Uma amostra das questões. Crie uma conta para resolver todas com correção e comentário.
UFPR20191a faseQuestao 83InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)MediaMore than 100 South African gold miners treated for smoke inhalation
JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) – Hundreds of South African gold mine workers were rescued and over 100 treated for smoke inhalation after an underground fire, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) said on Thursday.
Safety is a huge issue in South Africa's dangerous deep-level mines and a focus for investors. A spate of deaths at Sibanye-Stillwater's gold operations, including a seismic event that killed seven miners in early May, has highlighted the risks.
In the latest incident, more than 600 miners were initially trapped after a fire broke out at a mine east of Johannesburg operated by unlisted Gold One, NUM said.
This comes almost two weeks after five miners died in an underground fire at a South African copper mine operated by unlisted Palabora Mining Company in Limpopo.
Company officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
“As the NUM, we vehemently condemn this kind of incident as it is becoming a trend”, the union said in a statement.
(Disponível em: <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-safrica-mining-fire/>.)
According to the information reported by the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), hundreds of South African mine workers:
- A)died after they were entombed by fire while working in a gold mine.
- B)had to fight an underground fire before they were sent to nearby burn centers.
- C)were able to leave a mine after an underground fire started but a lot of them suffered from breathing in smoke.
- D)underwent serious health problems and as a consequence were incapable of continuing working inside gold mines.
- E)got lost after a fire began violently at a gold mine in Johannesburg.
UFPR20191a faseQuestao 84InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)MediaMore than 100 South African gold miners treated for smoke inhalation
JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) – Hundreds of South African gold mine workers were rescued and over 100 treated for smoke inhalation after an underground fire, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) said on Thursday.
Safety is a huge issue in South Africa's dangerous deep-level mines and a focus for investors. A spate of deaths at Sibanye-Stillwater's gold operations, including a seismic event that killed seven miners in early May, has highlighted the risks.
In the latest incident, more than 600 miners were initially trapped after a fire broke out at a mine east of Johannesburg operated by unlisted Gold One, NUM said.
This comes almost two weeks after five miners died in an underground fire at a South African copper mine operated by unlisted Palabora Mining Company in Limpopo.
Company officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
“As the NUM, we vehemently condemn this kind of incident as it is becoming a trend”, the union said in a statement.
(Disponível em: <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-safrica-mining-fire/>.)
Gold One and Palabora Mining Company operate South African mines. Both companies have one aspect in common: they are unlisted. This means that these companies:
- A)are not on the official list of a particular stock exchange, so people cannot buy or sell their stocks there.
- B)are not trustworthy or reliable because of their latest incidents in South African gold and copper mines.
- C)have not been inspected by investors and, as a consequence, their workers are in constant danger.
- D)do not agree with the recent events which have slaughtered mine workers.
- E)do not have any company officials considering the dangers miners have to face in South Africa.
UFPR20191a faseQuestao 85InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)MediaMore than 100 South African gold miners treated for smoke inhalation
JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) – Hundreds of South African gold mine workers were rescued and over 100 treated for smoke inhalation after an underground fire, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) said on Thursday.
Safety is a huge issue in South Africa's dangerous deep-level mines and a focus for investors. A spate of deaths at Sibanye-Stillwater's gold operations, including a seismic event that killed seven miners in early May, has highlighted the risks.
In the latest incident, more than 600 miners were initially trapped after a fire broke out at a mine east of Johannesburg operated by unlisted Gold One, NUM said.
This comes almost two weeks after five miners died in an underground fire at a South African copper mine operated by unlisted Palabora Mining Company in Limpopo.
Company officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
“As the NUM, we vehemently condemn this kind of incident as it is becoming a trend”, the union said in a statement.
(Disponível em: <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-safrica-mining-fire/>.)
De acordo com o texto, é correto afirmar:
- A)As centenas de mortes ocasionadas pelo incêndio em uma mina de carvão tensionaram as relações entre mineiros e as companhias.
- B)Os riscos de morte e de inalação de fumaça têm sido minorados com a intervenção da União Nacional dos Mineradores.
- C)Representantes das companhias que atuam nas minas na África do Sul se manifestaram por meio de um comunicado em relação às medidas tomadas no caso das mortes nas minas.
- D)A União Nacional de Mineradores (NUM) reprovou os incidentes ocorridos em minas na África do Sul, afirmando que eles têm se tornado uma tendência.
- E)A morte de mineiros em uma mina de carvão e outras centenas de mineiros presos em uma mina de ouro ao leste de Johannesburgo ocorreram simultaneamente.
UFPR20191a faseQuestao 86InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)MediaAncient dreams of intelligent machines: 3,000 years of robots
The French philosopher René Descartes was reputedly fond of automata: they inspired his view that living things were biological machines that function like clockwork. Less known is a strange story that began to circulate after the philosopher's death in 1650. This centred on Descartes's daughter Francine, who died of scarlet fever at the age of five.
According to the tale, a distraught Descartes had a clockwork Francine made: a walking, talking simulacrum. When Queen Christina invited the philosopher to Sweden in 1649, he sailed with the automaton concealed in a casket. Suspicious sailors forced the trunk open; when the mechanical child sat up to greet them, the horrified crew threw it overboard.
The story is probably apocryphal. But it sums up the hopes and fears that have been associated with human-like machines for nearly three millennia. Those who build such devices do so in the hope that they will overcome natural limits – in Descartes's case, death itself. But this very unnaturalness terrifies and repulses others. In our era of advanced robotics and artificial intelligence (AI), those polarized responses persist, with pundits and the public applauding or warning against each advance. Digging into the deep history of intelligent machines, both real and imagined, we see how these attitudes evolved: from fantasies of trusty mechanical helpers to fears that runaway advances in technology might lead to creatures that supersede humanity itself.
(Disponível em: <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05773-y>.)
According to the text, it is correct to say that René Descartes:
- A)had a long lasting and untroubled relationship with his daughter.
- B)was enthusiastic about moving mechanical devices.
- C)decided to build a mechanical clock.
- D)used to tell people a story about his daughter Francine.
- E)taught his daughter to sit and greet people like a robot.
UFPR20191a faseQuestao 88InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)MediaAncient dreams of intelligent machines: 3,000 years of robots
The French philosopher René Descartes was reputedly fond of automata: they inspired his view that living things were biological machines that function like clockwork. Less known is a strange story that began to circulate after the philosopher's death in 1650. This centred on Descartes's daughter Francine, who died of scarlet fever at the age of five.
According to the tale, a distraught Descartes had a clockwork Francine made: a walking, talking simulacrum. When Queen Christina invited the philosopher to Sweden in 1649, he sailed with the automaton concealed in a casket. Suspicious sailors forced the trunk open; when the mechanical child sat up to greet them, the horrified crew threw it overboard.
The story is probably apocryphal. But it sums up the hopes and fears that have been associated with human-like machines for nearly three millennia. Those who build such devices do so in the hope that they will overcome natural limits – in Descartes's case, death itself. But this very unnaturalness terrifies and repulses others. In our era of advanced robotics and artificial intelligence (AI), those polarized responses persist, with pundits and the public applauding or warning against each advance. Digging into the deep history of intelligent machines, both real and imagined, we see how these attitudes evolved: from fantasies of trusty mechanical helpers to fears that runaway advances in technology might lead to creatures that supersede humanity itself.
(Disponível em: <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05773-y>.)
A partir das informações apresentadas no texto, considere as seguintes afirmativas:
1. Descartes viajou para a Suécia com um robô escondido.
2. Os marinheiros abriram à força um baú que continha o simulacro de uma criança.
3. A tripulação fez uma apresentação do robô para os passageiros do navio.
4. Chocados com o que viram, os marinheiros jogaram o humanoide ao mar.
Assinale a alternativa correta.
- A)Somente a afirmativa 3 é verdadeira.
- B)Somente as afirmativas 1 e 3 são verdadeiras.
- C)Somente as afirmativas 2 e 4 são verdadeiras.
- D)Somente as afirmativas 1, 2 e 3 são verdadeiras.
- E)Somente as afirmativas 1, 2 e 4 são verdadeiras.
UFPR20191a faseQuestao 90InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)MediaAncient dreams of intelligent machines: 3,000 years of robots
The French philosopher René Descartes was reputedly fond of automata: they inspired his view that living things were biological machines that function like clockwork. Less known is a strange story that began to circulate after the philosopher's death in 1650. This centred on Descartes's daughter Francine, who died of scarlet fever at the age of five.
According to the tale, a distraught Descartes had a clockwork Francine made: a walking, talking simulacrum. When Queen Christina invited the philosopher to Sweden in 1649, he sailed with the automaton concealed in a casket. Suspicious sailors forced the trunk open; when the mechanical child sat up to greet them, the horrified crew threw it overboard.
The story is probably apocryphal. But it sums up the hopes and fears that have been associated with human-like machines for nearly three millennia. Those who build such devices do so in the hope that they will overcome natural limits – in Descartes's case, death itself. But this very unnaturalness terrifies and repulses others. In our era of advanced robotics and artificial intelligence (AI), those polarized responses persist, with pundits and the public applauding or warning against each advance. Digging into the deep history of intelligent machines, both real and imagined, we see how these attitudes evolved: from fantasies of trusty mechanical helpers to fears that runaway advances in technology might lead to creatures that supersede humanity itself.
(Disponível em: <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05773-y>.)
According to the text, it is correct to say:
- A)In a near future, people will be better prepared to cope with the idea of death.
- B)Humanity will disappear if advances in technology become uncontrollable.
- C)There are groups with different positions about intelligent machines.
- D)The first examples of automata have been attributed to Descartes' contemporaries.
- E)People have dreamed of human-like machines for more than three thousand years.
UFPR20171a faseQuestao 73InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)FacilSix things I learned from riding in a Google self-driving car
1 – Human beings are terrible drivers.
We drive. 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 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 not aliens.
The car we rode in did not strike me as dangerous. If anything, it struck me as cautious, and gleeful, and deliberate, 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 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 open-road 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 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 blasts of exhaust. 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:
- A)1 and 3 only.
- B)1, 2 and 4 only.
- C)2, 4 and 5 only.
- D)3, 4 and 5 only.
- E)1, 2, 3 and 5 only.
UFPR20171a faseQuestao 74InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)FacilSix things I learned from riding in a Google self-driving car
1 – Human beings are terrible drivers.
We drive. 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 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 not aliens.
The car we rode in did not strike me as dangerous. If anything, it struck me as cautious, and gleeful, and deliberate, 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 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 open-road 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 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 blasts of exhaust. 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:
- A)elderly human beings tend to drive better than autonomous vehicles.
- B)during early tests, many animals and cyclists were hit and hurt by autonomous cars.
- C)radar, GPS and 3D laser-mapping are used in Google's self-driving vehicles.
- D)self-driving cars were responsible for 30,000 deaths in the US last year.
- E)the new technology proposed by Google for cars has been tested for more than 40 years.
UFPR20171a faseQuestao 75InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)FacilSix things I learned from riding in a Google self-driving car
1 – Human beings are terrible drivers.
We drive. 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 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 not aliens.
The car we rode in did not strike me as dangerous. If anything, it struck me as cautious, and gleeful, and deliberate, 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 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 open-road 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 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 blasts of exhaust. 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.
- A)the author's mother suffered an accident while on a self-driving car.
- B)self-driving vehicles have caused more tragic traffic accidents than cars driven by men.
- C)traffic accidents are the main cause of young people's death around the world.
- D)the new Google autonomous car is still too aggressive to be used on open roads.
- E)more than 50% of the people who are still at work were impaired in car accidents and are unable to drive.
UFPR20171a faseQuestao 76InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)MediaSix things I learned from riding in a Google self-driving car
1 – Human beings are terrible drivers.
We drive. 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 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 not aliens.
The car we rode in did not strike me as dangerous. If anything, it struck me as cautious, and gleeful, and deliberate, 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 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 open-road 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 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 blasts of exhaust. 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.
- A)Only 1 is correct.
- B)Only 1 and 4 are correct.
- C)Only 3 and 4 are correct.
- D)Only 1, 2 and 3 are correct.
- E)Only 2, 3 and 4 are correct.
UFPR20171a faseQuestao 78InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)MediaSix things I learned from riding in a Google self-driving car
1 – Human beings are terrible drivers.
We drive. 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 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 not aliens.
The car we rode in did not strike me as dangerous. If anything, it struck me as cautious, and gleeful, and deliberate, 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 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 open-road 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 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 blasts of exhaust. 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:
- A)Google expects to neutralize their possible competitors.
- B)people tend to behave positively towards things that look like alive things.
- C)young people enjoy driving attractive brand new models.
- D)other drivers might not surpass these autonomous cars on the road.
- E)their appearance may help people who suffered accidents overcome their fears.
UFPR20171a faseQuestao 80InglêsReading comprehension (atribuição de fala)MediaSix things I learned from riding in a Google self-driving car
1 – Human beings are terrible drivers.
We drive. 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 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 not aliens.
The car we rode in did not strike me as dangerous. If anything, it struck me as cautious, and gleeful, and deliberate, 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 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 open-road 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 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 blasts of exhaust. 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:
- A)denies the advantages of self-driving vehicles.
- B)admits the new type of car will receive severe criticism.
- C)wants to buy his mother an autonomous vehicle in the future.
- D)was an intern working in Google's new self-driving vehicle project.
- E)believes the new self-driving cars need human support on highways.