Les anglonautes

About | Search | Vocapedia | Learning | Podcasts | Videos | History | Culture | Science | Translate

 Previous Home Up Next


learning > grammaire anglaise - niveau avancé




adjectifs / adjectifs substantivés / adverbes


comparatif de supériorité



adjectif régulier

de une syllabe

(young, old, big, hot, warm, clean,

fast, smart, tough, weak, poor...)


comparatif de supériorité :


adjectifrégulier de 1 syllabe + -er





















































































































































































adjectif régulier en -y

de deux syllabes

(crazy, brawny, deadly...)


comparatif de supériorité :


Adjectifrégulier de 2 syllabes + transformation du y en i + -er




Gary McCoy


The Suburban Journals



12 January 2011


L: Jared Lee Loughner
















































adjectif irrégulier

de une syllabe


au comparatif de supériorité :





















































adjectif irrégulier

de une syllabe



comparatif de supériorité :





















The Guardian        p. 4        24 November 2005
















de deux / trois syllabes

(secure, contagious...)


comparatif de supériorité :


more + adjectif


more secure,

more contagious




Let’s Build a More Secure Internet


October 8, 2013

The New York Times



Let’s Build a More Secure Internet,
NYT, 8.10.2013,



























adjectifs substantivés (= nominalisés),

et adverbes

au comparatif de supériorité


autres énoncés





Steve Bell

The Guardian

p. 33

25 October 2005


British Prime Minister Tony Blair



Blair sweeps aside critics of school reform

Michael White and Matthew Taylor


Tuesday October 25, 2005



















Dave Brown

The Independent

8 November 2005


Center: British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
















The Guardian        p. 17        14 May 2007

















The Guardian        G2        p. 12        28 March 2007






































































The Guardian        G2        p. 8        8 September 2006
















G2        p. 1





























The Guardian        p. 12        7.2.2006

















The Guardian        G2        p. 6        24.11.2005

















The Guardian        Weekend        p. 24        22.10.2005
















The Guardian        p. 18        14.11.2005

















Guardian        p. 16        28.8.2004
















The Guardian        p. 15        28.1.2005
















The Guardian        p. 21        25 May 2005
















Fannie and Freddie are Back,

Bigger and Badder Than Ever


JULY 20, 2015

The New York Times

The Opinion Pages

Op-Ed Contributor



AFTER the financial crisis of 2008, there was one thing that almost everyone agreed on. The government-sponsored mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, had to go. While shareholders and executives reaped the profits from Fannie and Freddie in good times, taxpayers were stuck with the bill in a crisis. President Obama described their dysfunctional business model as “Heads we win, tails you lose.” But here we are, seven years after the crisis, and nothing has changed.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were meant to make it easier for Americans to buy their own homes. By buying up mortgages issued by other lenders, they enabled the lenders to make more loans. Fannie and Freddie could then package the payments that Americans made on their home mortgages into securities to sell to investors, from big bond funds to foreign central banks. In this way, a saver in China financed the purchase of a home in Kansas.

In many ways, the system worked beautifully. But Fannie and Freddie accrued tremendous power and wealth because of the primacy of housing at the center of the American dream, combined with the perception that these loans had the full backing of the United States government. They abused that perception. Executives paid themselves lavish salaries, and the companies, particularly Fannie, relentlessly lobbied Congress to keep their advantages and dodge regulations.

In the 2008 crisis, when it looked as if Fannie and Freddie might go bankrupt, Henry M. Paulson Jr., then the Treasury secretary, argued that their fall would cause economic catastrophe. Foreign investors, stuck with their securities, would panic, and the mortgage market would shut down. So Fannie and Freddie were put into something called conservatorship, and are now government controlled, supported by a line of credit from the Treasury.

Conservatorship was supposed to be temporary — a “time out,” according to Mr. Paulson. We were going to stabilize the companies’ finances, reduce their importance to the mortgage market, and figure out a better system. But nothing happened. In fact, the situation has gotten even more precarious. In the years since the crisis, private lenders, for the most part, have been willing to make mortgages if they can immediately sell them to government agencies, mainly Fannie and Freddie. In other words, without Fannie and Freddie, there wouldn’t be much of a mortgage market.

To make things worse, the government decided to “sweep” almost all the duo’s profits into its own coffers, to be used as a slush fund for general government expenses. As Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew said in congressional testimony this spring, “As a practical matter it’s what has helped us reduce our overall deficit.” If there is another downturn in the real estate market and Fannie and Freddie suffer losses on their some $5 trillion in outstanding securities, taxpayers will again have to foot the bill. Jim Parrott, a senior adviser with the National Economic Council in the Obama administration and now a fellow at the Urban Institute, wrote that the current system was “the worst of all worlds: It attracts too little private capital, provides too little mortgage credit, and still poses too much risk to the taxpayer.”

There has been one serious attempt to get rid of Fannie and Freddie, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Senators Bob Corker (Republican of Tennessee) and Mark Warner (Democrat of Virginia) that did not make it out of the Senate.

But is it really practical to kill Fannie and Freddie? We as a society want much of what they provide, which is relatively consistent access, through good times and bad, for a wide section of society, to a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. Critics argued that the Corker-Warner plan would essentially turn the mortgage market over to the big banks, and lead to fewer loans at higher rates.

At a time of economic uncertainty, when income inequality is a major issue, it is also not a great thing for social cohesion to require those at the lower end of the income scale to start paying far higher rates for their mortgages than those at the upper end, which most analysts agree would be the case if purely private capital financed the mortgage market.

If we can’t do any better, isn’t it time to fix what we have and ease Fannie and Freddie out of conservatorship? The first step is to stop sending all their dividends to the Treasury. That would allow them to start rebuilding capital, eventually to a level substantially higher than what they were allowed to operate with before the crisis. Then, let’s devise a tighter regulatory structure, one that limits the businesses in which Fannie and Freddie can operate, limits the incentives of their management teams to take risk, and limits their ability to lobby. We could cap the returns to shareholders, as utilities do.

Franklin D. Raines, Fannie’s former chief executive, suggests structuring them like mutual insurance companies, which are owned by their policyholders, who would in this case be homeowners, rather than shareholders. A guarantee fund, modeled after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, could support the companies in times of stress as the F.D.I.C. does banks. It would not be perfect. But if the alternative is doing nothing, it’s a whole lot better than that.

Bethany McLean is the co-author of “The Smartest Guys in the Room” and author of the forthcoming book “Shaky Ground: The Strange Saga of the U.S. Mortgage Giants.”

A version of this op-ed appears in print on July 20, 2015, on page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Our Doddering Mortgage Zombies.

Fannie and Freddie are Back, Bigger and Badder Than Ever,
JULY 20, 2015,






Let’s Build a More Secure Internet


October 8, 2013

The New York Times



ARLINGTON, Va. — CAN we ever trust the Internet again?

In the wake of the disclosures about the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs, considerable attention has been focused on the agency’s collaboration with companies like Microsoft, Apple and Google, which according to leaked documents appear to have programmed “back door” encryption weaknesses into popular consumer products and services like Hotmail, iPhones and Android phones.

But while such vulnerabilities are worrisome, equally important — and because of their technical nature, far less widely understood — are the weaknesses that the N.S.A. seems to have built into the very infrastructure of the Internet. The agency’s “upstream collection” capabilities, programs with names like Fairview and Blarney, monitor Internet traffic as it passes through the guts of the system: the cables and routers and switches.

The concern is that even if consumer software companies like Microsoft and telecommunications companies like AT&T and Verizon stop cooperating with the N.S.A., your online security will remain compromised as long as the agency can still take advantage of weaknesses in the Internet itself.

Fortunately, there is something we can do: encourage the development of an “open hardware” movement — an extension of the open-source movement that has led to software products like the Mozilla browser and the Linux operating system.

The open-source movement champions an approach to product development in which there is universal access to a blueprint, as well as universal ability to modify and redistribute the blueprint. Wikipedia is perhaps the best-known example of a product inspired by the movement. Open-source advocates typically emphasize two kinds of freedom that their products afford: they are available free of charge, and they can be used and manipulated free of restrictions.

But there is a third kind of freedom inherent in open-source systems: the freedom to audit. With open-source software, independent security experts can scrutinize the code for vulnerabilities — whether accidentally or intentionally introduced. The more auditing by the programming masses, the better the security. As the open-source software advocate Eric S. Raymond has put it, “given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.”

Perhaps the greatest open-source success story is the Internet itself — at least its “soft” parts. The Internet’s communications protocols and the software that implements them are collaboratively engineered by loose networks of programmers working outside the control of any single person, company or government. The Internet Engineering Task Force, which develops core Internet protocols, does not even have formal membership and seeks contributions from developers all over the world.

But the problem is that the physical layer of the Internet’s infrastructure — the hardware that transmits, directs and relays traffic online, as well as its closely knit software (or “firmware”) — is not open-source. It is made by commercial computing companies like Cisco, Hewlett-Packard and Juniper Networks according to proprietary designs, and then sold to governments, universities, private companies and anyone else who wants to set up a network.

There is reason to be skeptical about the security of these networking products. The hardware firms that make them often compete for contracts with the United States military and presumably face considerable pressure to maintain good relations with the government. It stands to reason that such pressure might lead companies to collaborate with the government on surveillance-related requests.

Because these hardware designs are closed to public scrutiny, it is relatively easy for surveillance at the Internet’s infrastructural level to go undetected. To make the Internet less susceptible to mass surveillance, we need to recreate the physical layer of its infrastructure on the basis of open-source principles.

At the moment, the open hardware movement is limited mostly to hobbyists — engineers who use the Internet to collaboratively build “open” devices like the RepRap 3D printer. But the Internet community, through a concerted effort like the one that currently sustains the Internet’s software architecture, could also develop open-source, Internet-grade hardware. Governments like Brazil’s that have forsworn further involvement with American Internet companies could adopt such nonproprietary equipment designs and have them manufactured locally, free from any N.S.A. interference.

The result would be Internet infrastructure, both hardware and software, that was 100 percent open and auditable.

But never, of course, 100 percent secure. The N.S.A. could still try to exploit the Internet’s open hardware. And of course, open hardware would do little to prevent the government from reading e-mail if it still had the cooperation of companies like Microsoft or Google. Open hardware is not a panacea.

Still, open hardware would at a minimum make the N.S.A.’s Internet surveillance efforts more difficult and less effective. And it would increase the difficulty of surveillance not just for the N.S.A. but also for foreign governments that might otherwise piggyback on N.S.A.-introduced security vulnerabilities.

A 100 percent open-infrastructure Internet — a trustworthy Internet — would be an important step in the empowerment of individuals against their governments the world over.


Eli Dourado is a research fellow

with the technology policy program

at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Let’s Build a More Secure Internet,
NYT, 8.10.2013,






Tony Blair last night shrugged off a rise in inflation

to its highest level in almost seven years

as the City raised the spectre of an increase in interest rates

immediately after the election.

With Labour making the economy the central thrust

of its campaign for a third term,

the prime minister played down

the impact of dearer air fares, more expensive food

and costlier petrol.

    Blair brushes off jump in inflation:
    Foreign travel, food and oil prices point to May rate rise, G, 20.4.2005,






Insurgents Using Bigger, More Lethal Bombs,

U.S. Officers Say

Headline, NYT, 4.8.2005,






With Labour making the economy

the central thrust of its campaign for a third term,

the prime minister played down the impact of dearer air fares,

more expensive food and costlier petrol.

Climate change a greater threat than terror

- Lib Dems

Headline, G, 21.9.2004,






WASHINGTON (Reuters) -

The U.S. economy grew much more slowly

than previously thought in the first quarter

and inflation was higher,

a government report showed on Friday.

    Quarterly Growth Slashed, Inflation Up, R, 25.6.2004,






Make your escape with a Virgin value fare.

There are thousands to choose from on our west coast routes

when you buy at least 14, 7 or 3 days in advance.

Other fares are available for immediate travel

but the earlier you buy the better the deal.

Catch them while you can.

Catch the next train out, Virgin ad, GI, p. 9, 26.6.2003.






Wall Street bulls held this as an article of faith:

computers inspire us to work better, smarter, faster.

Headline, Mystery solved, p. 18, N, 29.1.2001.






Set up a detailed job search

then save your preferences for next time

to make job-hunting quicker and easier.

www.guardian.co.uk/jobs ad,
GI / Review, p.22, 14.6.2003.






The talented Tom Ripley is back.

Older. Wiser. More dangerous.

Ripley's Game ad, p. 3, 30.5.2003.






"It will turn cooler, cloudier

and wetter for a few days,

but another area of high pressure

will return by the end of the week."

Sunniest March for 40 years, GE, p. 5, 1.4.2003.






'This campaign will make us safer;

it has the potential of making the world freer,

justifying our hopes.'

Let's finish off Saddam, GE, p. 7, 7.3.3003.






As the United States readies for a possible conflict in Iraq,

many of the star weapons from the Persian Gulf war of 1991

are back and deadlier than ever.

The smart bombs are smarter.

The stealth planes are sneakier.

Even the ground troops are better equipped

than they were a dozen years ago.

Weapons Take Aim At Enemy's Circuitry, NYT/Le Monde, 2/3.3.2003.






Seize opportunities when they arise.

Leave whenever you want.

Get there faster. Get home sooner.

Netjets ad, E, 30.11.2002.






Everyone knows Linux costs less

Now it's faster and more reliable too.

Oracle ad, E, 30.11.2002.






Life's becoming even easier than ever before

thanks to the intelligent networking

of digital products from LG.

LG ad, E, 30.11.2002.






As you get older,

your health continues

to be vital to your everyday life.

Bupa ad, E, 30.11.2002.






For more than fifty years,

our leadership in building airplanes

that fly faster and farther

has helped Boeing connect continents

and cultures around the world.

And today, with new extended range models

of the 747, 757, 767 and 777,

that leadership has never been greater.

Which means the distance between any two places

in the world has never been shorter.

Boeing ad, E, 30.11.2002.










Related > Anglonautes >

Grammaire anglaise explicative - niveau avancé








Related > Anglonautes > Learning >

Grammaire explicative en BD - niveau débutant / révisions


adjectif / adverbe

au comparatif de supériorité




home Up