在唯物辩证法看来，水果同苹果、梨、香蕉、桔子等的关系是___

“是就是是，不是就是不是，除此之外都是鬼话。”这是一种___

真象和假象的区别在于___

有的哲学家说，在大风扬起的尘土中，每一粒尘土的运动状况都是纯粹必然的。这是种___

“或然率”是指___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author think of the 2015 report by the Census Bureau?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author say about the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What do Jones and Klenow think of the comparison between France and the U.S. in terms of real consumption per person?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What is an advantage of the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What can we infer from the passage about American people’s economic well-being?___

大学生的成才目标是___。

现代人才素质的灵魂是___。

___是人才素质的基础.

世界政治格局发展的必然趋势是___。

在全面发展的教育中德、智、体、美是缺一不可，统一存在的，其中处于主导地位的是___。

时代精神的内涵十分丰富，其中___居于核心地位。

民族精神是一个民族赖以生存和发展的精神支撑。中华民族在五千年的发展中所形成的伟大民族精神的核心是___。

下列名言反映中华民族是一个艰苦奋斗的民族的有___。

___是人才素质的基本内容

10。___是我们立党立国的根本指导思想

衡量大学生全面发展的一个重要标准是___

独立生活意识指___

___作为社会主义核心价值体系的精髓，解决的是应当具备什么样的精神状态和精神风貌的问题。

___是人才素质的综合体现.

人们对生活在其中的世界及人与世界的关系的总的看法和根本观点就是___

人生观的核心是___

人的本质属性是___

社会主义社会人生价值标准是___

回答人为什么活着___

表明人应当怎样对待生活___

判别什么样的人生才有意义___

下列人生态度中正确的是___

下列属于正确的人生目的的是___

___认为,金钱可以主宰一切.

___ 认为，社会和他人是达到个人目的的手段。

___认为，人生的全部内容就在于满足感官的需求与快乐。

马克思对于人的本质的论断确立与___

人与自然关系的实质是___

在社会交往和公共生活中公民应该遵守的道德准则是___

社会公德最基本的要求是___

城市轨道交通运营险性事件达到国务院规定的事故等级的，按国务院规定的等级和分类标准，分为 、重大事故、较大事故和一般事故。___

城市轨道交通运营险性事件达到国务院规定的事故等级的，按国务院规定的等级和分类标准，分为特别重大事故、重大事故、 和一般事故。___

城市轨道交通运营险性事件达到国务院规定的事故等级的，按国务院规定的等级和分类标准，分为特别重大事故、重大事故、较大事故和 。___

城市轨道交通运营险性事件达到国务院规定的事故等级的，按国务院规定的等级和分类标准，分为特别重大事故、 、较大事故和一般事故。___

报告运营险性事件应不包括下列内容___

相关单位和个人应配合开展运营险性事件技术分析工作，按要求及时提供相关技术文件、 和资料，并对所提供材料的真实性负责。___

其他障碍物是指声屏障、防火门、人防门、防淹门等构筑物及射流风机、 、管线等吊挂构件或其他设备脱落侵入限界。___

挤岔是指在正线、配线、车场线等线路，由于道岔位置不正确、尖轨未能与基本轨密贴，导致列车通过道岔时将尖轨与基本轨挤开或挤坏过程，造成尖轨弯曲变形、 损坏。___

运营开始前， 等应确认施工核销、线路出清、设备状态、行车计划准备等情况并报行车调度人员。___

调度人员确认具备条件后，原则上应安排空驶列车限速轧道。确认线路安全后，方可开始运营。___

运菅单位应合理安排驾驶员工作时间，单次值乘的驾驶时长不应超过 ，连续值乘间隔不应小于15分钟。___

运营单位应配备酒精检测等设备，有条件的可配备毒品检测设备，在出勤时通过 、问询等方式对驾驶员状态进行检查。___

列车进站时，驾驶员应确认列车在车站 位置停稳后方可开启车门及站台门。___

当切除列车自动防护（ATP）或采用点式ATP运行等特殊情况时，车站 应根据调度命令，严密监控列车运行和站台情况，遇紧急情况应及时采取措施。___

共线段接口站 时，车站行车人员应确认发车进路与列车计划目的地的一致性。___

度人员应在确保安全的前提下取消原进路后重新办理正确进路。___

配属于不同线路的载客列车，经线间联络线运行 至另一条线路继续运营的运行方式为 。___

行车调度人员应根据 组织列车退出服务,运营结束后应做好当日行车记录和相关统计分析工作。___

车辆基地应确保 状态良好,优先保障接发列车作业。___

车辆基地内调车作业由车辆基地调度人员统一指挥，调车司机凭地面信号或手信号显示开行列车，调车时严禁溜放调车，摘钩前应做好防溜措施，连挂妥当后应确认防溜措施已撤除。___

试车线同一时间原则上只允许一列车进行试车作业，作业开 始前应对试车线进行限速轧道。试车作业应按地面信号或车载信 号显示运行。距离尽头线阻挡信号机20米时运行速度不应高于 km/h。___

试车线同一时间原则上只允许一列车进行试车作业，作业开 始前应对试车线进行限速轧道。试车作业应按地面信号或车载信 号显示运行。距离尽头线阻挡信号机 米时必须停车。___

试车线遇雨雪、大雾等恶劣天气时，原则上 试车作业。___

发生突发情况，行车调度人员应及时发布调度命令,在保证行车安全的前提下尽可能维持列车运行。驾驶员、车站行车人员等发现可能危及行车安全或运营秩序的情况时，应及时向 人员报告。___

需进入行车区域、动用行车设备及进行影响行车施工的，由 人员向各单位发布抢修命令。___

因设施设备故障、重大施工等原因，部分区段需限 速运行的，应由有关方面论证后提出限速运行方案，方案应明确限 速区域、限速值、限速时段及起止时间，报行车调度人员，由其发布 限速及取消限速命令。同一区域存在多个限速要求时，应取最小 限速值。限速运行方案应在取消限速后至少保存 个月。___

列车需越过防护信号机显示的禁止信号时，行 车调度人员应确认该信号机后方线路空闲、道岔位置正确且锁闭 后，方可发布越过禁止信号的命令，首列车运行速度不应高于 km/h。___

列车ATP失效时，驾驶员应及时报告行车调度人员。行车调度人员原则上应组织列车在就近车站清客后退出服务，确需继续载客运行至终点站的， 应与前方列车至少间隔 区间并限速运行。___

列车停站越过停车标未超过可退行距离需退行 时，驾驶员应退行列车，推进退行速度不应超过 km/h。___

列车因故需在区间退行或列车越过停车标超过可退行距离确需退行时，驾驶员应及时报告行车调度人员。行车 调度人员应扣停后续列车，在确认列车退行路径空闲且满足安全 防护距离、道岔位置正确且锁闭后，方可发布退行命令，必要时应 组织车站行车人员做好引导。推进退行速度不应超过 km/h, 牵引退行速度不应超过35km/h。___

列车因故需在区间退行或列车越过停车标超过可退行距离确需退行时，驾驶员应及时报告行车调度人员。行车 调度人员应扣停后续列车，在确认列车退行路径空闲且满足安全 防护距离、道岔位置正确且锁闭后，方可发布退行命令，必要时应 组织车站行车人员做好引导。有轨电车不得推进退行，牵引退行速度不应超过 km/ho___

正线列车因故障无法动车时，行车调度人员应 及时组织其他列车实施连挂救援，救援列车接近故障列车时应停车，与故障 列车联系确认后进行连挂，连挂时运行速度不应超过km/h。___

正线列车因故障无法动车时，行车调度人员应 及时组织其他列车实施连挂救援，连 挂后两列车均为空驶的，推进运行速度不应超过 km/h。___

正线列车因故障无法动车时，行车调度人员应 及时组织其他列车实施连挂救援，连 挂后两列车均为空驶的，牵引运 行速度不应超过 km/h。___

正线列车因故障无法动车时，行车调度人员应 及时组织其他列车实施连挂救援，连挂后任一列车载客的，运行速度不应超过 km/h。___

正线列车因故障无法动车时，行车调度人员应 及时组织其他列车实施连挂救援，特殊情况下使用工程车救援空驶列车时，连挂后运行速度不应超过 km/h。___

有轨电车不得载客救援（遇特殊天气或者故障列车停在隧 道、桥梁的除外），空驶列车救援连挂后运行速度不应超过 km/h。___

线路出现道岔故障且通过终端操作、现场检查 确认等手段仍无法消除的，确认具备行车条件后方可组织行车。通过故障区域的首列车运行 速度不应高于 km/h。___

一个联锁区联锁失效时，在保证行车安全的前提下，行车调度人员可对故障影响区域使用 组织行车。___

接触网（轨）失电时，驾驶员应尽量维持列车进站，并及时报告行车调度人员，列车迫停地下区间超过 分钟时，环控调度人员应启动相应环控模式。___