Questões da Prova FCC - 2011 - TRE-RN - Programador de computador
Foram encontradas 60 questões
Resolva questões gratuitamente!
Junte-se a mais de 4 milhões de concurseiros!
Q105420
Inglês
Texto associado
Technology and legal pressure have changed
spammers’ terms of trade. They long relied on sending
more e-mails from more computers, knowing that some
will get through. But it is hard to send 100m e-mails
without someone noticing. In 2008 researchers from the
University of California at Berkeley and San Diego posed
as spammers, infiltrated a botnet and measured its
success rate. The investigation confirmed only 28 “sales”
on 350m e-mail messages sent, a conversion rate
under .00001%. Since then the numbers have got worse.
But spammers are a creative bunch.
of tricking
consumers into a purchase, they are stealing their money
directly. Links used to direct the gullible to a site selling
counterfeits. Now they install “Trojan” software that
ransacks hard drives for bank details and the like.
Spammers also have become more sophisticated
about exploiting trust. In few places is it granted more
readily than on social-networking sites. Twitter, a forum for
short, telegram-like messages, estimates that only 1% of
its traffic is spam. But researchers from the University of
California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at
Champaign-Urbana show that 8% of links published were
shady, with
of them leading to scams and the rest to
Trojans. Links in Twitter messages, they found, are over
20 times more likely to get clicked than those in e-mail
spam.
Nor is Facebook as safe as it seems. As an
experiment, BitDefender, an online-security firm, set up
fake profiles on the social network and asked strangers to
enter into a digital friendship. They were able to create as
many as 100 new friends a day. Offering a profile picture,
particularly of a pretty woman, increased their odds. When
the firm’s researchers expanded their requests to strangers
who shared even one mutual friend, almost half accepted.
Worse, a quarter of BitDefender’s new friends clicked on
links posted by the firm, even when the destination was
obscured.
(Adapted from http://www.economist.com/node/17519964)
Technology and legal pressure have changed
spammers’ terms of trade. They long relied on sending
more e-mails from more computers, knowing that some
will get through. But it is hard to send 100m e-mails
without someone noticing. In 2008 researchers from the
University of California at Berkeley and San Diego posed
as spammers, infiltrated a botnet and measured its
success rate. The investigation confirmed only 28 “sales”
on 350m e-mail messages sent, a conversion rate
under .00001%. Since then the numbers have got worse.
But spammers are a creative bunch.
of tricking consumers into a purchase, they are stealing their money
directly. Links used to direct the gullible to a site selling
counterfeits. Now they install “Trojan” software that
ransacks hard drives for bank details and the like.
Spammers also have become more sophisticated
about exploiting trust. In few places is it granted more
readily than on social-networking sites. Twitter, a forum for
short, telegram-like messages, estimates that only 1% of
its traffic is spam. But researchers from the University of
California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at
Champaign-Urbana show that 8% of links published were
shady, with
of them leading to scams and the rest to Trojans. Links in Twitter messages, they found, are over
20 times more likely to get clicked than those in e-mail
spam.
Nor is Facebook as safe as it seems. As an
experiment, BitDefender, an online-security firm, set up
fake profiles on the social network and asked strangers to
enter into a digital friendship. They were able to create as
many as 100 new friends a day. Offering a profile picture,
particularly of a pretty woman, increased their odds. When
the firm’s researchers expanded their requests to strangers
who shared even one mutual friend, almost half accepted.
Worse, a quarter of BitDefender’s new friends clicked on
links posted by the firm, even when the destination was
obscured.
(Adapted from http://www.economist.com/node/17519964)
A alternativa que preenche corretamente a lacuna 
é
é
Q105419
Inglês
Texto associado
Technology and legal pressure have changed
spammers’ terms of trade. They long relied on sending
more e-mails from more computers, knowing that some
will get through. But it is hard to send 100m e-mails
without someone noticing. In 2008 researchers from the
University of California at Berkeley and San Diego posed
as spammers, infiltrated a botnet and measured its
success rate. The investigation confirmed only 28 “sales”
on 350m e-mail messages sent, a conversion rate
under .00001%. Since then the numbers have got worse.
But spammers are a creative bunch.
of tricking
consumers into a purchase, they are stealing their money
directly. Links used to direct the gullible to a site selling
counterfeits. Now they install “Trojan” software that
ransacks hard drives for bank details and the like.
Spammers also have become more sophisticated
about exploiting trust. In few places is it granted more
readily than on social-networking sites. Twitter, a forum for
short, telegram-like messages, estimates that only 1% of
its traffic is spam. But researchers from the University of
California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at
Champaign-Urbana show that 8% of links published were
shady, with
of them leading to scams and the rest to
Trojans. Links in Twitter messages, they found, are over
20 times more likely to get clicked than those in e-mail
spam.
Nor is Facebook as safe as it seems. As an
experiment, BitDefender, an online-security firm, set up
fake profiles on the social network and asked strangers to
enter into a digital friendship. They were able to create as
many as 100 new friends a day. Offering a profile picture,
particularly of a pretty woman, increased their odds. When
the firm’s researchers expanded their requests to strangers
who shared even one mutual friend, almost half accepted.
Worse, a quarter of BitDefender’s new friends clicked on
links posted by the firm, even when the destination was
obscured.
(Adapted from http://www.economist.com/node/17519964)
Technology and legal pressure have changed
spammers’ terms of trade. They long relied on sending
more e-mails from more computers, knowing that some
will get through. But it is hard to send 100m e-mails
without someone noticing. In 2008 researchers from the
University of California at Berkeley and San Diego posed
as spammers, infiltrated a botnet and measured its
success rate. The investigation confirmed only 28 “sales”
on 350m e-mail messages sent, a conversion rate
under .00001%. Since then the numbers have got worse.
But spammers are a creative bunch.
of tricking consumers into a purchase, they are stealing their money
directly. Links used to direct the gullible to a site selling
counterfeits. Now they install “Trojan” software that
ransacks hard drives for bank details and the like.
Spammers also have become more sophisticated
about exploiting trust. In few places is it granted more
readily than on social-networking sites. Twitter, a forum for
short, telegram-like messages, estimates that only 1% of
its traffic is spam. But researchers from the University of
California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at
Champaign-Urbana show that 8% of links published were
shady, with
of them leading to scams and the rest to Trojans. Links in Twitter messages, they found, are over
20 times more likely to get clicked than those in e-mail
spam.
Nor is Facebook as safe as it seems. As an
experiment, BitDefender, an online-security firm, set up
fake profiles on the social network and asked strangers to
enter into a digital friendship. They were able to create as
many as 100 new friends a day. Offering a profile picture,
particularly of a pretty woman, increased their odds. When
the firm’s researchers expanded their requests to strangers
who shared even one mutual friend, almost half accepted.
Worse, a quarter of BitDefender’s new friends clicked on
links posted by the firm, even when the destination was
obscured.
(Adapted from http://www.economist.com/node/17519964)
De acordo com o texto,
Q105418
Inglês
Texto associado
Technology and legal pressure have changed
spammers’ terms of trade. They long relied on sending
more e-mails from more computers, knowing that some
will get through. But it is hard to send 100m e-mails
without someone noticing. In 2008 researchers from the
University of California at Berkeley and San Diego posed
as spammers, infiltrated a botnet and measured its
success rate. The investigation confirmed only 28 “sales”
on 350m e-mail messages sent, a conversion rate
under .00001%. Since then the numbers have got worse.
But spammers are a creative bunch.
of tricking
consumers into a purchase, they are stealing their money
directly. Links used to direct the gullible to a site selling
counterfeits. Now they install “Trojan” software that
ransacks hard drives for bank details and the like.
Spammers also have become more sophisticated
about exploiting trust. In few places is it granted more
readily than on social-networking sites. Twitter, a forum for
short, telegram-like messages, estimates that only 1% of
its traffic is spam. But researchers from the University of
California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at
Champaign-Urbana show that 8% of links published were
shady, with
of them leading to scams and the rest to
Trojans. Links in Twitter messages, they found, are over
20 times more likely to get clicked than those in e-mail
spam.
Nor is Facebook as safe as it seems. As an
experiment, BitDefender, an online-security firm, set up
fake profiles on the social network and asked strangers to
enter into a digital friendship. They were able to create as
many as 100 new friends a day. Offering a profile picture,
particularly of a pretty woman, increased their odds. When
the firm’s researchers expanded their requests to strangers
who shared even one mutual friend, almost half accepted.
Worse, a quarter of BitDefender’s new friends clicked on
links posted by the firm, even when the destination was
obscured.
(Adapted from http://www.economist.com/node/17519964)
Technology and legal pressure have changed
spammers’ terms of trade. They long relied on sending
more e-mails from more computers, knowing that some
will get through. But it is hard to send 100m e-mails
without someone noticing. In 2008 researchers from the
University of California at Berkeley and San Diego posed
as spammers, infiltrated a botnet and measured its
success rate. The investigation confirmed only 28 “sales”
on 350m e-mail messages sent, a conversion rate
under .00001%. Since then the numbers have got worse.
But spammers are a creative bunch.
of tricking consumers into a purchase, they are stealing their money
directly. Links used to direct the gullible to a site selling
counterfeits. Now they install “Trojan” software that
ransacks hard drives for bank details and the like.
Spammers also have become more sophisticated
about exploiting trust. In few places is it granted more
readily than on social-networking sites. Twitter, a forum for
short, telegram-like messages, estimates that only 1% of
its traffic is spam. But researchers from the University of
California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at
Champaign-Urbana show that 8% of links published were
shady, with
of them leading to scams and the rest to Trojans. Links in Twitter messages, they found, are over
20 times more likely to get clicked than those in e-mail
spam.
Nor is Facebook as safe as it seems. As an
experiment, BitDefender, an online-security firm, set up
fake profiles on the social network and asked strangers to
enter into a digital friendship. They were able to create as
many as 100 new friends a day. Offering a profile picture,
particularly of a pretty woman, increased their odds. When
the firm’s researchers expanded their requests to strangers
who shared even one mutual friend, almost half accepted.
Worse, a quarter of BitDefender’s new friends clicked on
links posted by the firm, even when the destination was
obscured.
(Adapted from http://www.economist.com/node/17519964)
A alternativa que preenche corretamente a lacuna 
é
é
Q105417
Português
Texto associado
João e Maria
Agora eu era o herói
E o meu cavalo só falava inglês
A noiva do cowboy
Era você
Além das outras três
Eu enfrentava os batalhões
Os alemães e seus canhões
Guardava o meu bodoque
E ensaiava um rock
Para as matinês
(...)
Não, não fuja não
Finja que agora eu era o seu brinquedo
Eu era o seu pião
O seu bicho preferido
Sim, me dê a mão
A gente agora já não tinha medo
No tempo da maldade
Acho que a gente nem tinha nascido
Chico Buarque e Sivuca
Agora eu era o herói
E o meu cavalo só falava inglês
A noiva do cowboy
Era você
Além das outras três
Eu enfrentava os batalhões
Os alemães e seus canhões
Guardava o meu bodoque
E ensaiava um rock
Para as matinês
(...)
Não, não fuja não
Finja que agora eu era o seu brinquedo
Eu era o seu pião
O seu bicho preferido
Sim, me dê a mão
A gente agora já não tinha medo
No tempo da maldade
Acho que a gente nem tinha nascido
Chico Buarque e Sivuca
É comum que, durante suas brincadeiras, as crianças se ...... para um universo mágico e ...... a identidade de uma personagem admirada, ...... um super-herói ou uma figura da realeza.
Preenche corretamente as lacunas da frase acima, na ordem dada, o que está em:
Preenche corretamente as lacunas da frase acima, na ordem dada, o que está em:
Q105416
Português
Texto associado
João e Maria
Agora eu era o herói
E o meu cavalo só falava inglês
A noiva do cowboy
Era você
Além das outras três
Eu enfrentava os batalhões
Os alemães e seus canhões
Guardava o meu bodoque
E ensaiava um rock
Para as matinês
(...)
Não, não fuja não
Finja que agora eu era o seu brinquedo
Eu era o seu pião
O seu bicho preferido
Sim, me dê a mão
A gente agora já não tinha medo
No tempo da maldade
Acho que a gente nem tinha nascido
Chico Buarque e Sivuca
Agora eu era o herói
E o meu cavalo só falava inglês
A noiva do cowboy
Era você
Além das outras três
Eu enfrentava os batalhões
Os alemães e seus canhões
Guardava o meu bodoque
E ensaiava um rock
Para as matinês
(...)
Não, não fuja não
Finja que agora eu era o seu brinquedo
Eu era o seu pião
O seu bicho preferido
Sim, me dê a mão
A gente agora já não tinha medo
No tempo da maldade
Acho que a gente nem tinha nascido
Chico Buarque e Sivuca
I. Nos versos Agora eu era o herói e A gente agora já não tinha medo, o uso do advérbio agora mostra-se inadequado, pois os verbos conjugados no pretérito imperfeito designam fatos transcorridos no tempo passado.
II. Em Finja que agora eu era o seu brinquedo e Sim, me dê a mão, os verbos grifados estão flexionados no mesmo modo.
III. Substituindo-se a expressão a gente pelo pronome nós nos versos A gente agora já não tinha medo e Acho que a gente nem tinha nascido, a forma verbal resultante, sem alterar o contexto, será teríamos.
Está correto o que se afirma em
II. Em Finja que agora eu era o seu brinquedo e Sim, me dê a mão, os verbos grifados estão flexionados no mesmo modo.
III. Substituindo-se a expressão a gente pelo pronome nós nos versos A gente agora já não tinha medo e Acho que a gente nem tinha nascido, a forma verbal resultante, sem alterar o contexto, será teríamos.
Está correto o que se afirma em