题目内容
To study architecture in a university one must
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
For much of the world, the death of Richard Nixon was the end of a complex public life. But researchers who study bereavement wondered if it didn’t also signify the end of a private grief. Had the former president merely run his allotted fourscore and one, or had he fallen victim to a pattern that seems to afflict longtime married couples: one spouse quickly following the other to the grave Pat, Nixon’s wife of 53 years, died last June after a long illness. No one knows for sure whether her death contributed to his. After all, he was elderly and had a history of serious heart disease. Researchers have long observed that the death of a spouse, particularly a wife, is sometimes followed by the untimely death of the grieving survivor. Historian Will Durant died 13 days after his wife and collaborator, Ariel; Buckminster Fuller and his wife died just 36 hours apart. Is this more than coincidence "Part of the story, I suspect, is that we men are so used to ladies feeding us and taking care of us," says Knud Helsing, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, "that when we lose a wife we go to pieces. We don’t know how to take care of ourselves. " In one of several studies Helsing has conducted on bereavement, he found that widowed men had higher mortality rates than married men in every age group. But, he found that widowers who remarried enjoyed the same lower mortality rate as men who’d never been widowed. Women’s health and resilience may also suffer after the loss of a spouse. In a 1987 study of widows, researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles, and UC, San Diego, found that they had a dramatic decline in levels of important immune- system cells that fight off disease. Earlier studies showed reduced immunity in widowers. For both men and women, the stress of losing a spouse can have a profound effect. "All sorts of potentially harmful medical problems can be worsened," says Gerald Davison, professor of psychology at the University of Southern California. People with high blood pressure, for example, may see it rise. In Nixon’s case, Davison speculates, "the stroke, although not caused directly by the stress, was probably hastened by it." Depression can affect the surviving spouse’s will to live; suicide is elevated in the bereaved, along with accidents not involving cars. Involvement in life helps prolong it. Mortality, says Duke University psychiatrist Daniel Blazer, is higher in older people without a good social-support-system, who don’t feel they’re part of a group or a family, that they "fit in" somewhere. And that’s a more common problem for men, who tend not to have as many close friendships as women. The sudden absence of routines can also be a health hazard, says Blazer. "A person who loses a spouse shows deterioration in normal habits like sleeping and eat- rag," he says. "They don’t have that other person to orient them, like when do you go to bed, when do you wake up, when do you eat, when do you take your medication, when do you go out to take a walk Your pattern is no longer locked into someone else’s pattern, so it deteriorates." While earlier studies suggested that the first six months to a year--or even the first week--were times of higher mortality for the bereaved, some newer studies find no special vulnerability in this initial period. Most men and women, of course, do not die as a result of the loss of a spouse. And there are ways to improve the odds. A strong sense of separate identity and lack of over-dependency during the marriage are helpful. Adult sons and daughters, siblings and friends need to pay special attention to a newly widowed parent. They can make sure that he or she is socializing, getting proper nutrition and medical care, expressing emotion and, above all, feeling needed and appreciated. One of the results of grief mentioned in the passage is
Asia’s oil needs
Cooperative competition. Competitive cooperation. Confused Airline alliances have travellers scratching their heads over what’s going on in the skies. Some folks view alliances as a blessing to travellers, offering seamless travel, reduced fares and enhanced frequent-flyer benefits. Others see a conspiracy of big businesses, causing de- creased competition, increased fares and fewer choices. Whatever your opinion, there’s no escaping airline alliances: the marketing hype is unrelenting, with each of the two mega-groupings, One world and Star Alliance, promoting itself as the best choice for all travellers. And, even if you turn away from their ads, chances are they will figure in any of your travel plans. By the end of the year, One world and Star Alliance will between them control more than 40% of the traffic in the sky. Some pundits predict that figure will be more like 75% in 10 years. But why, after years of often ferocious competition, have airlines decided to band together Let’s just say the timing is mutually convenient. North American airlines, having exhausted all means of earning customer loyalty at home, have been looking for ways to reach out to foreign flyers. Asian carriers are still hurting from the region-wide economic downturn that began two years ago -- just when some of the airlines were taking delivery of new aircraft. Alliances also allow carriers to cut costs and increase profits by pooling manpower resources on the ground (rather than each airline maintaining its own ground crew) and code-sharing--the practice of two partners selling tickets and operating only one aircraft. So alliances are terrific for airlines--but are they good for the passenger Absolutely, say the airlines: think of the lounges, the joint FFP (frequent flyer programme) benefits, the round-the-world fares, and the global service networks. Then there’s the promise of "seamless" travel: the ability to, say, travel from Singapore to Rome to New York to Rio de Janiero, all on one ticket, without having to wait hours for connections or worry about your bags. Sounds utopian Peter Buecking, Cathay Pacific’s director of sales and marketing, thinks that seamless travel is still evolving. "It’s fair to say that these links are only in their infancy. The key to seamlessness rests in infrastructure and information sharing. We’re working on this." Henry Ma, spokesperson for Star Alliance in Hong Kong, lists some of the other benefits for consumers : "Global travellers have an easier time making connections and planning their itineraries. " Ma claims alliances also assure passengers consistent service standards. Critics of alliances say the much-touted benefits to the consumer are mostly pie in the sky, that alliances are all about reducing costs for the airlines, rationalizing services and running joint marketing programmes. Jeff Blyskal, associate editor of Consumer Reports magazine, says the promotional ballyhoo over alliances is much ado about nothing. "I don’t see much of a gain for consumers: alliances are just a marketing gimmick. And as far as seamless travel goes, I’ll believe it when I see it. Most airlines can’t even get their own connections under control, let alone coordinate with another airline. " Blyskal believes alliances will ultimately result in decreased flight choices and increased costs for consumers. Instead of two airlines competing and each operating a flight on the same route at 70% capacity, the allied pair will share the route and run one full flight. Since fewer seats will be available, passengers will be obliged to pay more for tickets. The truth about alliances and their merits probably lies somewhere between the travel utopia presented by the players and the evil empires portrayed by their critics. And how much they affect you depends on what kind of traveller you are. Those who’ve already made the elite grade in the FFP of a major airline stand to benefit the most when it joins an alliance: then they enjoy the FFP perks and advantages on any and all of the member carriers. For example, if you’re a Marco Polo Club "gold" member of Cathay Pacific’s Asia Miles FFP, you will automatically be treated as a valuable customer by all members of One world, of which Cathay Pacific is a member even if you’ve never flown with them before. For those who haven’t made the top grade in any FFP, alliances might be a way of simplifying the earning of frequent flyer miles. For example, I belong to United Airline’s Mile- age Plus and generally fly less than 25,000 miles a year. But 1 earn miles with every flight l take on Star Alliance member--All Nippon Airways and Thai Airways. If you fly less than I do, you might be smarter to stay out of the FFP game altogether. Hunt for bargains when booking flights and you might be able to save enough to take that extra trip anyway. The only real benefit infrequent flyers can draw from an alliance is an inexpensive round-the-world fare. The bottom line: for all the marketing hype, alliances aren’t all things to all people--but everybody can get some benefit out of them. Which of the following is NOT a perceived advantage of alliances
Despite Denmark’s manifest virtues, Danes never talk about how proud they are to be Danes. This would sound weird in Danish. When Danes talk to foreigners about Denmark, they always begin by commenting on its tininess, its unimportance, the difficulty of its language, the general small-mindedness and self-indulgence of their countrymen and the high taxes. No Dane would look you in the eye and say, "Denmark is a great country." You’re supposed to figure this out for yourself. It is the land of the silk safety net, where almost half the national budget goes toward smoothing out life’s inequalities, and there is plenty of money for schools, day care, retraining programmes, job seminars -- Danes love seminars: three days at a study centre hearing about waste management is almost as good as a ski trip. It is a culture bombarded by English, in advertising, pop music, the Internet, and despite all the English that Danish absorbs there is no Danish Academy to defend against it--old dialects persist in Jutland that can barely be understood by Copenhageners. It is the land where, as the saying goes, "Few have too much and fewer have too little," and a foreigner is struck by the sweet egalitarianism that prevails, where the lowliest clerk gives you a level gaze, where Sir and Madame have disappeared from common usage, even Mr. and Mrs. It’s a nation of recyclers--about 55% of Danish garbage gets made into something new- and no nuclear power plants. It’s a nation of tireless planners. Trains run on time. Things operate well in general. Such a nation of overachievers--a brochure from the Ministry of Business and Industry says, "Denmark is one of the world’s cleanest and most organized countries, with virtually no pollution, crime, or poverty. Denmark is the most corruption-free society in the Northern Hemisphere." So, of course, one’s heart lifts at any sighting of Danish sleaze: skinhead graffiti on buildings ("Foreigners Out of Denmark!"), broken beer bottles in the gutters, drunken teenagers slumped in the park. Nonetheless, it is an orderly land. You drive through a Danish town, it comes to an end at a stone wall, and on the other side is a field of barley, a nice clean line: town here, country there. It is not a nation of jaywalkers. People stand on the curb and wait for the red light to change, even if it’s 2 a.m. and there’s not a car in sight. However, Danes don’t think of themselves as a waiting-at-2-a.m.-for-the-green-light people that’s how they see Swedes and Germans. Danes see themselves as jazzy people, improvisers, more free spirited than Swedes, but the truth is (though one should not say it) that Danes are very much like Germans and Swedes. Orderliness is a main selling point. Denmark has few natural resources, limited manufacturing capability; its future in Europe will be as a broker, banker, and distributor of goods. You send your goods by container ship to Copenhagen, and these bright, young, English-speaking, utterly honest, highly disciplined people will get your goods around to Scandinavia, the Baltic States, and Russia. Airports, seaports, highways, and rail lines are ultramodern and well-maintained. The orderliness of the society doesn’t mean that Danish lives are less messy or lonely than yours or mine, and no Dane would tell you so. You can hear plenty about bitter family feuds and the sorrows of alcoholism and about perfectly sensible people who went off one day and killed themselves. An orderly society cannot exempt its members from the hazards of life. But there is a sense of entitlement and security that Danes grow up with. Certain things are yours by virtue of citizenship, and you shouldn’t feel bad for taking what you’re entitled to, you’re as good as anyone else. The rules of the welfare system are clear to everyone, the benefits you get if you lose your job, the steps you take to get a new one; and the orderliness of the system makes it possible for the country to weather high unemployment and social unrest without a sense of crisis. At the end of the passage the author states all the following EXCEPT that
微信支付 
支付宝支付