Questões de Concurso

Atenção: As questões de números 16 a 20 baseiam-se no texto abaixo.

    One test of the vigor of the systems analyst role is that of demand. What is the current job market and what are the future employment prospects for the systems analyst? How do these compare with past? A recent study by Smolkina (2001) indicates that employment of systems analyst is projected to rank in the top twenty in the number of new jobs and is expected to increase over one hundred per cent over the next twenty years. In that study it was revealed that employment in computer and data processing services grew by more than 900,000 jobs from 1988 to 1998. In 1998, there were about 1.6 million wage and salary jobs, and an additional 216,000 self-employed workers, making it one of ...I... industries in the economy. Since the late 1980s, employment ...II... most rapidly in the computer programming services and prepackaged software segments of the industry. From 1988 to 1998, about 245,000 jobs were created in programming services and another 166,000 in prepackaged software. The study further revealed that the computer and data processing services industry has grown dramatically in recent years and employment is expected to grow about 117 percent by the year 2008, making this the fastest growing industry in the U.S. economy. The majority of workers in computer and data processing services are managers, professional specialists, such as computer systems analysts, engineers, and scientists; and technicians, such as computer programmers. Together, these occupational groups accounted for 70 percent of the jobs in the industry, reflecting the emphasis on high-level skills and  creativity. These statistics imply that the job title "Systems Analyst" is indeed ...III... and in fact is thriving (at least in name).

(Adapted from Morrell, J.S. et al. 2001. The Systems Analyst – A Post Mortem? available at http://www.sba.muohio.edu/abas/2001/quebec/Morrell_The_Systems_Ana lyst-_A_Post_Mortem.pdf)

Atenção: As questões de números 16 a 20 baseiam-se no texto abaixo.

    Technology and legal pressure have changed spammers’ terms of trade. They long relied on sending more e-mails from more computers, knowing that some will get through. But it is hard to send 100m e-mails without someone noticing. In 2008 researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and San Diego posed as spammers, infiltrated a botnet and measured its success rate. The investigation confirmed only 28 “sales” on 350m e-mail messages sent, a conversion rate under .00001%. Since then the numbers have got worse.
    But spammers are a creative bunch. KIK of tricking consumers into a purchase, they are stealing their money directly. Links used to direct the gullible to a site selling counterfeits. Now they install “Trojan” software that ransacks hard drives for bank details and the like.
    Spammers also have become more sophisticated about exploiting trust. In few places is it granted more readily than on social-networking sites. Twitter, a forum for short, telegram-like messages, estimates that only 1% of its traffic is spam. But researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana show that 8% of links published were shady, with KIIK of them leading to scams and the rest to Trojans. Links in Twitter messages, they found, are over 20 times more likely to get clicked than those in e-mail spam.
    Nor is Facebook as safe as it seems. As an experiment, BitDefender, an online-security firm, set up fake profiles on the social network and asked strangers to enter into a digital friendship. They were able to create as many as 100 new friends a day. Offering a profile picture, particularly of a pretty woman, increased their odds. When the firm’s researchers expanded their requests to strangers who shared even one mutual friend, almost half accepted. Worse, a quarter of BitDefender’s new friends clicked on links posted by the firm, even when the destination was obscured.

(Adapted from http://www.economist.com/node/17519964)

Atenção: As questões de números 16 a 20 baseiam-se no texto abaixo.

    Technology and legal pressure have changed spammers’ terms of trade. They long relied on sending more e-mails from more computers, knowing that some will get through. But it is hard to send 100m e-mails without someone noticing. In 2008 researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and San Diego posed as spammers, infiltrated a botnet and measured its success rate. The investigation confirmed only 28 “sales” on 350m e-mail messages sent, a conversion rate under .00001%. Since then the numbers have got worse.
    But spammers are a creative bunch. KIK of tricking consumers into a purchase, they are stealing their money directly. Links used to direct the gullible to a site selling counterfeits. Now they install “Trojan” software that ransacks hard drives for bank details and the like.
    Spammers also have become more sophisticated about exploiting trust. In few places is it granted more readily than on social-networking sites. Twitter, a forum for short, telegram-like messages, estimates that only 1% of its traffic is spam. But researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana show that 8% of links published were shady, with KIIK of them leading to scams and the rest to Trojans. Links in Twitter messages, they found, are over 20 times more likely to get clicked than those in e-mail spam.
    Nor is Facebook as safe as it seems. As an experiment, BitDefender, an online-security firm, set up fake profiles on the social network and asked strangers to enter into a digital friendship. They were able to create as many as 100 new friends a day. Offering a profile picture, particularly of a pretty woman, increased their odds. When the firm’s researchers expanded their requests to strangers who shared even one mutual friend, almost half accepted. Worse, a quarter of BitDefender’s new friends clicked on links posted by the firm, even when the destination was obscured.

(Adapted from http://www.economist.com/node/17519964)

Atenção: As questões de números 16 a 20 baseiam-se no texto abaixo.

    Technology and legal pressure have changed spammers’ terms of trade. They long relied on sending more e-mails from more computers, knowing that some will get through. But it is hard to send 100m e-mails without someone noticing. In 2008 researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and San Diego posed as spammers, infiltrated a botnet and measured its success rate. The investigation confirmed only 28 “sales” on 350m e-mail messages sent, a conversion rate under .00001%. Since then the numbers have got worse.
    But spammers are a creative bunch. KIK of tricking consumers into a purchase, they are stealing their money directly. Links used to direct the gullible to a site selling counterfeits. Now they install “Trojan” software that ransacks hard drives for bank details and the like.
    Spammers also have become more sophisticated about exploiting trust. In few places is it granted more readily than on social-networking sites. Twitter, a forum for short, telegram-like messages, estimates that only 1% of its traffic is spam. But researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana show that 8% of links published were shady, with KIIK of them leading to scams and the rest to Trojans. Links in Twitter messages, they found, are over 20 times more likely to get clicked than those in e-mail spam.
    Nor is Facebook as safe as it seems. As an experiment, BitDefender, an online-security firm, set up fake profiles on the social network and asked strangers to enter into a digital friendship. They were able to create as many as 100 new friends a day. Offering a profile picture, particularly of a pretty woman, increased their odds. When the firm’s researchers expanded their requests to strangers who shared even one mutual friend, almost half accepted. Worse, a quarter of BitDefender’s new friends clicked on links posted by the firm, even when the destination was obscured.

(Adapted from http://www.economist.com/node/17519964)

Atenção: As questões de números 16 a 20 baseiam-se no texto abaixo.

    Technology and legal pressure have changed spammers’ terms of trade. They long relied on sending more e-mails from more computers, knowing that some will get through. But it is hard to send 100m e-mails without someone noticing. In 2008 researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and San Diego posed as spammers, infiltrated a botnet and measured its success rate. The investigation confirmed only 28 “sales” on 350m e-mail messages sent, a conversion rate under .00001%. Since then the numbers have got worse.
    But spammers are a creative bunch. KIK of tricking consumers into a purchase, they are stealing their money directly. Links used to direct the gullible to a site selling counterfeits. Now they install “Trojan” software that ransacks hard drives for bank details and the like.
    Spammers also have become more sophisticated about exploiting trust. In few places is it granted more readily than on social-networking sites. Twitter, a forum for short, telegram-like messages, estimates that only 1% of its traffic is spam. But researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana show that 8% of links published were shady, with KIIK of them leading to scams and the rest to Trojans. Links in Twitter messages, they found, are over 20 times more likely to get clicked than those in e-mail spam.
    Nor is Facebook as safe as it seems. As an experiment, BitDefender, an online-security firm, set up fake profiles on the social network and asked strangers to enter into a digital friendship. They were able to create as many as 100 new friends a day. Offering a profile picture, particularly of a pretty woman, increased their odds. When the firm’s researchers expanded their requests to strangers who shared even one mutual friend, almost half accepted. Worse, a quarter of BitDefender’s new friends clicked on links posted by the firm, even when the destination was obscured.

(Adapted from http://www.economist.com/node/17519964)