Use os filtros para chegar às questões que interessam. Cada resultado abre em uma página própria com enunciado, alternativas e gabarito.
27.392 questões encontradas. Mostrando a página 500 de 1370.
David Cooper dirige uma crítica à psiquiatria quando esta define saúde como ausência de doença e, desse modo, acaba por não definir adequadamente a própria doença mental.
Essa forma de definição incorre em um sofisma conhecido como:
Está 100% estabelecido que esses genes não têm nenhuma influência sobre qualquer traço comportamental ou intelectual. (ℓ. 37-38)
Para introduzir a frase acima, mantendo a coerência com a que a precede, pode ser utilizada a seguinte expressão:
Memórias de um carbono
Pouco tempo atrás, o átomo de carbono foi liberado de sua prisão química. No processo de transformação industrial do petróleo, ele foi incorporado à gasolina que era processada em uma refinaria. Não demorou muito e ele estava participando de uma reação de queima no motor de um automóvel e rapidamente estava novamente livre na atmosfera. A excessiva liberação desses átomos de carbono que ficaram aprisionados por milhões de anos no subsolo é um dos maiores problemas que a humanidade enfrenta atualmente.
ADILSON DE OLIVEIRA
Adaptado de cienciahoje.org.br.
O futuro já está entre nós
O gestor hospitalar Edgar Escobar comprou um carro elétrico em 2016. Ele tem um dos 4 784 veículos elétricos ou híbridos que circulam pelas ruas do Brasil hoje. São carros e ônibus que ajudam a preservar o meio ambiente. E cerca de 300 deles são 100% elétricos. Ou seja, a emissão de gases poluentes é zero. Todo o funcionamento do carro é sustentado pela bateria, que pode ser carregada numa tomada dentro de casa.
Adaptado de cbn.globoradio.globo.com.
14/07/2017.
O desenvolvimento de veículos elétricos é uma das medidas para enfrentar o problema apontado acima, no primeiro texto.
A eficácia ambiental dessa medida, considerando as tecnologias comercialmente viáveis a curto
prazo no mundo, depende principalmente do seguinte fator:
Considera-se a morte de uma estrela o momento em que ela deixa de emitir luz, o que não é percebido de imediato na Terra. A distância das estrelas em relação ao planeta Terra é medida em anos-luz, que corresponde ao deslocamento que a luz percorre no vácuo durante o período de um ano.
Admita que a luz de uma estrela que se encontra a 7500 anos-luz da Terra se apague. O tempo para que a morte dessa estrela seja visível na Terra equivale à seguinte ordem de grandeza, em meses:
No processo de evolução biológica, ao longo das gerações, ocorrem alterações nas moléculas que contêm carbono. A imagem abaixo ilustra duas espécies de peixes, separadas pelo Istmo do Panamá. Ambas surgiram a partir de uma única população, existente no local antes da elevação geológica da América Central.
O processo evolutivo que deu origem a essas duas espécies é denominado:
Em seu ciclo, um átomo de carbono pode ser incorporado a diferentes compostos por meio de processos contínuos de decomposição e formação de novas moléculas. Os átomos de carbono deste caderno de prova, por exemplo, serão degradados ao longo do tempo e, posteriormente, incorporados a outros seres vivos.
Considere que, ao se degradarem, os átomos de carbono deste caderno se distribuam igualmente entre os 7,5 bilhões de habitantes do planeta.
Sabendo que o caderno possui 90 g de massa, com 45% de carbono em sua composição, o número de átomos que será incorporado em cada habitante é igual a:
Por exemplo, “A busca pela compreensão cósmica” é uma das aulas, na qual apresento a evolução dos modelos que temos do universo. (ℓ. 23-24)
No trecho, a forma verbal sublinhada expressa uma ação que se caracteriza como:
Brazil must legalise drugs – its existing policy just destroys lives
For decades, guns and imprisonment have been the hallmarks of Brazil’s war against the drug trafficking. But the only way to beat the gangs is to stop creating criminals, says a top Brazilian judge
“The war raging in Rocinha, Latin America’s largest favela, has already been lost. Rooted in a dispute between gangs for control of drug trafficking, it has disrupted the daily life of the community in Rio de Janeiro since mid-September. With the sound of shots coming from all sides, schools and shops are constantly forced to close. Recently, a stray bullet killed a Spanish tourist. The war is not the only thing being lost.
For decades, Brazil has had the same drug policy approach. Police, weapons and numerous arrests. It does not take an expert to conclude the obvious: the strategy has failed. Drug trafficking and consumption have only increased. […]
In a case still before the Brazilian supreme court, I voted for decriminalising the possession of marijuana for private consumption. […]
Drugs are an issue that has a profound impact on the criminal justice system, and it is legitimate for the supreme court to participate in the public debate. So here are the reasons for my views.
First, drugs are bad and it is therefore the role of the state and society to discourage consumption, treat dependents and repress trafficking. The rationale behind legalisation is rooted in the belief that it will help in achieving these goals.
Second, the war on drugs has failed. Since the 1970s, under the influence and leadership of the US, the world has tackled this problem with the use of police forces, armies, and armaments. The tragic reality is that 40 years, billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of prisoners and thousands of deaths later, things are worse. At least in countries like Brazil.
Third, as the American economist Milton Friedman argued, the only result of criminalisation is ensuring the trafficker’s monopoly.
With these points in mind, what would legalisation achieve?
In most countries in North America and Europe, the greatest concern of the authorities is users and the impact drugs have on their lives and on society. These are all important considerations. In Brazil, however, the principal focus must be ending the dominance drug dealers exercise over poor communities. Gangs have become the main political and economic power in thousands of modest neighbourhoods in Brazil. This scenario prevents a family of honest and hard-working people from educating their children away from the influence of criminal factions, who intimidate, co-opt and exercise an unfair advantage over any lawful activity. Crucially, this power of trafficking comes from illegality.
Another benefit of legalisation would be to prevent the mass incarceration of impoverished young people with no criminal record who are arrested for trafficking because they are caught in possession of negligible amounts of marijuana. A third of detainees in Brazil are imprisoned for drug trafficking. Once arrested, young prisoners will have to join one of the factions that control the penitentiaries – and on that day, they become dangerous.
[…]
We cannot be certain that a progressive and cautious policy of decriminalisation and legalisation will be successful. What we can affirm is that the existing policy of criminalisation has failed. We must take chances; otherwise, we risk simply accepting a terrible situation. As the Brazilian navigator Amyr Klink said: “The worst shipwreck is not setting off at all.”
Disponível em: <https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/nov/15/brazil-must-legalise-drugs-existing-policy-destroys-lives-luis-roberto-barroso-supreme-court-judge> .
Acesso em: 14 nov. 2017.
Brazil must legalise drugs – its existing policy just destroys lives
For decades, guns and imprisonment have been the hallmarks of Brazil’s war against the drug trafficking. But the only way to beat the gangs is to stop creating criminals, says a top Brazilian judge
“The war raging in Rocinha, Latin America’s largest favela, has already been lost. Rooted in a dispute between gangs for control of drug trafficking, it has disrupted the daily life of the community in Rio de Janeiro since mid-September. With the sound of shots coming from all sides, schools and shops are constantly forced to close. Recently, a stray bullet killed a Spanish tourist. The war is not the only thing being lost.
For decades, Brazil has had the same drug policy approach. Police, weapons and numerous arrests. It does not take an expert to conclude the obvious: the strategy has failed. Drug trafficking and consumption have only increased. […]
In a case still before the Brazilian supreme court, I voted for decriminalising the possession of marijuana for private consumption. […]
Drugs are an issue that has a profound impact on the criminal justice system, and it is legitimate for the supreme court to participate in the public debate. So here are the reasons for my views.
First, drugs are bad and it is therefore the role of the state and society to discourage consumption, treat dependents and repress trafficking. The rationale behind legalisation is rooted in the belief that it will help in achieving these goals.
Second, the war on drugs has failed. Since the 1970s, under the influence and leadership of the US, the world has tackled this problem with the use of police forces, armies, and armaments. The tragic reality is that 40 years, billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of prisoners and thousands of deaths later, things are worse. At least in countries like Brazil.
Third, as the American economist Milton Friedman argued, the only result of criminalisation is ensuring the trafficker’s monopoly.
With these points in mind, what would legalisation achieve?
In most countries in North America and Europe, the greatest concern of the authorities is users and the impact drugs have on their lives and on society. These are all important considerations. In Brazil, however, the principal focus must be ending the dominance drug dealers exercise over poor communities. Gangs have become the main political and economic power in thousands of modest neighbourhoods in Brazil. This scenario prevents a family of honest and hard-working people from educating their children away from the influence of criminal factions, who intimidate, co-opt and exercise an unfair advantage over any lawful activity. Crucially, this power of trafficking comes from illegality.
Another benefit of legalisation would be to prevent the mass incarceration of impoverished young people with no criminal record who are arrested for trafficking because they are caught in possession of negligible amounts of marijuana. A third of detainees in Brazil are imprisoned for drug trafficking. Once arrested, young prisoners will have to join one of the factions that control the penitentiaries – and on that day, they become dangerous.
[…]
We cannot be certain that a progressive and cautious policy of decriminalisation and legalisation will be successful. What we can affirm is that the existing policy of criminalisation has failed. We must take chances; otherwise, we risk simply accepting a terrible situation. As the Brazilian navigator Amyr Klink said: “The worst shipwreck is not setting off at all.”
Disponível em: <https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/nov/15/brazil-must-legalise-drugs-existing-policy-destroys-lives-luis-roberto-barroso-supreme-court-judge> .
Acesso em: 14 nov. 2017.
Brazil must legalise drugs – its existing policy just destroys lives
For decades, guns and imprisonment have been the hallmarks of Brazil’s war against the drug trafficking. But the only way to beat the gangs is to stop creating criminals, says a top Brazilian judge
“The war raging in Rocinha, Latin America’s largest favela, has already been lost. Rooted in a dispute between gangs for control of drug trafficking, it has disrupted the daily life of the community in Rio de Janeiro since mid-September. With the sound of shots coming from all sides, schools and shops are constantly forced to close. Recently, a stray bullet killed a Spanish tourist. The war is not the only thing being lost.
For decades, Brazil has had the same drug policy approach. Police, weapons and numerous arrests. It does not take an expert to conclude the obvious: the strategy has failed. Drug trafficking and consumption have only increased. […]
In a case still before the Brazilian supreme court, I voted for decriminalising the possession of marijuana for private consumption. […]
Drugs are an issue that has a profound impact on the criminal justice system, and it is legitimate for the supreme court to participate in the public debate. So here are the reasons for my views.
First, drugs are bad and it is therefore the role of the state and society to discourage consumption, treat dependents and repress trafficking. The rationale behind legalisation is rooted in the belief that it will help in achieving these goals.
Second, the war on drugs has failed. Since the 1970s, under the influence and leadership of the US, the world has tackled this problem with the use of police forces, armies, and armaments. The tragic reality is that 40 years, billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of prisoners and thousands of deaths later, things are worse. At least in countries like Brazil.
Third, as the American economist Milton Friedman argued, the only result of criminalisation is ensuring the trafficker’s monopoly.
With these points in mind, what would legalisation achieve?
In most countries in North America and Europe, the greatest concern of the authorities is users and the impact drugs have on their lives and on society. These are all important considerations. In Brazil, however, the principal focus must be ending the dominance drug dealers exercise over poor communities. Gangs have become the main political and economic power in thousands of modest neighbourhoods in Brazil. This scenario prevents a family of honest and hard-working people from educating their children away from the influence of criminal factions, who intimidate, co-opt and exercise an unfair advantage over any lawful activity. Crucially, this power of trafficking comes from illegality.
Another benefit of legalisation would be to prevent the mass incarceration of impoverished young people with no criminal record who are arrested for trafficking because they are caught in possession of negligible amounts of marijuana. A third of detainees in Brazil are imprisoned for drug trafficking. Once arrested, young prisoners will have to join one of the factions that control the penitentiaries – and on that day, they become dangerous.
[…]
We cannot be certain that a progressive and cautious policy of decriminalisation and legalisation will be successful. What we can affirm is that the existing policy of criminalisation has failed. We must take chances; otherwise, we risk simply accepting a terrible situation. As the Brazilian navigator Amyr Klink said: “The worst shipwreck is not setting off at all.”
Disponível em: <https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/nov/15/brazil-must-legalise-drugs-existing-policy-destroys-lives-luis-roberto-barroso-supreme-court-judge> .
Acesso em: 14 nov. 2017.
Brazil must legalise drugs – its existing policy just destroys lives
For decades, guns and imprisonment have been the hallmarks of Brazil’s war against the drug trafficking. But the only way to beat the gangs is to stop creating criminals, says a top Brazilian judge
“The war raging in Rocinha, Latin America’s largest favela, has already been lost. Rooted in a dispute between gangs for control of drug trafficking, it has disrupted the daily life of the community in Rio de Janeiro since mid-September. With the sound of shots coming from all sides, schools and shops are constantly forced to close. Recently, a stray bullet killed a Spanish tourist. The war is not the only thing being lost.
For decades, Brazil has had the same drug policy approach. Police, weapons and numerous arrests. It does not take an expert to conclude the obvious: the strategy has failed. Drug trafficking and consumption have only increased. […]
In a case still before the Brazilian supreme court, I voted for decriminalising the possession of marijuana for private consumption. […]
Drugs are an issue that has a profound impact on the criminal justice system, and it is legitimate for the supreme court to participate in the public debate. So here are the reasons for my views.
First, drugs are bad and it is therefore the role of the state and society to discourage consumption, treat dependents and repress trafficking. The rationale behind legalisation is rooted in the belief that it will help in achieving these goals.
Second, the war on drugs has failed. Since the 1970s, under the influence and leadership of the US, the world has tackled this problem with the use of police forces, armies, and armaments. The tragic reality is that 40 years, billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of prisoners and thousands of deaths later, things are worse. At least in countries like Brazil.
Third, as the American economist Milton Friedman argued, the only result of criminalisation is ensuring the trafficker’s monopoly.
With these points in mind, what would legalisation achieve?
In most countries in North America and Europe, the greatest concern of the authorities is users and the impact drugs have on their lives and on society. These are all important considerations. In Brazil, however, the principal focus must be ending the dominance drug dealers exercise over poor communities. Gangs have become the main political and economic power in thousands of modest neighbourhoods in Brazil. This scenario prevents a family of honest and hard-working people from educating their children away from the influence of criminal factions, who intimidate, co-opt and exercise an unfair advantage over any lawful activity. Crucially, this power of trafficking comes from illegality.
Another benefit of legalisation would be to prevent the mass incarceration of impoverished young people with no criminal record who are arrested for trafficking because they are caught in possession of negligible amounts of marijuana. A third of detainees in Brazil are imprisoned for drug trafficking. Once arrested, young prisoners will have to join one of the factions that control the penitentiaries – and on that day, they become dangerous.
[…]
We cannot be certain that a progressive and cautious policy of decriminalisation and legalisation will be successful. What we can affirm is that the existing policy of criminalisation has failed. We must take chances; otherwise, we risk simply accepting a terrible situation. As the Brazilian navigator Amyr Klink said: “The worst shipwreck is not setting off at all.”
Disponível em: <https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/nov/15/brazil-must-legalise-drugs-existing-policy-destroys-lives-luis-roberto-barroso-supreme-court-judge> .
Acesso em: 14 nov. 2017.
Brazil must legalise drugs – its existing policy just destroys lives
For decades, guns and imprisonment have been the hallmarks of Brazil’s war against the drug trafficking. But the only way to beat the gangs is to stop creating criminals, says a top Brazilian judge
“The war raging in Rocinha, Latin America’s largest favela, has already been lost. Rooted in a dispute between gangs for control of drug trafficking, it has disrupted the daily life of the community in Rio de Janeiro since mid-September. With the sound of shots coming from all sides, schools and shops are constantly forced to close. Recently, a stray bullet killed a Spanish tourist. The war is not the only thing being lost.
For decades, Brazil has had the same drug policy approach. Police, weapons and numerous arrests. It does not take an expert to conclude the obvious: the strategy has failed. Drug trafficking and consumption have only increased. […]
In a case still before the Brazilian supreme court, I voted for decriminalising the possession of marijuana for private consumption. […]
Drugs are an issue that has a profound impact on the criminal justice system, and it is legitimate for the supreme court to participate in the public debate. So here are the reasons for my views.
First, drugs are bad and it is therefore the role of the state and society to discourage consumption, treat dependents and repress trafficking. The rationale behind legalisation is rooted in the belief that it will help in achieving these goals.
Second, the war on drugs has failed. Since the 1970s, under the influence and leadership of the US, the world has tackled this problem with the use of police forces, armies, and armaments. The tragic reality is that 40 years, billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of prisoners and thousands of deaths later, things are worse. At least in countries like Brazil.
Third, as the American economist Milton Friedman argued, the only result of criminalisation is ensuring the trafficker’s monopoly.
With these points in mind, what would legalisation achieve?
In most countries in North America and Europe, the greatest concern of the authorities is users and the impact drugs have on their lives and on society. These are all important considerations. In Brazil, however, the principal focus must be ending the dominance drug dealers exercise over poor communities. Gangs have become the main political and economic power in thousands of modest neighbourhoods in Brazil. This scenario prevents a family of honest and hard-working people from educating their children away from the influence of criminal factions, who intimidate, co-opt and exercise an unfair advantage over any lawful activity. Crucially, this power of trafficking comes from illegality.
Another benefit of legalisation would be to prevent the mass incarceration of impoverished young people with no criminal record who are arrested for trafficking because they are caught in possession of negligible amounts of marijuana. A third of detainees in Brazil are imprisoned for drug trafficking. Once arrested, young prisoners will have to join one of the factions that control the penitentiaries – and on that day, they become dangerous.
[…]
We cannot be certain that a progressive and cautious policy of decriminalisation and legalisation will be successful. What we can affirm is that the existing policy of criminalisation has failed. We must take chances; otherwise, we risk simply accepting a terrible situation. As the Brazilian navigator Amyr Klink said: “The worst shipwreck is not setting off at all.”
Disponível em: <https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/nov/15/brazil-must-legalise-drugs-existing-policy-destroys-lives-luis-roberto-barroso-supreme-court-judge> .
Acesso em: 14 nov. 2017.
A propalada crise climática global atual tem, como uma de suas causas, a emissão de dióxido de carbono (CO²) na atmosfera. A criação de Créditos de Carbono foi umas das supostas saídas encontradas para o problema.
Sobre os Créditos de Carbono, informe se é verdadeiro (V) ou falso (F) o que se afirma a seguir e assinale a alternativa com a sequência correta.
( ) Cada Crédito de Carbono é equivalente a 1T (uma tonelada) de CO² não emitida ou retirada da atmosfera por um País.
( ) Os Créditos de Carbono foram criados, em 1997, no Japão, quando houve a assinatura do Protocolo de Kyoto pelos países que se comprometeram a assinar esse acordo.
( ) Os Estados Unidos, maior emissor de gases poluentes do mundo, lidera a aplicação das políticas definidas no Protocolo de Kyoto.
( ) Créditos de Carbono são certificados negociados como mercadorias nas bolsas de valores.
“O acidente em Mariana ficou conhecido no Brasil como o maior desastre ambiental da história e deixou 19 pessoas mortas, além de destruir o distrito de Bento Rodrigues, contaminar a Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Doce e comprometer o abastecimento de água e a produção de alimentos em diversas cidades da região.”
Disponível em: <http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/geral/noticia/2017-08/juiz-suspende-acao-criminal-contra-mineradoras-por-acidente-em-mariana >. Acesso em: 21 nov. 2017.
Sobre o rompimento da Barragem Fundão em Mariana, é correto afirmar que
Considerando as seguintes semirreações, em uma célula galvânica com eletrodos de alumínio e chumbo, é correto afirmar que
Al3+ + 3e- ⇄ Al0 E0red = -0,13V
Pb2+ + 2e- ⇄ Pb0 E0red = -1,66V
