Foram encontradas 438 questões

Resolva questões gratuitamente!

Junte-se a mais de 4 milhões de concurseiros!

Ano: 2017 Banca: UFPR Órgão: CBM-PR Prova: UFPR - 2017 - CBM-PR - Aspirante |
Q1343140 Biologia
- Em uma espécie de mamíferos, a cor da pelagem é influenciada por dois genes não ligados. Animais AA ou Aa são marrons ou pretos, dependendo do genótipo do segundo gene. Animais com genótipo aa são albinos, pois toda a produção de pigmentos está bloqueada, independentemente do genótipo do segundo gene. No segundo gene, o alelo B (preto) é dominante com relação ao alelo b (marrom). Um cruzamento entre animais AaBb irá gerar a seguinte proporção de prole quanto à cor da pelagem:
Alternativas
Ano: 2017 Banca: UFPR Órgão: CBM-PR Prova: UFPR - 2017 - CBM-PR - Aspirante |
Q1343134 Literatura
O romance histórico A última quimera (1995), de Ana Miranda:
Alternativas
Ano: 2017 Banca: UFPR Órgão: CBM-PR Prova: UFPR - 2017 - CBM-PR - Aspirante |
Q1343133 Português

“Canção para álbum de moça”:

Imagem associada para resolução da questão

Considerando o poema acima e o livro de que ele é parte integrante – Claro Enigma (1951), de Carlos Drummond de Andrade –, assinale a alternativa correta.

Alternativas
Ano: 2017 Banca: UFPR Órgão: CBM-PR Prova: UFPR - 2017 - CBM-PR - Aspirante |
Q1343130 Literatura
A respeito dos poemas que compõem o livro Últimos Cantos (1851), do maranhense Gonçalves Dias, assinale a alternativa correta.
Alternativas
Ano: 2017 Banca: UFPR Órgão: CBM-PR Prova: UFPR - 2017 - CBM-PR - Aspirante |
Q1343126 Português
O texto abaixo, uma transcrição da fala em vídeo do youtuber Felipe Castanhari, é referência para a questão.
Olá, meus queridos amigos. Tudo bem com vocês? Eu sou Felipe Castanhari. E vocês devem ouvir falar muito sobre a tal guerra na Síria. Que estamos o tempo todo na tevê e na internet. E eu notei que a grande maioria das pessoas não fazem ideia do que tá rolando. Por que uma galera tá enchendo os barcos com risco de morrer só pra sair de um país? Mano, o que está acontecendo? Basicamente, o que tá rolando ali é uma guerra civil que está devastando o país. São centenas de milhares de pessoas mortas. E tem muita gente desesperada tentando sair desta M. Pessoas que perderam suas casas, perderam suas famílias estão tentando deixar o país a procura de uma vida decente. Mas como assim, a Síria chegou nessa situação de M.? Vamos imaginar que a Síria é um grande colégio, uma grande escola. E esse colégio é governado por um cara chamado Bashar al-Assad, que está comandando esse grande colégio desde 2000. Antes disso, quem comandava esse grande colégio era seu pai, um rapaz chamado Hafez alAssad. Digamos que a democracia não é um conceito muito cultuado nesse colégio, porque é a mesma família que manda naquela P. há 40 anos. Só que aconteceu uma grande M. em 2011 e tudo mudou. Lembra que estamos fazendo de conta que a Síria é um grande colégio, certo? Então temos várias turmas no ensino médio. Cada uma delas com 30 alunos mais ou menos. Ninguém gostava do diretor, do dono da escola. Só que mesmo assim o pessoal ficava meio de boa. Ficava todo mundo meio que passando de ano, sabe? [...] Só que em 2011 a galera de uma das salas resolveu descer pro pátio e protestar contra o diretor. Porque ele dava meio que uns privilégios só pra umas turmas. E o resto do colégio meio que se F., meio que se F. legalmentis. Então, tinha uma galera que tava meio cansada disso e foi lá pro pátio protestar. Eles foram lá e fizeram um protesto pacífico. Ele chegou lá e viu aquela confusão no pátio e resolveu expulsar todo mundo que tava ali protestando. [...] Meteu bala geral. [...] Só que foi aí que começou a virar uma loucura, porque as próprias salas começaram a se dividir. Então ao invés do colégio inteiro partir pra cima do diretor, eles começaram meio que formar panelinhas. E quando as panelinhas se encontravam no pátio, elas começavam a brigar entre elas. [...] Véio, isso é um P. absurdo [...]. Pessoal, vamo entender isso. As pessoas preferem arriscar suas vidas e morrer afogado no mar do que ficar lá na Síria. Olha a M. que tá acontecendo. [...] Além de ter bombardeio, as pessoas de Alepo, a principal cidade do conflito da Síria, elas estão sem água, sem comida, remédios, energia elétrica. Alepo virou um verdadeiro inferno. E a gente pode fazer um pouquinho mais do que ficar indignado. Talvez isso esteja muito longe da gente. Mas a gente aqui no Brasil tem como ajudar. Existem várias entidades como a Unicef que estão fazendo um trabalho de socorro aos civis na Síria, especialmente as crianças, galera. A gente pode fazer doações para essas entidades. E às vezes uma pequena quantia pra você pode fazer uma P. diferença pruma criança lá na guerra.

Considere o trecho que vem na sequência da fala de Castanhari.

E outra coisa que você podia fazer é não apoiar pessoas de políticas do mal ou contra os refugiados da Síria. Porque no meio disso tudo tem pessoas ignorantes que dizem que os refugiados da Síria são todos terroristas. Porque no meio disso tudo, o que as pessoas precisam é de países dispostos a estender a mão para elas. Porque no meio de todo esse sofrimento, dessa guerra, de toda essa morte, a única esperança que um refugiado tem de ter uma vida normal está nas mãos de um país vizinho disposto a estender a mão pra essa pessoa. [...]

Assinale a alternativa que sintetiza o trecho em formato de discurso indireto

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 |
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: 2016 Banca: UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: UFPR - 2016 - PM-PR - Aspirante |
Q2015295 Matemática

A respeito da função representada no gráfico ao lado, considere as seguintes afirmativas:


1. A função é crescente no intervalo aberto (4,6).

2. A função tem um ponto de máximo em x=1.

3. Esse gráfico representa uma função injetora.

4. Esse gráfico representa uma função polinomial de terceiro grau.

Imagem associada para resolução da questão


Assinale a alternativa correta.

Alternativas
Ano: 2016 Banca: UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: UFPR - 2016 - PM-PR - Aspirante |
Q2015289 Matemática
O Centro de Estudos, Resposta e Tratamento de Incidentes de Segurança no Brasil (CERT.br) é responsável por tratar incidentes de segurança em computadores e redes conectadas à Internet no Brasil. A tabela ao lado apresenta o número de mensagens não solicitadas (spams) notificadas ao CERT.br no ano de 2015, por trimestre. Qual dos gráficos abaixo representa os dados dessa tabela?
Imagem associada para resolução da questão

Alternativas
Ano: 2016 Banca: UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: UFPR - 2016 - PM-PR - Aspirante |
Q2015282 Química
Em momentos de estresse, as glândulas suprarrenais secretam o hormônio adrenalina, que, a partir da aceleração dos batimentos cardíacos, do aumento da pressão arterial e da contração ou relaxamento de músculos, prepara o organismo para a fuga ou para a defesa.
Dados – M (g mol-1 ): H = 1; C = 12; N = 14; O = 16.

Qual é o valor da massa molar (em g mol-1 ) desse composto? Imagem associada para resolução da questão

Alternativas
Ano: 2016 Banca: UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: UFPR - 2016 - PM-PR - Aspirante |
Q2015276 Física
Entre as grandezas físicas que influenciam os estados físicos das substâncias, estão o volume, a temperatura e a pressão. O gráfico ao lado representa o comportamento da água com relação aos estados físicos que ela pode ter. Nesse gráfico é possível representar os estados físicos sólido, líquido e gasoso. Assinale a alternativa que apresenta as grandezas físicas correspondentes aos eixos das abscissas e das ordenadas, respectivamente. Imagem associada para resolução da questão
Alternativas
Ano: 2016 Banca: UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: UFPR - 2016 - PM-PR - Aspirante |
Q2015274 Física
O índice de refração absoluto de um meio gasoso homogêneo é 1,02. Um raio luminoso, proveniente do meio gasoso, incide na superfície de separação entre o meio gasoso e o meio líquido, também homogêneo, cujo índice de refração absoluto é 1,67, conforme mostrado na figura ao lado. Posteriormente a isso, uma lente com distância focal positiva, construída com material cujo índice de refração absoluto é 1,54, é colocada, completamente imersa, no meio líquido. Com base nessas informações, identifique como verdadeiras (V) ou falsas (F) as seguintes afirmativas: Imagem associada para resolução da questão
( ) Se a lente for colocada no meio gasoso, ela será denominada “convergente”.
( ) Quando a lente foi colocada no meio líquido, a sua distância focal passou a ser negativa.
( ) Em qualquer um dos meios, a distância focal da lente não se altera.
( ) O raio luminoso, ao penetrar no meio líquido, afasta-se da normal.
Assinale a alternativa que apresenta a sequência correta, de cima para baixo.
Alternativas
Ano: 2016 Banca: UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: UFPR - 2016 - PM-PR - Aspirante |
Q2015272 Física
Quatro resistores, cada um deles com valor R, estão conectados por meio de fios condutores ideais, segundo o circuito representado na figura abaixo. O circuito é alimentado por um gerador ideal que fornece uma tensão elétrica constante. Inicialmente, o circuito foi analisado segundo a situação 1 e, posteriormente, os pontos A e B foram interligados por meio de um fio condutor, de acordo com a situação 2. Imagem associada para resolução da questão


Com base nessas informações, identifique como verdadeiras (V) ou falsas (F) as seguintes afirmativas:
( ) A intensidade de corrente elétrica no gerador é a mesma para as duas situações representadas.
( ) Ao se conectar o fio condutor entre os pontos A e B, a resistência elétrica do circuito diminui.
( ) Na situação 2, a intensidade de corrente elétrica no gerador aumentará, em relação à situação 1.
( ) A diferença de potencial elétrico entre os pontos A e B, na situação 1, é maior que zero.

Assinale a alternativa que apresenta a sequência correta, de cima para baixo.
Alternativas
Ano: 2016 Banca: UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: UFPR - 2016 - PM-PR - Aspirante |
Q2015270 Física
Uma mola de massa desprezível foi presa a uma estrutura por meio da corda “b”. Um corpo de massa “m” igual a 2000 g está suspenso por meio das cordas “a”, “c” e “d”, de acordo com a figura ao lado, a qual representa a configuração do sistema após ser atingido o equilíbrio. Considerando que a constante elástica da mola é 20 N/cm e a aceleração gravitacional é 10 m/s2 , assinale a alternativa que apresenta a deformação que a mola sofreu por ação das forças que sobre ela atuaram, em relação à situação em que nenhuma força estivesse atuando sobre ela. Considere ainda que as massas de todas as cordas e da mola são irrelevantes.
Imagem associada para resolução da questão
Alternativas
Ano: 2016 Banca: UFPR Órgão: PM-PR Prova: UFPR - 2016 - PM-PR - Aspirante |
Q2015269 Biologia
Para atrair potenciais polinizadores, as plantas comumente armazenam néctar nas suas flores em estruturas específicas chamadas de nectários. Contudo, várias espécies de plantas também podem apresentar nectários longe das flores, os chamados “nectários extraflorais”. Essas estruturas podem ser encontradas em vários locais, como folhas e brotos. Durante a sua procura por alimento, formigas se deparam com esses nectários, passam a se alimentar do néctar produzido, a eles retornando repetidamente. Durante essa atividade, as formigas acabam patrulhando essas plantas e defendendo-as contra potenciais herbívoros, como lagartas e percevejos.
Esse tipo de interação entre formigas e plantas com nectários extraflorais pode ser categorizado como:
Alternativas
Respostas
341: A
342: D
343: A
344: B
345: C
346: B
347: A
348: B
349: A
350: C
351: C
352: E
353: A
354: D
355: D
356: D
357: E
358: D
359: A
360: B