题目内容
患者，男，30岁，诊断为甲状腺功能亢进症，现用口服药物治疗，饮酒后出现双下肢软瘫。 下列各项需要紧急处理的是
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Pundits who want to sound judicious are fond of warning against generalizing. Each country is different, they say, and no one story fits all of Asia. This is, of course, silly: all of these economies plunged into economic crisis within a few months of each other, so they must have had something in common. In fact, the logic of catastrophe was pretty much the same in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and South Korea. (Japan is a very different story. ) In each case investors-mainly, but not entirely, foreign banks who had made short-term loans -- all tried to pull their money out at the same time. The result was a combined banking and currency crisis: a banking crisis because no bank can convert all its assets into cash on short notice; a currency crisis because panicked investors were trying not only to convert long-term assets into cash, but to convert baht or rupiah into dollars. In the face of the stampede, governments had no good options. If they let their currencies plunge, inflation would soar and companies that had borrowed in dollars would go bankrupt; if they tried to support their currencies by pushing up interest rates, the same firms would probably go bust from the combination of debt burden, and recession. In practice, countries split the difference--and paid a heavy price regardless. Was the crisis a punishment for bad economic management Like most cliches, the catchphrase "crony capitalism" has prospered because it gets at something real: excessively cozy relationships between government and business really did lead to a lot of bad investments. The still primitive financial structure of Asian business also made the economies peculiarly vulnerable to a loss of confidence. But the punishment was surely disproportionate to the crime, and many investments that look foolish in retrospect seemed sensible at the time. Given that there were no good policy options, was the policy response mainly on the right track There was frantic blame-shifting when everything in Asia seemed to be going wrong; now there is a race to claim credit when some things have started to go right. The International Monetary Fund points to Korea’s recovery -- and more generally to the fact that the sky didn’t fall after all--as proof that its policy recommendations were right. Never mind that other IMF clients have done far worse, and that the economy of Malaysia -- which refused IMF help, and horrified respectable opinion by imposing capital controls also seems to be on the mend. Malaysia’s Prime Minister, by contrast, claims full credit for any good news -- even though neighbouring economies also seem to have bottomed out. The truth is that an observer without any ax to grind would probably conclude that none of the policies adopted either on or in defiance of the IMF’s advice made much difference either way. Budget policies, interest rate policies, banking reform -- whatever countries tried, just about all the capital that could flee, did. And when there was no more money to run, the natural recuperative powers of the economies finally began to prevail. At best, the money doctors who purported to offer cures provided a helpful bedside manner; at worst, they were like medieval physicians who prescribed bleeding as a remedy for all ills. Will the patients stage a full recovery It depends on exactly what you mean by "full". South Korea’s industrial production is already above its pre-crisis level; but in the spring of 1997 anyone who had predicted zero growth in Korean industry over the next two years would have been regarded as a reckless doomsayer. So if by recovery you mean not just a return to growth, but one that brings the region’s performance back to something like what people used to regard as the Asian norm, they have a long way to go. At the end of the passage, the writer seems to think that a full recovery of the Asian economy is
It’s nice that Lord Davies is thinking of us ladies; just a shame he isn’t thinking more clearly. The former trade minister this week handed in his report on why so few British women are making it to the top in business. There are currently only five female bosses of FTSE 100 companies—and three of them are American. Across the top 350 companies here, women make up just 12.5 percent of board members, and hold a measly 5.5 percent of executive directorships. Lord Davies seems to believe this is a symptom of deep-rooted misogyny in the business world. He has warmed British companies that they are in the "last-chance saloon", and set them a target: they must ensure that a quarter of their directors are women by 2015, or the Government will step in—perhaps by imposing quotas. All of which completely misses the point. It isn’t sexism that is holding women back: it’s babies. Consider the bigger picture. It starts so promisingly: girls outperform boys at school and university, get good jobs, start shinning up the greasy pole—and then, suddenly, they fall away. Across all professions, women’s careers take a nose dive the moment they reproduce. The full-time pay gap more than trebles for women in their thirties (from 3 percent to 11 percent), while the part- time pay gap increases from 23 percent to 32 percent. For a certain kind of reactionary, this just proves that women aren’t cut out for the top jobs. Pop a baby in her arms and even the most ball-breaking career woman will suddenly find she longs to be at home all day, making organic finger food and mopping up organic vomit. It’s biology, innit Well, not exactly. What happens is this. From the moment you deliver your first child, and your husband is booted out of the hospital while you get on with the business of bonding, it is made very clear that child-rearing is women’s work. Even if your husband takes his full two weeks of statutory paternity leave, you will soon be left alone to negotiate this strange new world. Because you are at home, it makes sense for you to take on the endless admin: health checks, vaccinations, nursery registrations, interviewing nannies or childminders. It is up to you, too, to keep the little critter fed, clothed and entertained—and while you’re at it, you might as well do the shopping, cooking and tidying-up. By the time your maternity leave is up, you’ll find you have been zapped back to the 1950s. You are something perilously close to a housewife, while your man has become an old-fashioned, long-hours breadwinner. Splendid, if that’s how you like it but not so good if you need, or want, to work. The division of duties, once established, is extremely hard to alter, so it is almost invariably the woman who scales back her career. 41 percent of mothers in couples work part-time, compared to just 4 percent of men. This has an obvious effect on their long-term prospects: mothers who work part time are four times less likely to hold a senior post. The working woman’s enemy is not some pinstriped, misogynistic boss, cackling evilly as he slams the boardroom door. Nor, in fact, is it men in general. There is plenty of evidence that British men want to be more involved in rearing their children. But our system of parental leave is so heavily skewed that both sexes have little choice but to succumb to an outdated status quo. In a brilliant new book, Shattered: Modern Motherhood and the Myth of Equality, Rebecca Asher shows the harm this does, not only to women’s aspirations, but to family life and the economy. Spending thousands to train and educate women, only for them to fail out of the labour market at the peak of their expertise, is a very profligate way to run a country. Asher’s solutions— which include six or seven months’ paid leave for each parent, funded by the government and taken consecutively—are affordable, if eye-wateringly radical. And unlike Lord Davies’s "targets’’, they at least address the problem, rather than the symptoms. The pram in the hall is the real enemy of female promise. And until men are able to take on as much of the work—and the pleasure—of child-rearing, that’s the way it will remain. Women are less likely to hold a senior post because ______.
Games originally are entertainment. Contemporary games are very realistic and for this reason they are a (31) of great experience for the player and develop the imagination. Games are entertainment and even more than that. In addition, the statistics of the New York University (32) by Green and Bavelier claim that the player (33) active games get an improvement of some types of brain activity, related to (34) of visual information. In particular, game players cope with problems of (35) tracking several moving objects at the average level of 30% better than people who do not play (36) computer video games. The "gaming" violent experience may not be the cause of violent (37) in reality. (38) of the playing experience will become the priority in making important decisions (39) problems in real life. A game is an abstraction. A player gets abstract tasks and acts according to abstract rules. Games are also the possibility to be (40) a person wants to be and to rest from the outside world for some time. But what if a person gets (41) much excited with the game scenes that he becomes violent in reality Then, it proves that the games cause people to become violent. Let us stop for a moment right at this point. Those who do not (42) in this type of activity usually make the conclusion of presence of violence in the game-world. Nobody will (43) hear this kind of statement from those who play, from those who know the rules of the game and understand that it is just a (44) world. A psychologically (45) person will never confuse or connect these two different worlds. A game is a virtual world with visual images very similar to human. These images (46) by themselves nothing but simple playing obstacles. A game may potentially give the (47) to "destroy the obstacles" that may not be destroyed according to the rules but it is more about personal choice (48) to do it or not. This leads us to the conclusion that violence is not a consequence but the cause. People who are originally (49) to violence may get irritated by games and perform violence in the "real world". But in this case violence in games is a simple (50) of the violent nature of the player.
Questions 23 and 24 are based on the following news. At the end of the news item, you will be given 10 seconds to answer the questions. According to the news, IPO ______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付