Apr 2013
Mensaje: #6
RE: [Aporte] [Inglés Técnico II - Especialidad K | I ] Final 13/12/17
Buenaaaas!

Una duda que me quedó, en este formato nuevo de examen todas las preguntas se contestan directamente en español?

Muchas gracias.
19-02-2018 22:47
Encuentra todos sus mensajes Agregar agradecimiento Cita este mensaje en tu respuesta
Damianx Sin conexión
Militante
Sin estado :(
***

Ing. en Sistemas
Facultad Regional Buenos Aires

Mensajes: 93
Agradecimientos dados: 22
Agradecimientos: 33 en 21 posts
Registro en: Mar 2013
Mensaje: #7
RE: [Aporte] [Inglés Técnico II - Especialidad K | I ] Final 13/12/17
(19-02-2018 22:47)Vahanishe escribió:  Buenaaaas!

Una duda que me quedó, en este formato nuevo de examen todas las preguntas se contestan directamente en español?

Muchas gracias.

Correcto, las respuestas son en español.

Saludos.
20-02-2018 09:10
Encuentra todos sus mensajes Agregar agradecimiento Cita este mensaje en tu respuesta
Buscar en el tema
Enviar respuesta 




Usuario(s) navegando en este tema: 1 invitado(s)



    This forum uses Lukasz Tkacz MyBB addons.