题目内容
Life really should be one long journey of joy for children born with a world of wealth at their tiny feet. But psychologists now believe that silver spoons can leave a bitter taste. If suicide statistics are an indicator of happiness, then the rich are a miserable lot. Figures show that it is the wealthy who most often do away with themselves. Internationally famous child psychiatrist Dr. Robert Coles is the world’s top expert on the influence of money on children. He has written a highly-acclaimed book on the subject, The Privileged Ones, and his research shows that too much money in the family can cause as many problems as too little. "Obviously there are certain advantages to being rich," says the 53-year-old psychiatrist, "such as better health, education and future work prospects. But most important is the quality of family life. Money can’t buy love." It can buy a lot of other things, though, and that’s where the trouble starts. Rich kids have so much to choose from that they often become confused. Over-indulgence by their parents can make them spoilt. They tend to travel more than other children, from home to home and country to country, which causes feelings of restlessness. "But privileged children do have a better sense of their positions in the world," adds Mr. Coles, "and they are more self-assured. I can’t imagine, for instance, that Prince William will not grow up to be self-assured." Prince William is probably the most privileged child in the world and will grow up to fill the world’s most privileged position King of England. It is a fact that no one knows how much the Queen is worth. There are the royal estates two palaces, two castles and a country mansion. There’s also the royal picture collection, the stamp collection, the library, the jewels and the royal yacht Britannia. Before he inherits that lot, William will succeed his father as Prince of Wales and enjoy the income from the Duchy of Cornwall, currently worth 771,480 pounds a year. Known jokingly around the Palace as West Country Limited, the Duchy consists of 26,600 acres of Cornwall including mineral rights for tin mining and 2,000 acres of forestry. It also owns the Oval cricket ground, 900 flats in London, oyster beds and a golf course. So money will never be one of Prince William’s problems. Living anything that resembles a normal life will. "He will have a sense of isolation," cautions Dr. Coles, "and he could suffer from the handicap of not being able to deal with the everyday world because he will never really be given the chance. Royals exist in an elaborate social fantasy. Everything they have achieved is because of an accident of birth. There can be no tremendous inner satisfaction about that." Today’s wealthy parents perhaps realise their riches can be more of a burden than a blessing to their children. So their priority is to ensure that their families are as rich in love as they are in money. From the first paragraph we can learn that
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Fingerprints, one of the great deciders of innocence or guilt in criminal charges, are now in the dock themselves. This is because of a growing number of claims from defendants that their ’prints’ have been ’lifted’ and planted at scenes of crimes. And these allegations are being taken seriously by lawyers, judges and policemen because it is possible to move a fingerprint from one spot and place it elsewhere. With one of the cornerstones of evidence now being placed in doubt a committee of criminal lawyers is carrying out an inquiry into fingerprinting. The investigation has been ordered by Justice, the prestigious legal organization, and a report is due early next year. Last night a spokesman for Justice said: "There are an increasing number of cases where people are claiming their prints have been transferred and put in incrimination objects. We are not aiming to establish if these allegations are true or not, but we are questioning current fingerprinting methods as part of a general investigation into scientific evidence. Some of Britain’s top criminal lawyers are worried about this increasing number of claims." How can a fingerprint be transferred A fingermark left on a greasy glass or some other smooth surface can be ’lifted’ with a strip of adhesive. It can then be deposited on another, perhaps incriminating, object. Accusations about ’planted prints’ were first put up at an Old Bailey IRA bomb trial nine years ago without success. Fingerprints at the scene of a crime used to be dusted down with fine powder, photographed for identification purposes, then the pictures and the objects carrying the prints were produced in court. However, since 1973 a new method of taking prints has been generally used in Britain. Police experts now use a strip of adhesive tape to ’lift’ a print which is then produced in court as evidence. Before 1973 the object on which the prints were found a bottle, dagger or a gun used to be shown in court as well. This is no longer necessary. As a result criminals are claiming that their prints have been lifted and planted elsewhere. There have been two successful claims in the United States, though this line of defence has failed in Britain. According to the ex-chief of Scotland Yard’s fingerprint department, Mr Harold Squires, who is now an independent defence witness: "More than 55% of the cases I now get are making these claims. But so far I have not seen any fingerprint evidence that proves the allegation to be true. Petty crooks are always accusing the police of lifting their prints and planting them at the scene of a crime." According to ex-chief Superintendent Squires, lifting a mark and transferring it to another object "requires great skill and trouble". He added: "It’s almost impossible but it can be done. It can usually be easily detected by someone like me, but there is a chance that even I may not be able to tell." Mr. Squires sees the new line of defence as an attack on the police by desperate men. He would like the old method of photographing prints and producing them together with the object pictured to be generally used again. The investigation into fingerprinting is
We all know that the normal human daily cycle of activity is of some 7--8 hours’ sleep alternating with some 16--17 hours’ wakefulness and that, broadly speaking, the sleep normally coincides with the hours of darkness. Our present concern is with how easily and to what extent this cycle can be modified. The question is no mere academic one. The case, for example, with which people can change from working in the day to working at night is a question of growing importance in industry where automation calls insistently for round-the-clock working of machines. It normally takes from five days to one week for a person to adapt to a reversed routine of sleep and wakefulness, sleeping during the day and working at night. Unfortunately, it is often the case in industry that shies are changed every week; a person may work from 12 midnight to 8 a.m. one week, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. the next, and 4 p.m. to 12 midnight the third and so on. This means that no sooner has he got used to one routine than he has to change to another, so that much of his time is spent neither working nor sleeping very efficiently. One answer would seem to be longer periods on each shift, a month, or even three months. Recent research by Bonjer of the Netherlands, however, has shown that people on such systems will revert to their normal habits of sleep and wakefulness during the week-end and that this is quite enough to destroy any adaptation to night work built up during the week. The only real solution appears to be to hand over the night shifts to a corps of permanent night workers whose nocturnal wakefulness may persist through all week-ends and holidays. An interesting study of the domestic life and health of night-shifts workers was carried out by Brown in 1957. She found a high incidence of disturbed sleep, digestive disorder and domestic disruption among those on alternating day and night shifts, but no abnormal occurrence of these symptoms among those on permanent night work. This latter system then appears to be the best long-term policy, but meanwhile something may be done to relieve the strains of alternate day and night work by selecting these people who can adapt most quickly to the changes of routine. One way of knowing when a person has adapted is by measuring his performance, but this can be laborious. Fortunately, we again have a physiological measure which correlates reasonably well with the behavioral one, in this case performance at various times of the day or night, and which is easier to take. This is the level of body temperature, as taken by an ordinary clinical thermometer. People engaged in normal daytime work will have a high temperature during the hours of wakefulness and a low one at night; when they change to night work the pattern will only gradually reverse to match the new routine and the speed with which it does so parallels, broadly speaking, the adaptation of the body as a whole, particularly in terms of performance and general alertness. Therefore by taking body temperature at intervals of two hours throughout the period of wakefulness it can be seen how quickly a person can adapt to a reversed routine, and this could be used as a basis for selection. So far, however, such a form of selection does not seem to have been applied in practice. The main problem about night work is that
We all know that the normal human daily cycle of activity is of some 7--8 hours’ sleep alternating with some 16--17 hours’ wakefulness and that, broadly speaking, the sleep normally coincides with the hours of darkness. Our present concern is with how easily and to what extent this cycle can be modified. The question is no mere academic one. The case, for example, with which people can change from working in the day to working at night is a question of growing importance in industry where automation calls insistently for round-the-clock working of machines. It normally takes from five days to one week for a person to adapt to a reversed routine of sleep and wakefulness, sleeping during the day and working at night. Unfortunately, it is often the case in industry that shies are changed every week; a person may work from 12 midnight to 8 a.m. one week, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. the next, and 4 p.m. to 12 midnight the third and so on. This means that no sooner has he got used to one routine than he has to change to another, so that much of his time is spent neither working nor sleeping very efficiently. One answer would seem to be longer periods on each shift, a month, or even three months. Recent research by Bonjer of the Netherlands, however, has shown that people on such systems will revert to their normal habits of sleep and wakefulness during the week-end and that this is quite enough to destroy any adaptation to night work built up during the week. The only real solution appears to be to hand over the night shifts to a corps of permanent night workers whose nocturnal wakefulness may persist through all week-ends and holidays. An interesting study of the domestic life and health of night-shifts workers was carried out by Brown in 1957. She found a high incidence of disturbed sleep, digestive disorder and domestic disruption among those on alternating day and night shifts, but no abnormal occurrence of these symptoms among those on permanent night work. This latter system then appears to be the best long-term policy, but meanwhile something may be done to relieve the strains of alternate day and night work by selecting these people who can adapt most quickly to the changes of routine. One way of knowing when a person has adapted is by measuring his performance, but this can be laborious. Fortunately, we again have a physiological measure which correlates reasonably well with the behavioral one, in this case performance at various times of the day or night, and which is easier to take. This is the level of body temperature, as taken by an ordinary clinical thermometer. People engaged in normal daytime work will have a high temperature during the hours of wakefulness and a low one at night; when they change to night work the pattern will only gradually reverse to match the new routine and the speed with which it does so parallels, broadly speaking, the adaptation of the body as a whole, particularly in terms of performance and general alertness. Therefore by taking body temperature at intervals of two hours throughout the period of wakefulness it can be seen how quickly a person can adapt to a reversed routine, and this could be used as a basis for selection. So far, however, such a form of selection does not seem to have been applied in practice. Why is the question ’no mere academic one’
We all know that the normal human daily cycle of activity is of some 7--8 hours’ sleep alternating with some 16--17 hours’ wakefulness and that, broadly speaking, the sleep normally coincides with the hours of darkness. Our present concern is with how easily and to what extent this cycle can be modified. The question is no mere academic one. The case, for example, with which people can change from working in the day to working at night is a question of growing importance in industry where automation calls insistently for round-the-clock working of machines. It normally takes from five days to one week for a person to adapt to a reversed routine of sleep and wakefulness, sleeping during the day and working at night. Unfortunately, it is often the case in industry that shies are changed every week; a person may work from 12 midnight to 8 a.m. one week, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. the next, and 4 p.m. to 12 midnight the third and so on. This means that no sooner has he got used to one routine than he has to change to another, so that much of his time is spent neither working nor sleeping very efficiently. One answer would seem to be longer periods on each shift, a month, or even three months. Recent research by Bonjer of the Netherlands, however, has shown that people on such systems will revert to their normal habits of sleep and wakefulness during the week-end and that this is quite enough to destroy any adaptation to night work built up during the week. The only real solution appears to be to hand over the night shifts to a corps of permanent night workers whose nocturnal wakefulness may persist through all week-ends and holidays. An interesting study of the domestic life and health of night-shifts workers was carried out by Brown in 1957. She found a high incidence of disturbed sleep, digestive disorder and domestic disruption among those on alternating day and night shifts, but no abnormal occurrence of these symptoms among those on permanent night work. This latter system then appears to be the best long-term policy, but meanwhile something may be done to relieve the strains of alternate day and night work by selecting these people who can adapt most quickly to the changes of routine. One way of knowing when a person has adapted is by measuring his performance, but this can be laborious. Fortunately, we again have a physiological measure which correlates reasonably well with the behavioral one, in this case performance at various times of the day or night, and which is easier to take. This is the level of body temperature, as taken by an ordinary clinical thermometer. People engaged in normal daytime work will have a high temperature during the hours of wakefulness and a low one at night; when they change to night work the pattern will only gradually reverse to match the new routine and the speed with which it does so parallels, broadly speaking, the adaptation of the body as a whole, particularly in terms of performance and general alertness. Therefore by taking body temperature at intervals of two hours throughout the period of wakefulness it can be seen how quickly a person can adapt to a reversed routine, and this could be used as a basis for selection. So far, however, such a form of selection does not seem to have been applied in practice. The main theme of the text is
微信支付 
支付宝支付