Questões de Vestibular Sobre inglês

Foram encontradas 5.992 questões

Ano: 2015 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: UNESP Prova: VUNESP - 2015 - UNESP - Vestibular - Segundo Semestre |
Q816142 Inglês
Oxfam study finds richest 1% is likely to control half of global wealth by 2016
By Patricia Cohen
January 19, 2015
The richest 1 percent is likely to control more than half of the globe’s total wealth by next year, the anti-poverty charity Oxfam reported in a study released on Monday. The warning about deepening global inequality comes just as the world’s business elite prepare to meet this week at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
The 80 wealthiest people in the world altogether own $1.9 trillion, the report found, nearly the same amount shared by the 3.5 billion people who occupy the bottom half of the world’s income scale. (Last year, it took 85 billionaires to equal that figure.) And the richest 1 percent of the population controls nearly half of the world’s total wealth, a share that is also increasing.
The type of inequality that currently characterizes the world’s economies is unlike anything seen in recent years, the report explained. “Between 2002 and 2010 the total wealth of the poorest half of the world in current U.S. dollars had been increasing more or less at the same rate as that of billionaires,” it said. “However since 2010, it has been decreasing over that time.”
Winnie Byanyima, the charity’s executive director, noted in a statement that more than a billion people lived on less than $1.25 a day. “Do we really want to live in a world where the 1 percent own more than the rest of us combined?” Ms. Byanyima said. “The scale of global inequality is quite simply staggering.”
Investors with interests in finance, insurance and health saw the biggest windfalls, Oxfam said. Using data from Forbes magazine’s list of billionaires, it said those listed as having interests in the pharmaceutical and health care industries saw their net worth jump by 47 percent. The charity credited those individuals’ rapidly growing fortunes in part to multimillion-dollar lobbying campaigns to protect and enhance their interests.
(www.nytimes.com. Adaptado.)
Segundo o texto, o relatório da Oxfam
Alternativas
Ano: 2015 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: UNESP Prova: VUNESP - 2015 - UNESP - Vestibular - Segundo Semestre |
Q816141 Inglês
Oxfam study finds richest 1% is likely to control half of global wealth by 2016
By Patricia Cohen
January 19, 2015
The richest 1 percent is likely to control more than half of the globe’s total wealth by next year, the anti-poverty charity Oxfam reported in a study released on Monday. The warning about deepening global inequality comes just as the world’s business elite prepare to meet this week at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
The 80 wealthiest people in the world altogether own $1.9 trillion, the report found, nearly the same amount shared by the 3.5 billion people who occupy the bottom half of the world’s income scale. (Last year, it took 85 billionaires to equal that figure.) And the richest 1 percent of the population controls nearly half of the world’s total wealth, a share that is also increasing.
The type of inequality that currently characterizes the world’s economies is unlike anything seen in recent years, the report explained. “Between 2002 and 2010 the total wealth of the poorest half of the world in current U.S. dollars had been increasing more or less at the same rate as that of billionaires,” it said. “However since 2010, it has been decreasing over that time.”
Winnie Byanyima, the charity’s executive director, noted in a statement that more than a billion people lived on less than $1.25 a day. “Do we really want to live in a world where the 1 percent own more than the rest of us combined?” Ms. Byanyima said. “The scale of global inequality is quite simply staggering.”
Investors with interests in finance, insurance and health saw the biggest windfalls, Oxfam said. Using data from Forbes magazine’s list of billionaires, it said those listed as having interests in the pharmaceutical and health care industries saw their net worth jump by 47 percent. The charity credited those individuals’ rapidly growing fortunes in part to multimillion-dollar lobbying campaigns to protect and enhance their interests.
(www.nytimes.com. Adaptado.)
No título do texto, o termo “likely” indica
Alternativas
Ano: 2015 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: UNESP Prova: VUNESP - 2015 - UNESP - Vestibular - Segundo Semestre |
Q816140 Inglês
O trecho “What are you, greedy?” indica que o homem rico
Alternativas
Ano: 2015 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: UNESP Prova: VUNESP - 2015 - UNESP - Vestibular - Segundo Semestre |
Q816139 Inglês
Segundo a charge, o homem rico
Alternativas
Ano: 2017 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: UNESP Prova: VUNESP - 2017 - UNESP - Vestibular - Segundo Semestre |
Q815358 Inglês

                            “One never builds something finished”:

                   the brilliance of architect Paulo Mendes da Rocha

Oliver Wainwright

February 4, 2017

   “All space is public,” says Paulo Mendes da Rocha. “The only private space that you can imagine is in the human mind.” It is an optimistic statement from the 88-year-old Brazilian architect, given he is a resident of São Paulo, a city where the triumph of the private realm over the public could not be more stark. The sprawling megalopolis is a place of such marked inequality that its superrich hop between their rooftop helipads because they are too scared of street crime to come down from the clouds.

   But for Mendes da Rocha, who received the 2017 gold medal from the Royal Institute of British Architects this week – an accolade previously bestowed on such luminaries as Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright – the ground is everything. He has spent his 60-year career lifting his massive concrete buildings up, in gravity-defying balancing acts, or else burying them below ground in an attempt to liberate the Earth’s surface as a continuous democratic public realm. “The city has to be for everybody,” he says, “not just for the very few.”

                                                                                    (www.theguardian.com. Adaptado.)

No trecho do segundo parágrafo “The city has to be for everybody”, a expressão em destaque pode ser substituída, sem alteração de sentido, por
Alternativas
Ano: 2017 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: UNESP Prova: VUNESP - 2017 - UNESP - Vestibular - Segundo Semestre |
Q815357 Inglês

                            “One never builds something finished”:

                   the brilliance of architect Paulo Mendes da Rocha

Oliver Wainwright

February 4, 2017

   “All space is public,” says Paulo Mendes da Rocha. “The only private space that you can imagine is in the human mind.” It is an optimistic statement from the 88-year-old Brazilian architect, given he is a resident of São Paulo, a city where the triumph of the private realm over the public could not be more stark. The sprawling megalopolis is a place of such marked inequality that its superrich hop between their rooftop helipads because they are too scared of street crime to come down from the clouds.

   But for Mendes da Rocha, who received the 2017 gold medal from the Royal Institute of British Architects this week – an accolade previously bestowed on such luminaries as Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright – the ground is everything. He has spent his 60-year career lifting his massive concrete buildings up, in gravity-defying balancing acts, or else burying them below ground in an attempt to liberate the Earth’s surface as a continuous democratic public realm. “The city has to be for everybody,” he says, “not just for the very few.”

                                                                                    (www.theguardian.com. Adaptado.)

No trecho do primeiro parágrafo “the triumph of the private realm over the public could not be more stark”, o termo em destaque tem sentido equivalente, em português, a
Alternativas
Ano: 2017 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: UNESP Prova: VUNESP - 2017 - UNESP - Vestibular - Segundo Semestre |
Q815356 Inglês

                            “One never builds something finished”:

                   the brilliance of architect Paulo Mendes da Rocha

Oliver Wainwright

February 4, 2017

   “All space is public,” says Paulo Mendes da Rocha. “The only private space that you can imagine is in the human mind.” It is an optimistic statement from the 88-year-old Brazilian architect, given he is a resident of São Paulo, a city where the triumph of the private realm over the public could not be more stark. The sprawling megalopolis is a place of such marked inequality that its superrich hop between their rooftop helipads because they are too scared of street crime to come down from the clouds.

   But for Mendes da Rocha, who received the 2017 gold medal from the Royal Institute of British Architects this week – an accolade previously bestowed on such luminaries as Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright – the ground is everything. He has spent his 60-year career lifting his massive concrete buildings up, in gravity-defying balancing acts, or else burying them below ground in an attempt to liberate the Earth’s surface as a continuous democratic public realm. “The city has to be for everybody,” he says, “not just for the very few.”

                                                                                    (www.theguardian.com. Adaptado.)

No trecho do primeiro parágrafo “The sprawling megalopolis is a place of such marked inequality”, o termo em destaque indica
Alternativas
Ano: 2017 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: UNESP Prova: VUNESP - 2017 - UNESP - Vestibular - Segundo Semestre |
Q815355 Inglês

                            “One never builds something finished”:

                   the brilliance of architect Paulo Mendes da Rocha

Oliver Wainwright

February 4, 2017

   “All space is public,” says Paulo Mendes da Rocha. “The only private space that you can imagine is in the human mind.” It is an optimistic statement from the 88-year-old Brazilian architect, given he is a resident of São Paulo, a city where the triumph of the private realm over the public could not be more stark. The sprawling megalopolis is a place of such marked inequality that its superrich hop between their rooftop helipads because they are too scared of street crime to come down from the clouds.

   But for Mendes da Rocha, who received the 2017 gold medal from the Royal Institute of British Architects this week – an accolade previously bestowed on such luminaries as Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright – the ground is everything. He has spent his 60-year career lifting his massive concrete buildings up, in gravity-defying balancing acts, or else burying them below ground in an attempt to liberate the Earth’s surface as a continuous democratic public realm. “The city has to be for everybody,” he says, “not just for the very few.”

                                                                                    (www.theguardian.com. Adaptado.)

Conforme o texto, Paulo Mendes da Rocha
Alternativas
Ano: 2017 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: UNESP Prova: VUNESP - 2017 - UNESP - Vestibular - Segundo Semestre |
Q815354 Inglês

                            “One never builds something finished”:

                   the brilliance of architect Paulo Mendes da Rocha

Oliver Wainwright

February 4, 2017

   “All space is public,” says Paulo Mendes da Rocha. “The only private space that you can imagine is in the human mind.” It is an optimistic statement from the 88-year-old Brazilian architect, given he is a resident of São Paulo, a city where the triumph of the private realm over the public could not be more stark. The sprawling megalopolis is a place of such marked inequality that its superrich hop between their rooftop helipads because they are too scared of street crime to come down from the clouds.

   But for Mendes da Rocha, who received the 2017 gold medal from the Royal Institute of British Architects this week – an accolade previously bestowed on such luminaries as Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright – the ground is everything. He has spent his 60-year career lifting his massive concrete buildings up, in gravity-defying balancing acts, or else burying them below ground in an attempt to liberate the Earth’s surface as a continuous democratic public realm. “The city has to be for everybody,” he says, “not just for the very few.”

                                                                                    (www.theguardian.com. Adaptado.)

According to the text, São Paulo
Alternativas
Ano: 2017 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: UNESP Prova: VUNESP - 2017 - UNESP - Vestibular - Segundo Semestre |
Q815353 Inglês

                             

      It is essential to promote social inclusion by providing spaces for people of all socio-economic backgrounds to use and enjoy. Quality public spaces such as libraries and parks can supplement housing as study and recreational spaces for the urban poor.

      There is a need to ensure that there is an equitable distribution of public spaces within cities. Through the provision of quality public spaces in cities can reduce the economic and social segregation that is prevalent in many developed and developing cities. By ensuring the distribution, coverage and quality of public spaces, it is possible to directly influence the dynamics of urban density, to combine uses and to promote the social mixture of cities’ inhabitants.

      Rights and duties of all the public space stakeholders should be clearly defined. Public spaces are public assets as a public space is by definition a place where all citizens are legitimate to be and discrimination should be tackled there. Public space has the capacity to gather people and break down social barriers. Protecting the inclusiveness of public space is a key prerequisite for the right to the city and an important asset to foster tolerance, conviviality and dialogue.

      Public spaces in slums are only used to enable people to move. There is a lack of public space both in quantity and quality, leading to high residential density, high crime rates, lack of public facilities such as toilets or water, difficulties to practice outdoor sports and other recreational activities among others.

                                                                                                    (www.learning.uclg.org)

In the fourth paragraph, an example of public facilities is
Alternativas
Ano: 2017 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: UNESP Prova: VUNESP - 2017 - UNESP - Vestibular - Segundo Semestre |
Q815352 Inglês

                             

      It is essential to promote social inclusion by providing spaces for people of all socio-economic backgrounds to use and enjoy. Quality public spaces such as libraries and parks can supplement housing as study and recreational spaces for the urban poor.

      There is a need to ensure that there is an equitable distribution of public spaces within cities. Through the provision of quality public spaces in cities can reduce the economic and social segregation that is prevalent in many developed and developing cities. By ensuring the distribution, coverage and quality of public spaces, it is possible to directly influence the dynamics of urban density, to combine uses and to promote the social mixture of cities’ inhabitants.

      Rights and duties of all the public space stakeholders should be clearly defined. Public spaces are public assets as a public space is by definition a place where all citizens are legitimate to be and discrimination should be tackled there. Public space has the capacity to gather people and break down social barriers. Protecting the inclusiveness of public space is a key prerequisite for the right to the city and an important asset to foster tolerance, conviviality and dialogue.

      Public spaces in slums are only used to enable people to move. There is a lack of public space both in quantity and quality, leading to high residential density, high crime rates, lack of public facilities such as toilets or water, difficulties to practice outdoor sports and other recreational activities among others.

                                                                                                    (www.learning.uclg.org)

No trecho do terceiro parágrafo “as a public space is by definition”, o termo em destaque pode ser substituído, sem alteração de sentido, por
Alternativas
Ano: 2017 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: UNESP Prova: VUNESP - 2017 - UNESP - Vestibular - Segundo Semestre |
Q815351 Inglês

                             

      It is essential to promote social inclusion by providing spaces for people of all socio-economic backgrounds to use and enjoy. Quality public spaces such as libraries and parks can supplement housing as study and recreational spaces for the urban poor.

      There is a need to ensure that there is an equitable distribution of public spaces within cities. Through the provision of quality public spaces in cities can reduce the economic and social segregation that is prevalent in many developed and developing cities. By ensuring the distribution, coverage and quality of public spaces, it is possible to directly influence the dynamics of urban density, to combine uses and to promote the social mixture of cities’ inhabitants.

      Rights and duties of all the public space stakeholders should be clearly defined. Public spaces are public assets as a public space is by definition a place where all citizens are legitimate to be and discrimination should be tackled there. Public space has the capacity to gather people and break down social barriers. Protecting the inclusiveness of public space is a key prerequisite for the right to the city and an important asset to foster tolerance, conviviality and dialogue.

      Public spaces in slums are only used to enable people to move. There is a lack of public space both in quantity and quality, leading to high residential density, high crime rates, lack of public facilities such as toilets or water, difficulties to practice outdoor sports and other recreational activities among others.

                                                                                                    (www.learning.uclg.org)

No trecho do terceiro parágrafo “Public spaces are public assets”, o termo em destaque tem sentido, em português, de
Alternativas
Ano: 2017 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: UNESP Prova: VUNESP - 2017 - UNESP - Vestibular - Segundo Semestre |
Q815350 Inglês

                             

      It is essential to promote social inclusion by providing spaces for people of all socio-economic backgrounds to use and enjoy. Quality public spaces such as libraries and parks can supplement housing as study and recreational spaces for the urban poor.

      There is a need to ensure that there is an equitable distribution of public spaces within cities. Through the provision of quality public spaces in cities can reduce the economic and social segregation that is prevalent in many developed and developing cities. By ensuring the distribution, coverage and quality of public spaces, it is possible to directly influence the dynamics of urban density, to combine uses and to promote the social mixture of cities’ inhabitants.

      Rights and duties of all the public space stakeholders should be clearly defined. Public spaces are public assets as a public space is by definition a place where all citizens are legitimate to be and discrimination should be tackled there. Public space has the capacity to gather people and break down social barriers. Protecting the inclusiveness of public space is a key prerequisite for the right to the city and an important asset to foster tolerance, conviviality and dialogue.

      Public spaces in slums are only used to enable people to move. There is a lack of public space both in quantity and quality, leading to high residential density, high crime rates, lack of public facilities such as toilets or water, difficulties to practice outdoor sports and other recreational activities among others.

                                                                                                    (www.learning.uclg.org)

Segundo o texto, o direito à cidade por parte dos cidadãos ocorrerá por meio
Alternativas
Ano: 2017 Banca: VUNESP Órgão: UNESP Prova: VUNESP - 2017 - UNESP - Vestibular - Segundo Semestre |
Q815349 Inglês

                             

      It is essential to promote social inclusion by providing spaces for people of all socio-economic backgrounds to use and enjoy. Quality public spaces such as libraries and parks can supplement housing as study and recreational spaces for the urban poor.

      There is a need to ensure that there is an equitable distribution of public spaces within cities. Through the provision of quality public spaces in cities can reduce the economic and social segregation that is prevalent in many developed and developing cities. By ensuring the distribution, coverage and quality of public spaces, it is possible to directly influence the dynamics of urban density, to combine uses and to promote the social mixture of cities’ inhabitants.

      Rights and duties of all the public space stakeholders should be clearly defined. Public spaces are public assets as a public space is by definition a place where all citizens are legitimate to be and discrimination should be tackled there. Public space has the capacity to gather people and break down social barriers. Protecting the inclusiveness of public space is a key prerequisite for the right to the city and an important asset to foster tolerance, conviviality and dialogue.

      Public spaces in slums are only used to enable people to move. There is a lack of public space both in quantity and quality, leading to high residential density, high crime rates, lack of public facilities such as toilets or water, difficulties to practice outdoor sports and other recreational activities among others.

                                                                                                    (www.learning.uclg.org)

According to the text, by definition, public spaces
Alternativas
Ano: 2016 Banca: NC-UFPR Órgão: UFPR Prova: NC-UFPR - 2016 - UFPR - Vestibular |
Q814947 Inglês
Six things I learned from riding in a Google self-driving car
1 - Human beings are terrible drivers.
We drink. We doze. We text. In the US, 30,000 people die from automobile accidents every year. Traffic crashes are the primary cause of death worldwide for people aged 15-24, and during a crash, 40% of drivers never even hit the brakes. We’re flawed organisms, barreling around at high speeds in vessels covered in glass, metal, distraction, and death. This is one of Google’s “moonshots” – to remove human error from a job which, for the past hundred years, has been entirely human.
2 - Google self-driving cars are timid.
The car we rode in did not strike me as dangerous. It drove slowly and deliberately, and I got the impression that it’s more likely to annoy other drivers than to harm them. In the early versions they tested on closed courses, the vehicles were programmed to be highly aggressive. Apparently during these tests, which involved obstacle courses full of traffic cones and inflatable crash-test objects, there were a lot of screeching brakes, roaring engines and terrified interns.
3 - They’re cute.
Google’s new fleet was intentionally designed to look adorable. Our brains are hardwired to treat inanimate (or animate) objects with greater care, caution, and reverence when they resemble a living thing. By turning self-driving cars into an adorable Skynet Marshmallow Bumper Bots, Google hopes to spiritually disarm other drivers. I also suspect the cuteness is used to quell some of the road rage that might emerge from being stuck behind one of these things. They’re intended as moderate-distance couriers, not openroad warriors, so their max speed is 25 miles per hour.
4 - It’s not done and it’s not perfect.
Some of the scenarios autonomous vehicles have the most trouble with are the same human beings have the most trouble with, such as traversing four-way stops or handling a yellow light. The cars use a mixture of 3D laser-mapping, GPS, and radar to analyze and interpret their surroundings, and the latest versions are fully electric with a range of about 100 miles. Despite the advantages over a human being in certain scenarios, however, these cars still aren’t ready for the real world. They can’t drive in the snow or heavy rain, and there’s a variety of complex situations they do not process well, such as passing through a construction zone. Google is hoping that, eventually, the cars will be able to handle all of this as well (or better) than a human could.
5 - I want this technology to succeed, like… yesterday.
I’m biased. Earlier this year my mom had a stroke. It damaged the visual cortex of her brain, and her vision was impaired to the point that she’ll probably never drive again. This reduced her from a fully-functional, independent human being with a career and a buzzing social life into someone who is homebound, disabled, and powerless. When discussing self-driving cars, people tend to ask many superficial questions. They ignore that 45% of disabled people in the US still work. They ignore that 95% of a car’s lifetime is spent parked. They ignore how this technology could transform the lives of the elderly, or eradicate the need for parking lots or garages or gas stations. They dismiss the entire concept because they don’t think a computer could ever be as good at merging on the freeway as they are. They ignore the great, big, beautiful picture: that this technology could make our lives so much better.
6 - It wasn’t an exhilarating ride, and that’s a good thing.
Riding in a self-driving car is not the cybernetic thrill ride one might expect. The car drives like a person, and after a few minutes you forget that you’re being driven autonomously. You forget that a robot is differentiating cars from pedestrians from mopeds from raccoons. You forget that millions of photons are being fired from a laser and interpreting, processing, and reacting to the hand signals of a cyclist. You forget that instead of an organic brain, which has had millions of years to evolve the cognitive ability to fumble its way through a four-way stop, you’re being piloted by an artificial one, which was birthed in less than a decade. The unfortunate part of something this transformative is the inevitable, ardent stupidity which is going to erupt from the general public. Even if in a few years self-driving cars are proven to be ten times safer than human-operated cars, all it’s going to take is one tragic accident and the public is going to lose their minds. There will be outrage. There will be politicizing. There will be hashtags. I say look at the bigger picture. All the self-driving cars currently on the road learn from one another, and possess 40 years of driving experience. And this technology is still in its infancy.
(Adapted from: <http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car> . 21/08/2016.)
Based on the text, it is correct to affirm that the author:
Alternativas
Ano: 2016 Banca: NC-UFPR Órgão: UFPR Prova: NC-UFPR - 2016 - UFPR - Vestibular |
Q814946 Inglês
Six things I learned from riding in a Google self-driving car
1 - Human beings are terrible drivers.
We drink. We doze. We text. In the US, 30,000 people die from automobile accidents every year. Traffic crashes are the primary cause of death worldwide for people aged 15-24, and during a crash, 40% of drivers never even hit the brakes. We’re flawed organisms, barreling around at high speeds in vessels covered in glass, metal, distraction, and death. This is one of Google’s “moonshots” – to remove human error from a job which, for the past hundred years, has been entirely human.
2 - Google self-driving cars are timid.
The car we rode in did not strike me as dangerous. It drove slowly and deliberately, and I got the impression that it’s more likely to annoy other drivers than to harm them. In the early versions they tested on closed courses, the vehicles were programmed to be highly aggressive. Apparently during these tests, which involved obstacle courses full of traffic cones and inflatable crash-test objects, there were a lot of screeching brakes, roaring engines and terrified interns.
3 - They’re cute.
Google’s new fleet was intentionally designed to look adorable. Our brains are hardwired to treat inanimate (or animate) objects with greater care, caution, and reverence when they resemble a living thing. By turning self-driving cars into an adorable Skynet Marshmallow Bumper Bots, Google hopes to spiritually disarm other drivers. I also suspect the cuteness is used to quell some of the road rage that might emerge from being stuck behind one of these things. They’re intended as moderate-distance couriers, not openroad warriors, so their max speed is 25 miles per hour.
4 - It’s not done and it’s not perfect.
Some of the scenarios autonomous vehicles have the most trouble with are the same human beings have the most trouble with, such as traversing four-way stops or handling a yellow light. The cars use a mixture of 3D laser-mapping, GPS, and radar to analyze and interpret their surroundings, and the latest versions are fully electric with a range of about 100 miles. Despite the advantages over a human being in certain scenarios, however, these cars still aren’t ready for the real world. They can’t drive in the snow or heavy rain, and there’s a variety of complex situations they do not process well, such as passing through a construction zone. Google is hoping that, eventually, the cars will be able to handle all of this as well (or better) than a human could.
5 - I want this technology to succeed, like… yesterday.
I’m biased. Earlier this year my mom had a stroke. It damaged the visual cortex of her brain, and her vision was impaired to the point that she’ll probably never drive again. This reduced her from a fully-functional, independent human being with a career and a buzzing social life into someone who is homebound, disabled, and powerless. When discussing self-driving cars, people tend to ask many superficial questions. They ignore that 45% of disabled people in the US still work. They ignore that 95% of a car’s lifetime is spent parked. They ignore how this technology could transform the lives of the elderly, or eradicate the need for parking lots or garages or gas stations. They dismiss the entire concept because they don’t think a computer could ever be as good at merging on the freeway as they are. They ignore the great, big, beautiful picture: that this technology could make our lives so much better.
6 - It wasn’t an exhilarating ride, and that’s a good thing.
Riding in a self-driving car is not the cybernetic thrill ride one might expect. The car drives like a person, and after a few minutes you forget that you’re being driven autonomously. You forget that a robot is differentiating cars from pedestrians from mopeds from raccoons. You forget that millions of photons are being fired from a laser and interpreting, processing, and reacting to the hand signals of a cyclist. You forget that instead of an organic brain, which has had millions of years to evolve the cognitive ability to fumble its way through a four-way stop, you’re being piloted by an artificial one, which was birthed in less than a decade. The unfortunate part of something this transformative is the inevitable, ardent stupidity which is going to erupt from the general public. Even if in a few years self-driving cars are proven to be ten times safer than human-operated cars, all it’s going to take is one tragic accident and the public is going to lose their minds. There will be outrage. There will be politicizing. There will be hashtags. I say look at the bigger picture. All the self-driving cars currently on the road learn from one another, and possess 40 years of driving experience. And this technology is still in its infancy.
(Adapted from: <http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car> . 21/08/2016.)
In the sentence “They dismiss the entire concept because they don’t think a computer…”, the underlined word can be substituted, without losing its meaning, by: 
Alternativas
Ano: 2016 Banca: NC-UFPR Órgão: UFPR Prova: NC-UFPR - 2016 - UFPR - Vestibular |
Q814945 Inglês
Six things I learned from riding in a Google self-driving car
1 - Human beings are terrible drivers.
We drink. We doze. We text. In the US, 30,000 people die from automobile accidents every year. Traffic crashes are the primary cause of death worldwide for people aged 15-24, and during a crash, 40% of drivers never even hit the brakes. We’re flawed organisms, barreling around at high speeds in vessels covered in glass, metal, distraction, and death. This is one of Google’s “moonshots” – to remove human error from a job which, for the past hundred years, has been entirely human.
2 - Google self-driving cars are timid.
The car we rode in did not strike me as dangerous. It drove slowly and deliberately, and I got the impression that it’s more likely to annoy other drivers than to harm them. In the early versions they tested on closed courses, the vehicles were programmed to be highly aggressive. Apparently during these tests, which involved obstacle courses full of traffic cones and inflatable crash-test objects, there were a lot of screeching brakes, roaring engines and terrified interns.
3 - They’re cute.
Google’s new fleet was intentionally designed to look adorable. Our brains are hardwired to treat inanimate (or animate) objects with greater care, caution, and reverence when they resemble a living thing. By turning self-driving cars into an adorable Skynet Marshmallow Bumper Bots, Google hopes to spiritually disarm other drivers. I also suspect the cuteness is used to quell some of the road rage that might emerge from being stuck behind one of these things. They’re intended as moderate-distance couriers, not openroad warriors, so their max speed is 25 miles per hour.
4 - It’s not done and it’s not perfect.
Some of the scenarios autonomous vehicles have the most trouble with are the same human beings have the most trouble with, such as traversing four-way stops or handling a yellow light. The cars use a mixture of 3D laser-mapping, GPS, and radar to analyze and interpret their surroundings, and the latest versions are fully electric with a range of about 100 miles. Despite the advantages over a human being in certain scenarios, however, these cars still aren’t ready for the real world. They can’t drive in the snow or heavy rain, and there’s a variety of complex situations they do not process well, such as passing through a construction zone. Google is hoping that, eventually, the cars will be able to handle all of this as well (or better) than a human could.
5 - I want this technology to succeed, like… yesterday.
I’m biased. Earlier this year my mom had a stroke. It damaged the visual cortex of her brain, and her vision was impaired to the point that she’ll probably never drive again. This reduced her from a fully-functional, independent human being with a career and a buzzing social life into someone who is homebound, disabled, and powerless. When discussing self-driving cars, people tend to ask many superficial questions. They ignore that 45% of disabled people in the US still work. They ignore that 95% of a car’s lifetime is spent parked. They ignore how this technology could transform the lives of the elderly, or eradicate the need for parking lots or garages or gas stations. They dismiss the entire concept because they don’t think a computer could ever be as good at merging on the freeway as they are. They ignore the great, big, beautiful picture: that this technology could make our lives so much better.
6 - It wasn’t an exhilarating ride, and that’s a good thing.
Riding in a self-driving car is not the cybernetic thrill ride one might expect. The car drives like a person, and after a few minutes you forget that you’re being driven autonomously. You forget that a robot is differentiating cars from pedestrians from mopeds from raccoons. You forget that millions of photons are being fired from a laser and interpreting, processing, and reacting to the hand signals of a cyclist. You forget that instead of an organic brain, which has had millions of years to evolve the cognitive ability to fumble its way through a four-way stop, you’re being piloted by an artificial one, which was birthed in less than a decade. The unfortunate part of something this transformative is the inevitable, ardent stupidity which is going to erupt from the general public. Even if in a few years self-driving cars are proven to be ten times safer than human-operated cars, all it’s going to take is one tragic accident and the public is going to lose their minds. There will be outrage. There will be politicizing. There will be hashtags. I say look at the bigger picture. All the self-driving cars currently on the road learn from one another, and possess 40 years of driving experience. And this technology is still in its infancy.
(Adapted from: <http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car> . 21/08/2016.)
The text points out that the design of the self-driving car is deliberately attractive because:
Alternativas
Ano: 2016 Banca: NC-UFPR Órgão: UFPR Prova: NC-UFPR - 2016 - UFPR - Vestibular |
Q814944 Inglês
Six things I learned from riding in a Google self-driving car
1 - Human beings are terrible drivers.
We drink. We doze. We text. In the US, 30,000 people die from automobile accidents every year. Traffic crashes are the primary cause of death worldwide for people aged 15-24, and during a crash, 40% of drivers never even hit the brakes. We’re flawed organisms, barreling around at high speeds in vessels covered in glass, metal, distraction, and death. This is one of Google’s “moonshots” – to remove human error from a job which, for the past hundred years, has been entirely human.
2 - Google self-driving cars are timid.
The car we rode in did not strike me as dangerous. It drove slowly and deliberately, and I got the impression that it’s more likely to annoy other drivers than to harm them. In the early versions they tested on closed courses, the vehicles were programmed to be highly aggressive. Apparently during these tests, which involved obstacle courses full of traffic cones and inflatable crash-test objects, there were a lot of screeching brakes, roaring engines and terrified interns.
3 - They’re cute.
Google’s new fleet was intentionally designed to look adorable. Our brains are hardwired to treat inanimate (or animate) objects with greater care, caution, and reverence when they resemble a living thing. By turning self-driving cars into an adorable Skynet Marshmallow Bumper Bots, Google hopes to spiritually disarm other drivers. I also suspect the cuteness is used to quell some of the road rage that might emerge from being stuck behind one of these things. They’re intended as moderate-distance couriers, not openroad warriors, so their max speed is 25 miles per hour.
4 - It’s not done and it’s not perfect.
Some of the scenarios autonomous vehicles have the most trouble with are the same human beings have the most trouble with, such as traversing four-way stops or handling a yellow light. The cars use a mixture of 3D laser-mapping, GPS, and radar to analyze and interpret their surroundings, and the latest versions are fully electric with a range of about 100 miles. Despite the advantages over a human being in certain scenarios, however, these cars still aren’t ready for the real world. They can’t drive in the snow or heavy rain, and there’s a variety of complex situations they do not process well, such as passing through a construction zone. Google is hoping that, eventually, the cars will be able to handle all of this as well (or better) than a human could.
5 - I want this technology to succeed, like… yesterday.
I’m biased. Earlier this year my mom had a stroke. It damaged the visual cortex of her brain, and her vision was impaired to the point that she’ll probably never drive again. This reduced her from a fully-functional, independent human being with a career and a buzzing social life into someone who is homebound, disabled, and powerless. When discussing self-driving cars, people tend to ask many superficial questions. They ignore that 45% of disabled people in the US still work. They ignore that 95% of a car’s lifetime is spent parked. They ignore how this technology could transform the lives of the elderly, or eradicate the need for parking lots or garages or gas stations. They dismiss the entire concept because they don’t think a computer could ever be as good at merging on the freeway as they are. They ignore the great, big, beautiful picture: that this technology could make our lives so much better.
6 - It wasn’t an exhilarating ride, and that’s a good thing.
Riding in a self-driving car is not the cybernetic thrill ride one might expect. The car drives like a person, and after a few minutes you forget that you’re being driven autonomously. You forget that a robot is differentiating cars from pedestrians from mopeds from raccoons. You forget that millions of photons are being fired from a laser and interpreting, processing, and reacting to the hand signals of a cyclist. You forget that instead of an organic brain, which has had millions of years to evolve the cognitive ability to fumble its way through a four-way stop, you’re being piloted by an artificial one, which was birthed in less than a decade. The unfortunate part of something this transformative is the inevitable, ardent stupidity which is going to erupt from the general public. Even if in a few years self-driving cars are proven to be ten times safer than human-operated cars, all it’s going to take is one tragic accident and the public is going to lose their minds. There will be outrage. There will be politicizing. There will be hashtags. I say look at the bigger picture. All the self-driving cars currently on the road learn from one another, and possess 40 years of driving experience. And this technology is still in its infancy.
(Adapted from: <http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car> . 21/08/2016.)
The word “they”, in boldface and underlined, in section 3, refers to:
Alternativas
Ano: 2016 Banca: NC-UFPR Órgão: UFPR Prova: NC-UFPR - 2016 - UFPR - Vestibular |
Q814943 Inglês
Six things I learned from riding in a Google self-driving car
1 - Human beings are terrible drivers.
We drink. We doze. We text. In the US, 30,000 people die from automobile accidents every year. Traffic crashes are the primary cause of death worldwide for people aged 15-24, and during a crash, 40% of drivers never even hit the brakes. We’re flawed organisms, barreling around at high speeds in vessels covered in glass, metal, distraction, and death. This is one of Google’s “moonshots” – to remove human error from a job which, for the past hundred years, has been entirely human.
2 - Google self-driving cars are timid.
The car we rode in did not strike me as dangerous. It drove slowly and deliberately, and I got the impression that it’s more likely to annoy other drivers than to harm them. In the early versions they tested on closed courses, the vehicles were programmed to be highly aggressive. Apparently during these tests, which involved obstacle courses full of traffic cones and inflatable crash-test objects, there were a lot of screeching brakes, roaring engines and terrified interns.
3 - They’re cute.
Google’s new fleet was intentionally designed to look adorable. Our brains are hardwired to treat inanimate (or animate) objects with greater care, caution, and reverence when they resemble a living thing. By turning self-driving cars into an adorable Skynet Marshmallow Bumper Bots, Google hopes to spiritually disarm other drivers. I also suspect the cuteness is used to quell some of the road rage that might emerge from being stuck behind one of these things. They’re intended as moderate-distance couriers, not openroad warriors, so their max speed is 25 miles per hour.
4 - It’s not done and it’s not perfect.
Some of the scenarios autonomous vehicles have the most trouble with are the same human beings have the most trouble with, such as traversing four-way stops or handling a yellow light. The cars use a mixture of 3D laser-mapping, GPS, and radar to analyze and interpret their surroundings, and the latest versions are fully electric with a range of about 100 miles. Despite the advantages over a human being in certain scenarios, however, these cars still aren’t ready for the real world. They can’t drive in the snow or heavy rain, and there’s a variety of complex situations they do not process well, such as passing through a construction zone. Google is hoping that, eventually, the cars will be able to handle all of this as well (or better) than a human could.
5 - I want this technology to succeed, like… yesterday.
I’m biased. Earlier this year my mom had a stroke. It damaged the visual cortex of her brain, and her vision was impaired to the point that she’ll probably never drive again. This reduced her from a fully-functional, independent human being with a career and a buzzing social life into someone who is homebound, disabled, and powerless. When discussing self-driving cars, people tend to ask many superficial questions. They ignore that 45% of disabled people in the US still work. They ignore that 95% of a car’s lifetime is spent parked. They ignore how this technology could transform the lives of the elderly, or eradicate the need for parking lots or garages or gas stations. They dismiss the entire concept because they don’t think a computer could ever be as good at merging on the freeway as they are. They ignore the great, big, beautiful picture: that this technology could make our lives so much better.
6 - It wasn’t an exhilarating ride, and that’s a good thing.
Riding in a self-driving car is not the cybernetic thrill ride one might expect. The car drives like a person, and after a few minutes you forget that you’re being driven autonomously. You forget that a robot is differentiating cars from pedestrians from mopeds from raccoons. You forget that millions of photons are being fired from a laser and interpreting, processing, and reacting to the hand signals of a cyclist. You forget that instead of an organic brain, which has had millions of years to evolve the cognitive ability to fumble its way through a four-way stop, you’re being piloted by an artificial one, which was birthed in less than a decade. The unfortunate part of something this transformative is the inevitable, ardent stupidity which is going to erupt from the general public. Even if in a few years self-driving cars are proven to be ten times safer than human-operated cars, all it’s going to take is one tragic accident and the public is going to lose their minds. There will be outrage. There will be politicizing. There will be hashtags. I say look at the bigger picture. All the self-driving cars currently on the road learn from one another, and possess 40 years of driving experience. And this technology is still in its infancy.
(Adapted from: <http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car> . 21/08/2016.)
Consider the following characteristics of the new Google self-driving car:
1. It runs on batteries and petrol.
2. It can be used in extreme weather conditions. 3. It has a design which requires further modifications. 4. It can reach the speed of 25 miles per hour.
Mark the correct alternative.
Alternativas
Ano: 2016 Banca: NC-UFPR Órgão: UFPR Prova: NC-UFPR - 2016 - UFPR - Vestibular |
Q814942 Inglês
Six things I learned from riding in a Google self-driving car
1 - Human beings are terrible drivers.
We drink. We doze. We text. In the US, 30,000 people die from automobile accidents every year. Traffic crashes are the primary cause of death worldwide for people aged 15-24, and during a crash, 40% of drivers never even hit the brakes. We’re flawed organisms, barreling around at high speeds in vessels covered in glass, metal, distraction, and death. This is one of Google’s “moonshots” – to remove human error from a job which, for the past hundred years, has been entirely human.
2 - Google self-driving cars are timid.
The car we rode in did not strike me as dangerous. It drove slowly and deliberately, and I got the impression that it’s more likely to annoy other drivers than to harm them. In the early versions they tested on closed courses, the vehicles were programmed to be highly aggressive. Apparently during these tests, which involved obstacle courses full of traffic cones and inflatable crash-test objects, there were a lot of screeching brakes, roaring engines and terrified interns.
3 - They’re cute.
Google’s new fleet was intentionally designed to look adorable. Our brains are hardwired to treat inanimate (or animate) objects with greater care, caution, and reverence when they resemble a living thing. By turning self-driving cars into an adorable Skynet Marshmallow Bumper Bots, Google hopes to spiritually disarm other drivers. I also suspect the cuteness is used to quell some of the road rage that might emerge from being stuck behind one of these things. They’re intended as moderate-distance couriers, not openroad warriors, so their max speed is 25 miles per hour.
4 - It’s not done and it’s not perfect.
Some of the scenarios autonomous vehicles have the most trouble with are the same human beings have the most trouble with, such as traversing four-way stops or handling a yellow light. The cars use a mixture of 3D laser-mapping, GPS, and radar to analyze and interpret their surroundings, and the latest versions are fully electric with a range of about 100 miles. Despite the advantages over a human being in certain scenarios, however, these cars still aren’t ready for the real world. They can’t drive in the snow or heavy rain, and there’s a variety of complex situations they do not process well, such as passing through a construction zone. Google is hoping that, eventually, the cars will be able to handle all of this as well (or better) than a human could.
5 - I want this technology to succeed, like… yesterday.
I’m biased. Earlier this year my mom had a stroke. It damaged the visual cortex of her brain, and her vision was impaired to the point that she’ll probably never drive again. This reduced her from a fully-functional, independent human being with a career and a buzzing social life into someone who is homebound, disabled, and powerless. When discussing self-driving cars, people tend to ask many superficial questions. They ignore that 45% of disabled people in the US still work. They ignore that 95% of a car’s lifetime is spent parked. They ignore how this technology could transform the lives of the elderly, or eradicate the need for parking lots or garages or gas stations. They dismiss the entire concept because they don’t think a computer could ever be as good at merging on the freeway as they are. They ignore the great, big, beautiful picture: that this technology could make our lives so much better.
6 - It wasn’t an exhilarating ride, and that’s a good thing.
Riding in a self-driving car is not the cybernetic thrill ride one might expect. The car drives like a person, and after a few minutes you forget that you’re being driven autonomously. You forget that a robot is differentiating cars from pedestrians from mopeds from raccoons. You forget that millions of photons are being fired from a laser and interpreting, processing, and reacting to the hand signals of a cyclist. You forget that instead of an organic brain, which has had millions of years to evolve the cognitive ability to fumble its way through a four-way stop, you’re being piloted by an artificial one, which was birthed in less than a decade. The unfortunate part of something this transformative is the inevitable, ardent stupidity which is going to erupt from the general public. Even if in a few years self-driving cars are proven to be ten times safer than human-operated cars, all it’s going to take is one tragic accident and the public is going to lose their minds. There will be outrage. There will be politicizing. There will be hashtags. I say look at the bigger picture. All the self-driving cars currently on the road learn from one another, and possess 40 years of driving experience. And this technology is still in its infancy.
(Adapted from: <http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car> . 21/08/2016.)
Based on the reading, mark the correct alternative.
Alternativas
Respostas
4201: C
4202: B
4203: B
4204: D
4205: A
4206: A
4207: C
4208: B
4209: D
4210: E
4211: E
4212: E
4213: B
4214: C
4215: B
4216: A
4217: B
4218: A
4219: C
4220: C