Questões Militares de Inglês

Foram encontradas 4.268 questões

Ano: 2014 Banca: NC-UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: NC-UFPR - 2014 - PM-PR - Bombeiro Militar |
Q2024825 Inglês
Why do we have blood types?


    In 1996 a naturopath named Peter D’Adamo published a book called Eat Right 4 Your Type. D’Adamo argued that we must eat according to our blood type, in order to harmonise with our evolutionary heritage. Blood types, he claimed, “appear to have arrived at critical junctures of human development.” According to D’Adamo, type O blood arose in our hunter-gatherer ancestors in Africa, type A at the dawn of agriculture, and type B developed between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago in the Himalayan highlands. Type AB, he argued, is a modern blending of A and B.
    From these suppositions, D’Adamo then claimed that our blood type determines what food we should eat. With my agriculture-based type A blood, for example, I should be a vegetarian. People with the ancient hunter type O should have a meat-rich diet and avoid grains and dairy. According to the book, foods that are not suited to our blood type contain antigens that can cause all sorts of illness. D’Adamo recommended his diet as a way to reduce infections, lose weight, fight cancer and diabetes, and slow the ageing process.
    D’Adamo’s book has sold seven million copies and has been translated into 60 languages. It has been followed by a string of other blood type diet books; D’Adamo also sells a line of blood-type-tailored diet supplements on his website. As a result, doctors often get asked by their patients if blood type diets actually work. 
    The best way to answer that question is to run an experiment. In Eat Right 4 Your Type D’Adamo wrote that he was in the eighth year of a decade-long trial of blood type diets on women with cancer. Eighteen years later, however, the data from this trial have not yet been published.
    Recently, researchers at the Red Cross in Belgium decided to see if there was any other evidence in the diet’s favor. They hunted through the scientific literature for experiments that measured the benefits of diets based on blood types. Although they examined over 1,000 studies, their efforts were fruitless. “There is no direct evidence supporting the health effects of the ABO blood type diet,” says Emmy De Buck of the Belgian Red Cross-Flanders.
    After De Buck and her colleagues published their review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, D’Adamo responded on his blog. In spite of the lack of published evidence supporting his Blood Type Diet, he claimed that the science behind it is right. “There is good science behind the blood type diets, just like there was good science behind Einstein’s mathematical calculations that led to the Theory of Relativity,” he wrote.

Adapted from: ZIMMER, Carl. Why do we have blood types? Crash diet. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140715-why-do-wehave-blood-types. Access: August, 2014.
Consider the sentence: “There is good science behind the blood type diets, just like there was good science behind Einstein’s mathematical calculations that led to the Theory of Relativity,” Peter D’Adamo says this with the purpose of
Alternativas
Ano: 2014 Banca: NC-UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: NC-UFPR - 2014 - PM-PR - Bombeiro Militar |
Q2024824 Inglês
Why do we have blood types?


    In 1996 a naturopath named Peter D’Adamo published a book called Eat Right 4 Your Type. D’Adamo argued that we must eat according to our blood type, in order to harmonise with our evolutionary heritage. Blood types, he claimed, “appear to have arrived at critical junctures of human development.” According to D’Adamo, type O blood arose in our hunter-gatherer ancestors in Africa, type A at the dawn of agriculture, and type B developed between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago in the Himalayan highlands. Type AB, he argued, is a modern blending of A and B.
    From these suppositions, D’Adamo then claimed that our blood type determines what food we should eat. With my agriculture-based type A blood, for example, I should be a vegetarian. People with the ancient hunter type O should have a meat-rich diet and avoid grains and dairy. According to the book, foods that are not suited to our blood type contain antigens that can cause all sorts of illness. D’Adamo recommended his diet as a way to reduce infections, lose weight, fight cancer and diabetes, and slow the ageing process.
    D’Adamo’s book has sold seven million copies and has been translated into 60 languages. It has been followed by a string of other blood type diet books; D’Adamo also sells a line of blood-type-tailored diet supplements on his website. As a result, doctors often get asked by their patients if blood type diets actually work. 
    The best way to answer that question is to run an experiment. In Eat Right 4 Your Type D’Adamo wrote that he was in the eighth year of a decade-long trial of blood type diets on women with cancer. Eighteen years later, however, the data from this trial have not yet been published.
    Recently, researchers at the Red Cross in Belgium decided to see if there was any other evidence in the diet’s favor. They hunted through the scientific literature for experiments that measured the benefits of diets based on blood types. Although they examined over 1,000 studies, their efforts were fruitless. “There is no direct evidence supporting the health effects of the ABO blood type diet,” says Emmy De Buck of the Belgian Red Cross-Flanders.
    After De Buck and her colleagues published their review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, D’Adamo responded on his blog. In spite of the lack of published evidence supporting his Blood Type Diet, he claimed that the science behind it is right. “There is good science behind the blood type diets, just like there was good science behind Einstein’s mathematical calculations that led to the Theory of Relativity,” he wrote.

Adapted from: ZIMMER, Carl. Why do we have blood types? Crash diet. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140715-why-do-wehave-blood-types. Access: August, 2014.
Consider the following statements concerning blood types and their specific diets defended by Peter D’Adamo:
1. Type O blood people must eat a lot of meat and avoid milk, yogurt and cheese, for example. 2. Type O blood appeared before the other blood types. 3. Type B diet, which is rich in yogurt, milk, cheese and meat, can cause diabetes. 4. People who want to slow the ageing process or fight cancer and diabetes should follow the blood type diet. 5. Type A blood people should eat many vegetables because this blood type is related to agriculture.
Which of the statements above are TRUE, according to Peter D’Adamo’s ideas? 
Alternativas
Ano: 2014 Banca: NC-UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: NC-UFPR - 2014 - PM-PR - Bombeiro Militar |
Q2024823 Inglês
Why do we have blood types?


    In 1996 a naturopath named Peter D’Adamo published a book called Eat Right 4 Your Type. D’Adamo argued that we must eat according to our blood type, in order to harmonise with our evolutionary heritage. Blood types, he claimed, “appear to have arrived at critical junctures of human development.” According to D’Adamo, type O blood arose in our hunter-gatherer ancestors in Africa, type A at the dawn of agriculture, and type B developed between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago in the Himalayan highlands. Type AB, he argued, is a modern blending of A and B.
    From these suppositions, D’Adamo then claimed that our blood type determines what food we should eat. With my agriculture-based type A blood, for example, I should be a vegetarian. People with the ancient hunter type O should have a meat-rich diet and avoid grains and dairy. According to the book, foods that are not suited to our blood type contain antigens that can cause all sorts of illness. D’Adamo recommended his diet as a way to reduce infections, lose weight, fight cancer and diabetes, and slow the ageing process.
    D’Adamo’s book has sold seven million copies and has been translated into 60 languages. It has been followed by a string of other blood type diet books; D’Adamo also sells a line of blood-type-tailored diet supplements on his website. As a result, doctors often get asked by their patients if blood type diets actually work. 
    The best way to answer that question is to run an experiment. In Eat Right 4 Your Type D’Adamo wrote that he was in the eighth year of a decade-long trial of blood type diets on women with cancer. Eighteen years later, however, the data from this trial have not yet been published.
    Recently, researchers at the Red Cross in Belgium decided to see if there was any other evidence in the diet’s favor. They hunted through the scientific literature for experiments that measured the benefits of diets based on blood types. Although they examined over 1,000 studies, their efforts were fruitless. “There is no direct evidence supporting the health effects of the ABO blood type diet,” says Emmy De Buck of the Belgian Red Cross-Flanders.
    After De Buck and her colleagues published their review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, D’Adamo responded on his blog. In spite of the lack of published evidence supporting his Blood Type Diet, he claimed that the science behind it is right. “There is good science behind the blood type diets, just like there was good science behind Einstein’s mathematical calculations that led to the Theory of Relativity,” he wrote.

Adapted from: ZIMMER, Carl. Why do we have blood types? Crash diet. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140715-why-do-wehave-blood-types. Access: August, 2014.
Mark the correct alternative, according to the text.
Alternativas
Ano: 2014 Banca: NC-UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: NC-UFPR - 2014 - PM-PR - Bombeiro Militar |
Q2024822 Inglês
Why do we have blood types?


    In 1996 a naturopath named Peter D’Adamo published a book called Eat Right 4 Your Type. D’Adamo argued that we must eat according to our blood type, in order to harmonise with our evolutionary heritage. Blood types, he claimed, “appear to have arrived at critical junctures of human development.” According to D’Adamo, type O blood arose in our hunter-gatherer ancestors in Africa, type A at the dawn of agriculture, and type B developed between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago in the Himalayan highlands. Type AB, he argued, is a modern blending of A and B.
    From these suppositions, D’Adamo then claimed that our blood type determines what food we should eat. With my agriculture-based type A blood, for example, I should be a vegetarian. People with the ancient hunter type O should have a meat-rich diet and avoid grains and dairy. According to the book, foods that are not suited to our blood type contain antigens that can cause all sorts of illness. D’Adamo recommended his diet as a way to reduce infections, lose weight, fight cancer and diabetes, and slow the ageing process.
    D’Adamo’s book has sold seven million copies and has been translated into 60 languages. It has been followed by a string of other blood type diet books; D’Adamo also sells a line of blood-type-tailored diet supplements on his website. As a result, doctors often get asked by their patients if blood type diets actually work. 
    The best way to answer that question is to run an experiment. In Eat Right 4 Your Type D’Adamo wrote that he was in the eighth year of a decade-long trial of blood type diets on women with cancer. Eighteen years later, however, the data from this trial have not yet been published.
    Recently, researchers at the Red Cross in Belgium decided to see if there was any other evidence in the diet’s favor. They hunted through the scientific literature for experiments that measured the benefits of diets based on blood types. Although they examined over 1,000 studies, their efforts were fruitless. “There is no direct evidence supporting the health effects of the ABO blood type diet,” says Emmy De Buck of the Belgian Red Cross-Flanders.
    After De Buck and her colleagues published their review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, D’Adamo responded on his blog. In spite of the lack of published evidence supporting his Blood Type Diet, he claimed that the science behind it is right. “There is good science behind the blood type diets, just like there was good science behind Einstein’s mathematical calculations that led to the Theory of Relativity,” he wrote.

Adapted from: ZIMMER, Carl. Why do we have blood types? Crash diet. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140715-why-do-wehave-blood-types. Access: August, 2014.
Which of these statements DOES NOT CORRESPOND to information given in the text about the blood type diet?
Alternativas
Ano: 2014 Banca: NC-UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: NC-UFPR - 2014 - PM-PR - Bombeiro Militar |
Q2024821 Inglês
Why do we have blood types?


    In 1996 a naturopath named Peter D’Adamo published a book called Eat Right 4 Your Type. D’Adamo argued that we must eat according to our blood type, in order to harmonise with our evolutionary heritage. Blood types, he claimed, “appear to have arrived at critical junctures of human development.” According to D’Adamo, type O blood arose in our hunter-gatherer ancestors in Africa, type A at the dawn of agriculture, and type B developed between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago in the Himalayan highlands. Type AB, he argued, is a modern blending of A and B.
    From these suppositions, D’Adamo then claimed that our blood type determines what food we should eat. With my agriculture-based type A blood, for example, I should be a vegetarian. People with the ancient hunter type O should have a meat-rich diet and avoid grains and dairy. According to the book, foods that are not suited to our blood type contain antigens that can cause all sorts of illness. D’Adamo recommended his diet as a way to reduce infections, lose weight, fight cancer and diabetes, and slow the ageing process.
    D’Adamo’s book has sold seven million copies and has been translated into 60 languages. It has been followed by a string of other blood type diet books; D’Adamo also sells a line of blood-type-tailored diet supplements on his website. As a result, doctors often get asked by their patients if blood type diets actually work. 
    The best way to answer that question is to run an experiment. In Eat Right 4 Your Type D’Adamo wrote that he was in the eighth year of a decade-long trial of blood type diets on women with cancer. Eighteen years later, however, the data from this trial have not yet been published.
    Recently, researchers at the Red Cross in Belgium decided to see if there was any other evidence in the diet’s favor. They hunted through the scientific literature for experiments that measured the benefits of diets based on blood types. Although they examined over 1,000 studies, their efforts were fruitless. “There is no direct evidence supporting the health effects of the ABO blood type diet,” says Emmy De Buck of the Belgian Red Cross-Flanders.
    After De Buck and her colleagues published their review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, D’Adamo responded on his blog. In spite of the lack of published evidence supporting his Blood Type Diet, he claimed that the science behind it is right. “There is good science behind the blood type diets, just like there was good science behind Einstein’s mathematical calculations that led to the Theory of Relativity,” he wrote.

Adapted from: ZIMMER, Carl. Why do we have blood types? Crash diet. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140715-why-do-wehave-blood-types. Access: August, 2014.
According to the text, the expression “that question” in boldface and italics (paragraph 04) refers to
Alternativas
Ano: 2014 Banca: NC-UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: NC-UFPR - 2014 - PM-PR - Bombeiro Militar |
Q2024820 Inglês
texto_73 74.png (627×217)

http://www.d.umn.edu/~lmillerc/TeachingEnglishHomePage/5902/deadlines.html. Acesso em: 25/09/2014.
Hobbes suggests that Calvin should not think about the result of a writing task but rather have fun with the process of creating. Why is this suggestion NOT a profitable one?
Alternativas
Ano: 2014 Banca: NC-UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: NC-UFPR - 2014 - PM-PR - Bombeiro Militar |
Q2024819 Inglês
texto_73 74.png (627×217)

http://www.d.umn.edu/~lmillerc/TeachingEnglishHomePage/5902/deadlines.html. Acesso em: 25/09/2014.
Consider the question Calvin asks: “How can you be creative when someone’s breathing down your neck?”. The purpose of it is:
Alternativas
Ano: 2016 Banca: UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: UFPR - 2016 - PM-PR - Aspirante |
Q2015304 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: UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: UFPR - 2016 - PM-PR - Aspirante |
Q2015303 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: UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: UFPR - 2016 - PM-PR - Aspirante |
Q2015302 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: UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: UFPR - 2016 - PM-PR - Aspirante |
Q2015301 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: UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: UFPR - 2016 - PM-PR - Aspirante |
Q2015300 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: UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: UFPR - 2016 - PM-PR - Aspirante |
Q2015299 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
Ano: 2016 Banca: UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: UFPR - 2016 - PM-PR - Aspirante |
Q2015298 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.)

According to the author:
Alternativas
Ano: 2016 Banca: UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: UFPR - 2016 - PM-PR - Aspirante |
Q2015297 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:
1. Drinking before driving. 2. Sending a written message while driving. 3. Sleeping for a short period of time. 4. Hitting the brakes. 5. Speeding up.
According to the text, some human mistakes that happen before or during a car accident are:
Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: FGV Órgão: CBM-RJ Prova: FGV - 2022 - CBM-RJ - Cadete do Corpo de Bombeiro |
Q1992609 Inglês
Read the text and answer the question that follow it.

The exciting technologies revolutionizing firefighting in 2022

    One of the most important tools for a firefighter in the field is the ability to communicate with other members of the crew, officers, and decision-makers. Communication can be the difference between being able to ask for – and receive – help, or being alone as fires move, shift, and change.
  Communication can be the difference between having the latest intelligence and knowledge about what is going on, or being in the dark. Communication is also the difference between having a coordinated, collaborative effort, or having a number of individuals operating independently – which is the least effective way to fight a fire.
    While cellular networks have expanded and improved tremendously – especially in the age of 5G – there are still areas of our country where cellular connectivity and other terrestrial mobile networks aren’t available. There are also some situations where the communications equipment that power terrestrial networks can be damaged in fires, and leave firefighters without connectivity.
    This is why mobile mesh networking will be a widely adopted technology for firefighters and hotshot crews in 2022.
   Mobile mesh networking can enable the use of communications and situational awareness tools – such as ATAK – off the grid in places where other terrestrial networks don’t exist. This means that firefighters will be able to share information and see each other’s locations even in isolated, remote locations. They can also be used to spread connectivity over a wide geographic area and to each individual without a single, centralized piece of equipment that can be compromised and fail. This means they can deliver resilient and redundant communications that is always available to the firefighter.
   Finally, mobile mesh networking can be a low-cost alternative to connecting IoT devices. Instead of each individual sensor requiring its own expensive cellular connection – or incredibly pricey satellite connection – mobile mesh can be used to connect IoT devices over a wide geographic area with no recurring cost. This can help accelerate fire-focused IoT programs, and enable the government to extend them to more areas at a lower cost to the taxpayer.
   Enabling resilient, reliable communications and situational awareness alone is enough to make mobile mesh networking a game-changer for firefighting. But its ability to inexpensively connect IoT devices and sensors that can make firefighting more proactive and less dangerous make mobile mesh technologies essential in 2022.


Adapted from https://thelastmile.gotennapro.com/the-exciting-technologiesrevolutionizing-firefighting-in-2022/
The phrase “This is why” (4th paragraph) indicates that the text will provide a(n) 
Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: FGV Órgão: CBM-RJ Prova: FGV - 2022 - CBM-RJ - Cadete do Corpo de Bombeiro |
Q1992608 Inglês
Read the text and answer the question that follow it.

The exciting technologies revolutionizing firefighting in 2022

    One of the most important tools for a firefighter in the field is the ability to communicate with other members of the crew, officers, and decision-makers. Communication can be the difference between being able to ask for – and receive – help, or being alone as fires move, shift, and change.
  Communication can be the difference between having the latest intelligence and knowledge about what is going on, or being in the dark. Communication is also the difference between having a coordinated, collaborative effort, or having a number of individuals operating independently – which is the least effective way to fight a fire.
    While cellular networks have expanded and improved tremendously – especially in the age of 5G – there are still areas of our country where cellular connectivity and other terrestrial mobile networks aren’t available. There are also some situations where the communications equipment that power terrestrial networks can be damaged in fires, and leave firefighters without connectivity.
    This is why mobile mesh networking will be a widely adopted technology for firefighters and hotshot crews in 2022.
   Mobile mesh networking can enable the use of communications and situational awareness tools – such as ATAK – off the grid in places where other terrestrial networks don’t exist. This means that firefighters will be able to share information and see each other’s locations even in isolated, remote locations. They can also be used to spread connectivity over a wide geographic area and to each individual without a single, centralized piece of equipment that can be compromised and fail. This means they can deliver resilient and redundant communications that is always available to the firefighter.
   Finally, mobile mesh networking can be a low-cost alternative to connecting IoT devices. Instead of each individual sensor requiring its own expensive cellular connection – or incredibly pricey satellite connection – mobile mesh can be used to connect IoT devices over a wide geographic area with no recurring cost. This can help accelerate fire-focused IoT programs, and enable the government to extend them to more areas at a lower cost to the taxpayer.
   Enabling resilient, reliable communications and situational awareness alone is enough to make mobile mesh networking a game-changer for firefighting. But its ability to inexpensively connect IoT devices and sensors that can make firefighting more proactive and less dangerous make mobile mesh technologies essential in 2022.


Adapted from https://thelastmile.gotennapro.com/the-exciting-technologiesrevolutionizing-firefighting-in-2022/
“Latest” in “the latest intelligence and knowledge” (2nd paragraph) can be replaced without change of meaning by
Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: FGV Órgão: CBM-RJ Prova: FGV - 2022 - CBM-RJ - Cadete do Corpo de Bombeiro |
Q1992607 Inglês
Read the text and answer the question that follow it.

The exciting technologies revolutionizing firefighting in 2022

    One of the most important tools for a firefighter in the field is the ability to communicate with other members of the crew, officers, and decision-makers. Communication can be the difference between being able to ask for – and receive – help, or being alone as fires move, shift, and change.
  Communication can be the difference between having the latest intelligence and knowledge about what is going on, or being in the dark. Communication is also the difference between having a coordinated, collaborative effort, or having a number of individuals operating independently – which is the least effective way to fight a fire.
    While cellular networks have expanded and improved tremendously – especially in the age of 5G – there are still areas of our country where cellular connectivity and other terrestrial mobile networks aren’t available. There are also some situations where the communications equipment that power terrestrial networks can be damaged in fires, and leave firefighters without connectivity.
    This is why mobile mesh networking will be a widely adopted technology for firefighters and hotshot crews in 2022.
   Mobile mesh networking can enable the use of communications and situational awareness tools – such as ATAK – off the grid in places where other terrestrial networks don’t exist. This means that firefighters will be able to share information and see each other’s locations even in isolated, remote locations. They can also be used to spread connectivity over a wide geographic area and to each individual without a single, centralized piece of equipment that can be compromised and fail. This means they can deliver resilient and redundant communications that is always available to the firefighter.
   Finally, mobile mesh networking can be a low-cost alternative to connecting IoT devices. Instead of each individual sensor requiring its own expensive cellular connection – or incredibly pricey satellite connection – mobile mesh can be used to connect IoT devices over a wide geographic area with no recurring cost. This can help accelerate fire-focused IoT programs, and enable the government to extend them to more areas at a lower cost to the taxpayer.
   Enabling resilient, reliable communications and situational awareness alone is enough to make mobile mesh networking a game-changer for firefighting. But its ability to inexpensively connect IoT devices and sensors that can make firefighting more proactive and less dangerous make mobile mesh technologies essential in 2022.


Adapted from https://thelastmile.gotennapro.com/the-exciting-technologiesrevolutionizing-firefighting-in-2022/
The text concludes that the challenge firefighting faces in 2022 is to
Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: FGV Órgão: CBM-RJ Prova: FGV - 2022 - CBM-RJ - Cadete do Corpo de Bombeiro |
Q1992606 Inglês
Read the text and answer the question that follow it.

The exciting technologies revolutionizing firefighting in 2022

    One of the most important tools for a firefighter in the field is the ability to communicate with other members of the crew, officers, and decision-makers. Communication can be the difference between being able to ask for – and receive – help, or being alone as fires move, shift, and change.
  Communication can be the difference between having the latest intelligence and knowledge about what is going on, or being in the dark. Communication is also the difference between having a coordinated, collaborative effort, or having a number of individuals operating independently – which is the least effective way to fight a fire.
    While cellular networks have expanded and improved tremendously – especially in the age of 5G – there are still areas of our country where cellular connectivity and other terrestrial mobile networks aren’t available. There are also some situations where the communications equipment that power terrestrial networks can be damaged in fires, and leave firefighters without connectivity.
    This is why mobile mesh networking will be a widely adopted technology for firefighters and hotshot crews in 2022.
   Mobile mesh networking can enable the use of communications and situational awareness tools – such as ATAK – off the grid in places where other terrestrial networks don’t exist. This means that firefighters will be able to share information and see each other’s locations even in isolated, remote locations. They can also be used to spread connectivity over a wide geographic area and to each individual without a single, centralized piece of equipment that can be compromised and fail. This means they can deliver resilient and redundant communications that is always available to the firefighter.
   Finally, mobile mesh networking can be a low-cost alternative to connecting IoT devices. Instead of each individual sensor requiring its own expensive cellular connection – or incredibly pricey satellite connection – mobile mesh can be used to connect IoT devices over a wide geographic area with no recurring cost. This can help accelerate fire-focused IoT programs, and enable the government to extend them to more areas at a lower cost to the taxpayer.
   Enabling resilient, reliable communications and situational awareness alone is enough to make mobile mesh networking a game-changer for firefighting. But its ability to inexpensively connect IoT devices and sensors that can make firefighting more proactive and less dangerous make mobile mesh technologies essential in 2022.


Adapted from https://thelastmile.gotennapro.com/the-exciting-technologiesrevolutionizing-firefighting-in-2022/
The text stresses that it is highly important that firefighters
Alternativas
Ano: 2022 Banca: FGV Órgão: CBM-RJ Prova: FGV - 2022 - CBM-RJ - Cadete do Corpo de Bombeiro |
Q1992605 Inglês
Read the text and answer the question that follow it.

The exciting technologies revolutionizing firefighting in 2022

    One of the most important tools for a firefighter in the field is the ability to communicate with other members of the crew, officers, and decision-makers. Communication can be the difference between being able to ask for – and receive – help, or being alone as fires move, shift, and change.
  Communication can be the difference between having the latest intelligence and knowledge about what is going on, or being in the dark. Communication is also the difference between having a coordinated, collaborative effort, or having a number of individuals operating independently – which is the least effective way to fight a fire.
    While cellular networks have expanded and improved tremendously – especially in the age of 5G – there are still areas of our country where cellular connectivity and other terrestrial mobile networks aren’t available. There are also some situations where the communications equipment that power terrestrial networks can be damaged in fires, and leave firefighters without connectivity.
    This is why mobile mesh networking will be a widely adopted technology for firefighters and hotshot crews in 2022.
   Mobile mesh networking can enable the use of communications and situational awareness tools – such as ATAK – off the grid in places where other terrestrial networks don’t exist. This means that firefighters will be able to share information and see each other’s locations even in isolated, remote locations. They can also be used to spread connectivity over a wide geographic area and to each individual without a single, centralized piece of equipment that can be compromised and fail. This means they can deliver resilient and redundant communications that is always available to the firefighter.
   Finally, mobile mesh networking can be a low-cost alternative to connecting IoT devices. Instead of each individual sensor requiring its own expensive cellular connection – or incredibly pricey satellite connection – mobile mesh can be used to connect IoT devices over a wide geographic area with no recurring cost. This can help accelerate fire-focused IoT programs, and enable the government to extend them to more areas at a lower cost to the taxpayer.
   Enabling resilient, reliable communications and situational awareness alone is enough to make mobile mesh networking a game-changer for firefighting. But its ability to inexpensively connect IoT devices and sensors that can make firefighting more proactive and less dangerous make mobile mesh technologies essential in 2022.


Adapted from https://thelastmile.gotennapro.com/the-exciting-technologiesrevolutionizing-firefighting-in-2022/
Based on the text, mark the statements below as true (T) or false (F).

( ) The best way to fight fire is to do it in a single-handed way.
( ) Mesh networking can make firefighting a safer job.
( ) 5G connectivity is available all over the country.

The statements are, respectively,
Alternativas
Respostas
221: A
222: D
223: E
224: B
225: D
226: E
227: D
228: B
229: A
230: B
231: A
232: C
233: C
234: C
235: E
236: A
237: D
238: E
239: B
240: C