Questões de Vestibular
Comentadas sobre vocabulário | vocabulary em inglês
Foram encontradas 209 questões
Leia o excerto a seguir e responda a próximas questão:
REDUCING CONSUMPTION
Reducing your consumption also reduces how much you contribute to the environmental problems of global warming and waste disposal. It also helps you save money:
- • Switch off electrical appliances when not used.
- • Reuse plastic bags.
- • Recycle newspapers, magazines, bottles and cans.
- • Walk, cycle or share transport instead of driving your car.
- • Buy second-hand goods or clothes.
What other ways are there to consume less and save money?
For more information visit:
Recycle Now www.recyclenow.com
Greenpeace www.greenpeace.org.uk
Energy Saving Trust www.energysavingtrust.org.uk
Environment Agency www.environment-agency.gov.uk
http://www.moneymakesense.co.uk/ethical_text.htm
(SMITH, David. Internet Addiction ‘is an illness’. The Observer. 28 March 2008. Adapted from: http://www. guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/mar/23/news.internet. Accessed on: 2 April 2011.)
Sustainable flight
TAM was the first airline in South America to carry out an experimental flight using biofuel on November 22, 2010. Produced from the oil of 100% domestic nettlespurge, known in Portuguese as pinhão-manso, it reduces carbon emissions by between 65% and 80% compared with petroleum-derived kerosene, according to research. Besides, the plant does not threatens the food chain, as it is not edible for humans nor animals. “Compared with other biofuels, the fuel from this plant is very promising for the Brazilian scenario,” says Paulus Figueiredo, TAM’s fuel manager. The next step in the project is to implement a farming unit, in reduced scale, at TAM’s Technological Center in São Carlos (SP), exclusively to conduct studies and make better cultivation techniques viable. “The objective is to carry out studies concerning technical and economic viability to build a biofuel Brazilian platform based on nettlespurge,” explains TAM’s CEO, Líbano Barroso. The experimental flight was a joint effort between TAM, Airbus, CFM International (joint venture between U.S.’s GE and the French Safran Group) and Air BP. The trip was authorized by Brazil’s National Civil Aviation Agency (ANAC) and by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).
(TAM News, January 2011. Adaptado.)
The aviation industry has seen huge growth since its beginning. Today, more than two billion people enjoy the social and economical benefits of flight each year. The ability to fly conveniently and efficiently between nations has been a catalyst for the global economy and has shrunk cultural barriers like no other transport sector. But this progress comes at a cost.
In 2008, the commercial aviation industry produced 677 million tones of carbon dioxide (CO2 ). This is around 2% of the total man-made CO2 emissions of more than 34 billion tones. While this amount is smaller compared with other industry sectors, such as power generation and ground transport, these industries have viable alternative energy sources currently available. For example, the power generation industry can look to wind, hydro, nuclear and solar technologies to make electricity without producing much CO2 . Cars and buses can run on hybrid, flexible fuel engines or electricity.
-powered trains can replace
locomotives.
The aviation industry has identified the development of biofuels as one of the major ways it can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Biofuels provide aviation with the capability to partially, and perhaps one day fully, replace carbon-intensive petroleum fuels. They will, over time, enable the industry to reduce its carbon footprint significantly.

40.
TEXT 2
Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Sergei Supinsky: This storage facility near the site of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant currently houses nuclear waste. What's nuclear power's biggest advantage? It doesn't depend on fossil fuels and isn't affected by fluctuating oil and gas prices. Coal and natural gas power plants emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which contributes to climate change. With nuclear power plants, CO2 emissions are minimal. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the power produced by the world's nuclear plants would normally produce 2 billion metric tons of CO2 per year if they depended on fossil fuels. In fact, a properly functioning nuclear power plant actually releases less radioactivity into the atmosphere than a coal-fired power plant. Plus, all this comes with a far lighter fuel requirement. Nuclear fission produces roughly a million times more energy per unit weight than fossil fuel alternatives. And then there are the negatives. Historically, mining and purifying uranium hasn't been a very clean process. Even transporting nuclear fuel to and from plants poses a contamination risk. And once the fuel is spent, you can't just throw it in the city dump. It's still radioactive and potentially deadly. On average, a nuclear power plant annually generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel, classified as high-level radioactive waste. When you take into account every nuclear plant on Earth, the combined total climbs to roughly 2,000 metric tons a year. All of this waste emits radiation and heat, meaning that it will eventually corrode any container that holds it. It can also prove lethal to nearby life forms. As if this weren't bad enough, nuclear power plants produce a great deal of low-level radioactive waste in the form of radiated parts and equipment. Over time, spent nuclear fuel decays to safe radioactive levels, but this process takes tens of thousands of years. Even low-level radioactive waste requires centuries to reach acceptable levels. Currently, the nuclear industry lets waste cool for years before mixing it with glass and storing it in massive cooled, concrete structures. This waste has to be maintained, monitored and guarded to prevent the materials from falling into the wrong hands. All of these services and added materials cost money -- on top of the high costs required to build a plant. Disponível em: Acesso em: abr. 2011.
TEXT 2
Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power
Sergei Supinsky: This storage facility near the site of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant currently houses nuclear waste. What's nuclear power's biggest advantage? It doesn't depend on fossil fuels and isn't affected by fluctuating oil and gas prices. Coal and natural gas power plants emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which contributes to climate change. With nuclear power plants, CO2 emissions are minimal. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the power produced by the world's nuclear plants would normally produce 2 billion metric tons of CO2 per year if they depended on fossil fuels. In fact, a properly functioning nuclear power plant actually releases less radioactivity into the atmosphere than a coal-fired power plant. Plus, all this comes with a far lighter fuel requirement. Nuclear fission produces roughly a million times more energy per unit weight than fossil fuel alternatives. And then there are the negatives. Historically, mining and purifying uranium hasn't been a very clean process. Even transporting nuclear fuel to and from plants poses a contamination risk. And once the fuel is spent, you can't just throw it in the city dump. It's still radioactive and potentially deadly. On average, a nuclear power plant annually generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel, classified as high-level radioactive waste. When you take into account every nuclear plant on Earth, the combined total climbs to roughly 2,000 metric tons a year. All of this waste emits radiation and heat, meaning that it will eventually corrode any container that holds it. It can also prove lethal to nearby life forms. As if this weren't bad enough, nuclear power plants produce a great deal of low-level radioactive waste in the form of radiated parts and equipment. Over time, spent nuclear fuel decays to safe radioactive levels, but this process takes tens of thousands of years. Even low-level radioactive waste requires centuries to reach acceptable levels. Currently, the nuclear industry lets waste cool for years before mixing it with glass and storing it in massive cooled, concrete structures. This waste has to be maintained, monitored and guarded to prevent the materials from falling into the wrong hands. All of these services and added materials cost money -- on top of the high costs required to build a plant. Disponível em: Acesso em: abr. 2011.
GOOGLE TV: BOOM OR BUST
By: Tim Bajarin (10.18.2010)
The industry has been trying to bring IPTV to your TV since 1997. What makes Google and its partners think they'll be successful?
I have a question for you. Do you want to view the Internet on your TV? With all of the activity in IPTV these days, this is one of the key questions that is at the heart of whether IPTV eventually succeeds or fails. Since TVs were invented, we have been trained to sit in front of them and consume not interact with them. And only recently have we had to multitask with our TV. Even though we've had picture in picture for years, it took news scrolls at the bottom of our TV screens to train our brains. So, how will consumers integrate the new and even more complex IPTV features into their TV viewing experience?
One of the traits of consumers that has emboldened the IPTV crowd to push forward is the fact that many people sit on their couch and use their laptops or tablets while watching TV. They reason that if they multi-task in this fashion, they may be willing do it on the bigger screen. While I accept the fact that people may want Internet content, such as movies, TV shows, YouTube, etc. on their TV screens, it is quite a leap to assume that people also want to read their newspapers and magazines or view Web sites on a big-screen TV.
Source: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2370894,00.asp, accessed on November 4, 2010.
It has taken four highly qualified engineers and a bunch of integral equations to figure it out, but we now know how cats drink. The answer is: very elegantly, and not at all the way you might suppose. Cats lap water so fast that the human eye cannot follow what is happening, which is why the trick had apparently escaped attention until now. With the use of high-speed photography, the neatness of the feline solution has been captured. The act of drinking may seem like no big deal for anyone who can fully close his mouth to create suction, as people can. But the various species that cannot do so - and that includes most adult carnivores - must resort to some other mechanism. Dog owners are familiar with the unseemly lapping noises that ensue when their thirsty pet meets a bowl of water. The dog is thrusting its tongue into the water, forming a crude cup with it and hauling the liquid back into the muzzle.
Cats, both big and little, are so much classier, according to new research by Pedro M. Reis and Roman Stocker of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, joined by Sunghwan Jung of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Jeffrey M. Aristoff of Princeton. Writing in the Thursday issue of Science, the four engineers report that the cat’s lapping method depends on its instinctive ability to calculate the balance between opposing gravitational and inertial forces. What happens is that the cat darts its tongue, curving the upper side downward so that the tip lightly touches the surface of the water.
The tongue is then pulled upward at high speed, drawing a column of water behind it. Just at the moment that gravity finally overcomes the rush of the water and starts to pull the column down - snap! The cat’s jaws have closed over the jet of water and swallowed it. The cat laps four times a second - too fast for the human eye to see anything but a blur - and its tongue moves at a speed of one meter per second. Being engineers, the cat-lapping team next tested its findings with a machine that mimicked a cat’s tongue, using a glass disk at the end of a piston to serve as the tip. After calculating things like the Froude number and the aspect ratio, they were able to figure out how fast a cat should lap to get the greatest amount of water into its mouth. The cats, it turns out, were way ahead of them - they lap at just that speed. To the scientific mind, the next obvious question is whether bigger cats should lap at different speeds.
WADE, Nicholas. For cats, a big gulp with a touch of the tongue. Disponível em:
"The neatness of the feline solution has been captured".
To Scientists, Laughter Is No Joke - It’s Serious
March 31, 2010.
You may laugh at a prank on April Fools’ Day. But surprisingly, only 10 to 15 percent of laughter is the result of someone making a joke, said Baltimore neuroscientist Robert Provine, who has studied laughter for decades. Laughter is mostly about social responses rather than reaction to a joke. “Laughter above all else is a social thing,’’ Provine said. “The requirement for laughter is another person.’’
Over the years, Provine, a professor with the University of Maryland Baltimore County, has boiled laughter down to its basics. “All language groups laugh ‘ha-ha-ha’ basically the same way,’’ he said. “Whether you speak Mandarin, French or English, everyone will understand laughter. ... There’s a pattern generator in our brain that produces this sound.’’
Each “ha’’ is about one-15th of a second, repeated every fifth of a second, he said. Laugh faster or slower than that and it sounds more like panting or something else. Deaf people laugh without hearing, and people on cell phones laugh without seeing, illustrating that laughter isn’t dependent on a single sense but on social interactions, said Provine, author of the book “Laughter: A Scientific Investigation.’’
“It’s joy, it’s positive engagement with life,’’ said Jaak Panksepp, a Bowling Green University psychology professor. “It’s deeply social.’’ And it’s not just a people thing either. Chimps tickle each other and even laugh when another chimp pretends to tickle them. By studying rats, Panksepp and other scientists can figure out what’s going on in the brain during laughter. And it holds promise for human ills.
Northwestern biomedical engineering professor Jeffrey Burgdorf has found that laughter in rats produces an insulin-like growth factor chemical that acts as an antidepressant and anxietyreducer. He thinks the same thing probably happens in humans, too. This would give doctors a new chemical target in the brain in their effort to develop drugs that fight depression and anxiety in people. Even so, laughter itself hasn’t been proven to be the best medicine, experts said.
(www.nytimes.com. Adaptado.)
