Toggle navigation
Home
Article Category
Question Papers
General Knowlege
Popular Pages
Multiple Choice Question in 049
Multiple Choice Question in
Multiple Choice Question in TRADES-INSTRUCTOR---GR-II---SMITHY---TECHNICAL-EDUCATION
Multiple Choice Question in -current-affairs-2016
Question Answer in ASSISTANT-PROFESSOR---COMPUTER-SCIENCE-AND-ENGINEERING---TECHNICAL-EDUCATION
Multiple Choice Question in ASSISTANT-PROFESSOR---COMPUTER-SCIENCE-AND-ENGINEERING---TECHNICAL-EDUCATION
Multiple Choice Question in english
Multiple Choice Question in abbreviations-abbreviations-m
Multiple Choice Question in SSC CHSL 7 March 2018 Morning Shift
Multiple Choice Question in 072/2016
Multiple Choice Question in 100/2016
Question Answer Bank
Multiple Choice Question Bank
Question Answer Category
Multiple Choice Question Category
Home
->
Question Answer Bank
1. Syngular or Plural of word Proof
Answer: Proofs
Previous Question
Next Question
Add Tags
Report Error
Reply
Type in
(Press Ctrl+g to toggle between English and the chosen language)
Post reply
Comments
Tags
Show Similar Question And Answers
QA->Materials for rain-proof coats and tents owe their water proof properties to:....
QA->Syngular or Plural of word Proof....
QA->Which material is used for making bullet proof dress....
QA->Which polymeric material is used for making bullet proof jacket?....
QA->Which polymer is widely used for making bullet proof material?....
MCQ->Examine the following statements Pneumatic systems are fire proof.Pneumatic systems are explosion proof.Hydraulic systems are explosion proof.Hydraulic systems are fire proof. Which of the above statements are correct?...
MCQ->Materials for rain-proof coats and tents owe their water-proof properties to...
MCQ->Statements : No proof is an evidence. No proof is an indication. Conclusions: I. All Indication being evidences is a possibility. II. No evidence is an indication....
MCQ-> In the following questions, you have a passage with 10 questions. Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.The cyber -world is ultimately ungovernable. This is alarming as well as convenient; sometimes, convenient because alarming. Some Indian politicians use this to great advantage. When there is an obvious failure in governance during a crisis they deflect attention from their own incompetence towards the ungovernable. So, having failed to prevent nervous citizens from fleeing their cities of work by assuring of proper protection, some national leaders are now busy tying to prove to one another, and to panic-prone Indians, that a mischievous neighbour has been using the Internet and social networking sites to spread dangerous rumours. And the Centre’s automatic reaction is to start blocking these sites and begin elaborate and potentially endless negotiations with Google, Twitter and Facebook about access to information. If this is the official idea of prompt action at a time of crisis among communities, then Indians have more reason to fear their protectors than the nebulous mischief-makers of the cyber -world. Wasting time gathering proof. blocking vaguely suspicious websites, hurling accusations across the border and worrying about bilateral relations are ways of keeping busy with inessentials because one does not quite know what to do about the essentials of a difficult situation. Besides, only a fifth of the 245 websites blocked by the Centre mention the people of the Northeast or the violence in Assam. And if a few morphed images and spurious texts can unsettle an entire nation, then there is something deeply wrong with the nation and with how it is being governed. This is what its leaders should be addressing immediately, rather than making a wrongheaded display of their powers of censorship.It is just as absurd, and part of the same syndrome to try to ban Twitter accounts that parody dispatches from the Prime Minister’s Office. To describe such forms of humour and dissent as “misrepresenting” the PMO — as if Twitterers would take these parodies for genuine dispatches from the PMO makes the PMO look more ridiculous than its parodists manage to. With the precedent for such action set recently by the chief minister of West Bengal, this is yet another proof that what Bengal thinks to day India will think tomorrow. Using the cyber -world for flexing the wrong muscles is essentially not funny. It might even prove to be quite dangerously Distracting.According to the passage, the cyber-world is
...
MCQ-> Recently I spent several hours sitting under a tree in my garden with the social anthropologist William Ury, a Harvard University professor who specializes in the art of negotiation and wrote the bestselling book, Getting to Yes. He captivated me with his theory that tribalism protects people from their fear of rapid change. He explained that the pillars of tribalism that humans rely on for security would always counter any significant cultural or social change. In this way, he said, change is never allowed to happen too fast. Technology, for example, is a pillar of society. Ury believes that every time technology moves in a new or radical direction, another pillar such as religion or nationalism will grow stronger in effect, the traditional and familiar will assume greater importance to compensate for the new and untested. In this manner, human tribes avoid rapid change that leaves people insecure and frightened.But we have all heard that nothing is as permanent as change. Nothing is guaranteed. Pithy expressions, to be sure, but no more than cliches. As Ury says, people don’t live that way from day-to-day. On the contrary, they actively seek certainty and stability. They want to know they will be safe.Even so we scare ourselves constantly with the idea of change. An IBM CEO once said: ‘We only re-structure for a good reason, and if we haven’t re-structured in a while, that’s a good reason.’ We are scared that competitors, technology and the consumer will put us Out of business — so we have to change all the time just to stay alive. But if we asked our fathers and grandfathers, would they have said that they lived in a period of little change? Structure may not have changed much. It may just be the speed with which we do things.Change is over-rated, anyway, consider the automobile. It’s an especially valuable example, because the auto industry has spent tens of billions of dollars on research and product development in the last 100 years. Henry Ford’s first car had a metal chassis with an internal combustion, gasoline-powered engine, four wheels with rubber types, a foot operated clutch assembly and brake system, a steering wheel, and four seats, and it could safely do 1 8 miles per hour. A hundred years and tens of thousands of research hours later, we drive cars with a metal chassis with an internal combustion, gasoline-powered engine, four wheels with rubber tyres a foot operated clutch assembly and brake system, a steering wheel, four seats – and the average speed in London in 2001 was 17.5 miles per hour!That’s not a hell of a lot of return for the money. Ford evidently doesn’t have much to teach us about change. The fact that they’re still manufacturing cars is not proof that Ford Motor Co. is a sound organization, just proof that it takes very large companies to make cars in great quantities — making for an almost impregnable entry barrier.Fifty years after the development of the jet engine, planes are also little changed. They’ve grown bigger, wider and can carry more people. But those are incremental, largely cosmetic changes.Taken together, this lack of real change has come to man that in travel — whether driving or flying — time and technology have not combined to make things much better. The safety and design have of course accompanied the times and the new volume of cars and flights, but nothing of any significance has changed in the basic assumptions of the final product.At the same time, moving around in cars or aero-planes becomes less and less efficient all the time Not only has there been no great change, but also both forms of transport have deteriorated as more people clamour to use them. The same is true for telephones, which took over hundred years to become mobile or photographic film, which also required an entire century to change.The only explanation for this is anthropological. Once established in calcified organizations, humans do two things: sabotage changes that might render people dispensable, and ensure industry-wide emulation. In the 960s, German auto companies developed plans to scrap the entire combustion engine for an electrical design. (The same existed in the 1970s in Japan, and in the 1980s in France.) So for 40 years we might have been free of the wasteful and ludicrous dependence on fossil fuels. Why didn’t it go anywhere? Because auto executives understood pistons and carburettors, and would be loath to cannibalize their expertise, along with most of their factoriesAccording to the above passage, which of the following statements is true?
...
×
×
Type The Issue
Terms And Service:We do not guarantee the accuracy of available data ..We Provide Information On Public Data.. Please consult an expert before using this data for commercial or personal use
Powered By:Omega Web Solutions
© 2002-2017 Omega Education PVT LTD...
Privacy
|
Terms And Conditions