Foram encontradas 2.068 questões.
3550207
Ano: 2025
Disciplina: TI - Sistemas Operacionais
Banca: CESPE / CEBRASPE
Orgão: TRF-6
Disciplina: TI - Sistemas Operacionais
Banca: CESPE / CEBRASPE
Orgão: TRF-6
Provas:
Em relação a sistemas operacionais, programas do Microsoft Office, navegadores e Microsoft Outlook, julgue o item a seguir.
Nos sistemas operacionais Linux, os processos podem comunicar-se uns com os outros por meio de canais para trocas de mensagens denominados pipes.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
3550206
Ano: 2025
Disciplina: TI - Sistemas Operacionais
Banca: CESPE / CEBRASPE
Orgão: TRF-6
Disciplina: TI - Sistemas Operacionais
Banca: CESPE / CEBRASPE
Orgão: TRF-6
Provas:
Em relação a sistemas operacionais, programas do Microsoft Office, navegadores e Microsoft Outlook, julgue o item a seguir.
No sistema operacional Windows, a ferramenta Regedit possibilita que os usuários editem o registro, abram e explorem as chaves e os itens de dados ou valores.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Em relação a sistemas operacionais, programas do Microsoft Office, navegadores e Microsoft Outlook, julgue o item a seguir.
Entre os dados exportáveis do Microsoft Outlook para um arquivo .pst estão emails e seus anexos, informações de calendário, propriedades de pastas, regras de mensagens e listas de remetentes bloqueados.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Ahead of the upcoming AI Safety Summit in Seoul,
leading AI scientists from institutions like the University of
Oxford are urging world leaders to act on AI risks. Despite the
pledges made at the previous summit in Bletchley Park, the
experts argue that progress has been insufficient. According to
Dr. Jan Brauner, the current AI landscape is dominated by a
relentless pursuit of technological advancement, with safety and
ethics as secondary concerns. This expert consensus paper,
published in Science magazine, stresses that without a focus on
safe development, AI may pose serious risks to society,
especially as the potential for rapid, transformative AI
capabilities looms within the decade.
The authors, including renowned AI figures such as
Geoffrey Hinton and Dawn Song, outline critical priorities for
global AI policy. They recommend establishing well-funded,
expert oversight institutions and highlight the disproportionate
funding gap. In the United States, AI Safety Institute’s budget is
just $ 10 million, in stark contrast to the Food and Drug
Administration’s $ 6.7 billion. They also advocate for mandatory,
rigorous risk assessments and call for enforceable standards on
AI safety, urging AI companies to adopt “safety cases” similar to
those in other high-stakes fields like aviation. These safety cases
would place the responsibility on developers to prove their
technologies pose no harm.
Additionally, the paper proposes “mitigation standards”
that automatically scale according to AI capability milestones.
This approach would ensure rapid responses if AI systems
advance quickly, with policies automatically tightening or
relaxing based on the technology’s pace. As global leaders
prepare for the summit, the experts emphasize that addressing AI
risks now is essential for protecting society from potential harm.
This marks the first consensus from such a broad coalition of
international AI experts, underscoring the urgency for concrete
policy commitments rather than vague proposals.
Internet:<ox.ac.uk> (adapted).
Based on the ideas presented in the previous text, judge the item that follow.
According to the expert consensus paper mentioned in the text, AI companies should adopt ‘safety cases’ like those used in high-stakes industries such as healthcare.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Ahead of the upcoming AI Safety Summit in Seoul,
leading AI scientists from institutions like the University of
Oxford are urging world leaders to act on AI risks. Despite the
pledges made at the previous summit in Bletchley Park, the
experts argue that progress has been insufficient. According to
Dr. Jan Brauner, the current AI landscape is dominated by a
relentless pursuit of technological advancement, with safety and
ethics as secondary concerns. This expert consensus paper,
published in Science magazine, stresses that without a focus on
safe development, AI may pose serious risks to society,
especially as the potential for rapid, transformative AI
capabilities looms within the decade.
The authors, including renowned AI figures such as
Geoffrey Hinton and Dawn Song, outline critical priorities for
global AI policy. They recommend establishing well-funded,
expert oversight institutions and highlight the disproportionate
funding gap. In the United States, AI Safety Institute’s budget is
just $ 10 million, in stark contrast to the Food and Drug
Administration’s $ 6.7 billion. They also advocate for mandatory,
rigorous risk assessments and call for enforceable standards on
AI safety, urging AI companies to adopt “safety cases” similar to
those in other high-stakes fields like aviation. These safety cases
would place the responsibility on developers to prove their
technologies pose no harm.
Additionally, the paper proposes “mitigation standards”
that automatically scale according to AI capability milestones.
This approach would ensure rapid responses if AI systems
advance quickly, with policies automatically tightening or
relaxing based on the technology’s pace. As global leaders
prepare for the summit, the experts emphasize that addressing AI
risks now is essential for protecting society from potential harm.
This marks the first consensus from such a broad coalition of
international AI experts, underscoring the urgency for concrete
policy commitments rather than vague proposals.
Internet:<ox.ac.uk> (adapted).
Based on the ideas presented in the previous text, judge the item that follow.
According to the experts, the AI Safety Institute’s funding is significantly lower than that of the Food and Drug Administration.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Ahead of the upcoming AI Safety Summit in Seoul,
leading AI scientists from institutions like the University of
Oxford are urging world leaders to act on AI risks. Despite the
pledges made at the previous summit in Bletchley Park, the
experts argue that progress has been insufficient. According to
Dr. Jan Brauner, the current AI landscape is dominated by a
relentless pursuit of technological advancement, with safety and
ethics as secondary concerns. This expert consensus paper,
published in Science magazine, stresses that without a focus on
safe development, AI may pose serious risks to society,
especially as the potential for rapid, transformative AI
capabilities looms within the decade.
The authors, including renowned AI figures such as
Geoffrey Hinton and Dawn Song, outline critical priorities for
global AI policy. They recommend establishing well-funded,
expert oversight institutions and highlight the disproportionate
funding gap. In the United States, AI Safety Institute’s budget is
just $ 10 million, in stark contrast to the Food and Drug
Administration’s $ 6.7 billion. They also advocate for mandatory,
rigorous risk assessments and call for enforceable standards on
AI safety, urging AI companies to adopt “safety cases” similar to
those in other high-stakes fields like aviation. These safety cases
would place the responsibility on developers to prove their
technologies pose no harm.
Additionally, the paper proposes “mitigation standards”
that automatically scale according to AI capability milestones.
This approach would ensure rapid responses if AI systems
advance quickly, with policies automatically tightening or
relaxing based on the technology’s pace. As global leaders
prepare for the summit, the experts emphasize that addressing AI
risks now is essential for protecting society from potential harm.
This marks the first consensus from such a broad coalition of
international AI experts, underscoring the urgency for concrete
policy commitments rather than vague proposals.
Internet:<ox.ac.uk> (adapted).
Based on the ideas presented in the previous text, judge the item that follow.
Leading AI experts are advocating urgent action concerning AI risks ahead of the upcoming AI Safety Summit.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Ahead of the upcoming AI Safety Summit in Seoul,
leading AI scientists from institutions like the University of
Oxford are urging world leaders to act on AI risks. Despite the
pledges made at the previous summit in Bletchley Park, the
experts argue that progress has been insufficient. According to
Dr. Jan Brauner, the current AI landscape is dominated by a
relentless pursuit of technological advancement, with safety and
ethics as secondary concerns. This expert consensus paper,
published in Science magazine, stresses that without a focus on
safe development, AI may pose serious risks to society,
especially as the potential for rapid, transformative AI
capabilities looms within the decade.
The authors, including renowned AI figures such as
Geoffrey Hinton and Dawn Song, outline critical priorities for
global AI policy. They recommend establishing well-funded,
expert oversight institutions and highlight the disproportionate
funding gap. In the United States, AI Safety Institute’s budget is
just $ 10 million, in stark contrast to the Food and Drug
Administration’s $ 6.7 billion. They also advocate for mandatory,
rigorous risk assessments and call for enforceable standards on
AI safety, urging AI companies to adopt “safety cases” similar to
those in other high-stakes fields like aviation. These safety cases
would place the responsibility on developers to prove their
technologies pose no harm.
Additionally, the paper proposes “mitigation standards”
that automatically scale according to AI capability milestones.
This approach would ensure rapid responses if AI systems
advance quickly, with policies automatically tightening or
relaxing based on the technology’s pace. As global leaders
prepare for the summit, the experts emphasize that addressing AI
risks now is essential for protecting society from potential harm.
This marks the first consensus from such a broad coalition of
international AI experts, underscoring the urgency for concrete
policy commitments rather than vague proposals.
Internet:<ox.ac.uk> (adapted).
Based on the ideas presented in the previous text, judge the item that follow.
The proposed ‘mitigation standards’ (first sentence of the last paragraph) would allow policies to be adjusted based on the current needs and budgets of AI companies.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Many believe the Internet negatively affects mental
health, but a new study challenges this assumption. Conducted by
Dr. Matti Vuorre and his team at Tilburg University and
published in Technology, Mind, and Behavior magazine, the
study analyzed data from more than two million people across
168 countries. The findings suggest that those who have Internet
access and actively use it report higher well-being across areas
like life satisfaction, social life, and economic stability.
Remarkably, 85% of the data analyses revealed that Internet
users generally experience greater well-being than non-users.
Dr. Vuorre emphasized that although Internet use is often blamed
for mental health issues, this large-scale study suggests a positive
correlation between access to the Internet and improved
well-being.
The study used Gallup World Poll data to assess
well-being, looking at whether Internet access was associated
with positive outcomes on a global scale. Dr. Vuorre
acknowledged the complexity of analyzing such extensive data,
so his team conducted tens of thousands of statistical tests to
ensure reliability. While the study adjusts for factors like income
and access to healthcare, which can independently boost
well-being, Internet access still appeared to make a positive
difference. However, Dr. Markus Appel, a psychology professor
not involved in the study, noted that Internet use’s impact on
well-being may vary greatly based on individual use. Appel
pointed out that the Internet itself is not inherently good or bad
for mental health; rather, its effects depend on how people choose
to use it.
The study calls for a nuanced view of Internet use.
Dr. Vuorre emphasized that the Internet supports various
activities, from online banking and shopping to social
interactions and news consumption, each with unique effects on
well-being. Yet, the rapid shift to digital life leaves limited time
to study these impacts fully. Vuorre noted that caution is
warranted in framing policies around Internet use. Although
some research highlights negative effects of social media,
especially for younger people, this study suggests that Internet
access may be a valuable resource, enhancing certain aspects of
well-being worldwide.
Internet:<edition.cnn.com> (adapted).
According to the preceding text, judge the following item.
Dr. Vuorre’s team did adjustments in the research of the impacts of Internet use on well-being, including aspects like income and access to healthcare, to enhance the reliability of their study.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Many believe the Internet negatively affects mental
health, but a new study challenges this assumption. Conducted by
Dr. Matti Vuorre and his team at Tilburg University and
published in Technology, Mind, and Behavior magazine, the
study analyzed data from more than two million people across
168 countries. The findings suggest that those who have Internet
access and actively use it report higher well-being across areas
like life satisfaction, social life, and economic stability.
Remarkably, 85% of the data analyses revealed that Internet
users generally experience greater well-being than non-users.
Dr. Vuorre emphasized that although Internet use is often blamed
for mental health issues, this large-scale study suggests a positive
correlation between access to the Internet and improved
well-being.
The study used Gallup World Poll data to assess
well-being, looking at whether Internet access was associated
with positive outcomes on a global scale. Dr. Vuorre
acknowledged the complexity of analyzing such extensive data,
so his team conducted tens of thousands of statistical tests to
ensure reliability. While the study adjusts for factors like income
and access to healthcare, which can independently boost
well-being, Internet access still appeared to make a positive
difference. However, Dr. Markus Appel, a psychology professor
not involved in the study, noted that Internet use’s impact on
well-being may vary greatly based on individual use. Appel
pointed out that the Internet itself is not inherently good or bad
for mental health; rather, its effects depend on how people choose
to use it.
The study calls for a nuanced view of Internet use.
Dr. Vuorre emphasized that the Internet supports various
activities, from online banking and shopping to social
interactions and news consumption, each with unique effects on
well-being. Yet, the rapid shift to digital life leaves limited time
to study these impacts fully. Vuorre noted that caution is
warranted in framing policies around Internet use. Although
some research highlights negative effects of social media,
especially for younger people, this study suggests that Internet
access may be a valuable resource, enhancing certain aspects of
well-being worldwide.
Internet:<edition.cnn.com> (adapted).
According to the preceding text, judge the following item.
The study mentioned in the text, led by Dr. Matti Vuorre, found that Internet use is related to people’s higher well-being.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Many believe the Internet negatively affects mental
health, but a new study challenges this assumption. Conducted by
Dr. Matti Vuorre and his team at Tilburg University and
published in Technology, Mind, and Behavior magazine, the
study analyzed data from more than two million people across
168 countries. The findings suggest that those who have Internet
access and actively use it report higher well-being across areas
like life satisfaction, social life, and economic stability.
Remarkably, 85% of the data analyses revealed that Internet
users generally experience greater well-being than non-users.
Dr. Vuorre emphasized that although Internet use is often blamed
for mental health issues, this large-scale study suggests a positive
correlation between access to the Internet and improved
well-being.
The study used Gallup World Poll data to assess
well-being, looking at whether Internet access was associated
with positive outcomes on a global scale. Dr. Vuorre
acknowledged the complexity of analyzing such extensive data,
so his team conducted tens of thousands of statistical tests to
ensure reliability. While the study adjusts for factors like income
and access to healthcare, which can independently boost
well-being, Internet access still appeared to make a positive
difference. However, Dr. Markus Appel, a psychology professor
not involved in the study, noted that Internet use’s impact on
well-being may vary greatly based on individual use. Appel
pointed out that the Internet itself is not inherently good or bad
for mental health; rather, its effects depend on how people choose
to use it.
The study calls for a nuanced view of Internet use.
Dr. Vuorre emphasized that the Internet supports various
activities, from online banking and shopping to social
interactions and news consumption, each with unique effects on
well-being. Yet, the rapid shift to digital life leaves limited time
to study these impacts fully. Vuorre noted that caution is
warranted in framing policies around Internet use. Although
some research highlights negative effects of social media,
especially for younger people, this study suggests that Internet
access may be a valuable resource, enhancing certain aspects of
well-being worldwide.
Internet:<edition.cnn.com> (adapted).
According to the preceding text, judge the following item.
According to Dr. Markus Appel, the use of the Internet is per se harmful to the mental health of individuals.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Cadernos
Caderno Container