题目内容
简述物流定价策略的内容。
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
In 1981 Kenji Urada, a 37-year-old Japanese factory worker, climbed over a safety fence at a Kawasaki plant to carry out some maintenance work on a robot. In his haste, he failed to switch the robot off properly. Unable to sense him, the robot’s powerful hydraulic arm kept on working and accidentally pushed the engineer into a grinding machine. His death made Urada the first recorded victim to die at the hands of a robot. This astounding industrial accident would not have happened in a world in which robot behavior was governed by the Three Laws of Robotics drawn up by Isaac Asimov, a science fiction writer. The laws appeared in I, Robot, a book of short stories published in 1950 that inspired a Hollywood film. But decades later the laws, designed to prevent robots from harming people either through action or inaction, remain in the realm of fiction. With robots now poised to emerge from their industrial cages and to move into homes and workplaces, roboticists are concerned about the safety implications beyond the factory floor. To address these concerns, leading robot experts have come together to try to find ways to prevent robots from harming people. "Security, safety and sex are the big concerns," says Henrik Christensen, chairman of the European Robotics Network at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, and one of the organisers of the new roboethics group. Should robots that are strong enough or heavy enough to crush people be allowed into homes Should robotic sex dolls resembling children be legally allowed These questions may seem esoteric but in the next few years they will become increasingly relevant, says Dr. Christensen. According to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s World Robotics Survey, in 2002 the number of domestic and service robots more than tripled, nearly outstripping their industrial counterparts. Japanese industrial firms are racing to build humanoid robots to act as domestic helpers for the elderly, and South Korea has set a goal that 100K of households should have domestic robots by 2020. In light of all this, it is crucial that we start to think about safety and ethical guidelines now, says Dr. Christensen. So what exactly is being done to protect us from these mechanical menaces "Not enough," says Blay Whitby, an artificial-intelligence expert at the University of Sussex in England. This is hardly surprising given that the field of "safety-critical computing" is barely a decade old, he says. But things are changing, and researchers are increasingly taking an interest in trying to make robots safer. One approach, which sounds simple enough, is to try to program them to avoid contact with people altogether. But this is much harder than it sounds. Getting a robot to navigate across a cluttered room is difficult enough without having to take into account what its various limbs or appendages might bump into along the way. Regulating the behavior of robots is going to become more difficult in the future, since they will increasingly have self-learning mechanisms built into them, says Gianmarco Veruggio, a roboticist at the Institute of Intelligent Systems for Automation in Genoa, Italy. As a result, their behavior will become impossible to predict fully, he says, since they will not be behaving in predefined ways but will learn new behavior as they go. It can be inferred from the second paragraph that
I recently took care of a 50-year-old man who had been admitted to the hospital short of breath. During his monthlong stay he was seen by a hematologist, an endocrinologist, a kidney specialist, a podiatrist, two cardiologists, a cardiac electrophysiologist, an infectious-diseases specialist, a pulmonologist, an ear-nose-throat specialist, a urologist, a gastroenterologist, a neurologist, a nutritionist, a general surgeon, a thoracic surgeon and a pain specialist. He underwent 12 procedures, including cardiac catheterization. a pacemaker implant and a bone-marrow biopsy (to work-up chronic anemia). Despite this wearying schedule, he maintained an upbeat manner, walking the corridors daily with assistance to chat with nurses and physician assistants. When he was discharged, follow-up visits were scheduled for him with seven specialists. This man’s case, in which expert consultations sprouted with little rhyme, reason or coordination, reinforced a lesson I have learned many times since entering practice: In our health care system, where doctors are paid piecework for their services, if you have a slew of physicians and a willing patient, almost any sort of terrible excess can occur. Though accurate data is lacking, the overuse of services in health care probably cost hundreds of billions of dollars last year, out of the more than $2 trillion that Americans spent on health. Are we getting our money’s worthy Not according to the usual measures of public health. The United States ranks 45th in life expectancy, behind Bosnia and Jordan, near last, compared with other developed countries, in infant mortality; and in last place, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a health-care research group, among major industrialized countries in health-care quality, access and efficiency. And in the United States, regions that spend the most on health care appear to have higher mortality rates than regions that spend the least, perhaps because of increased hospitalization rates that result in more life-threatening errors and infections. It has been estimated that if the entire country spent the same as the lowest spending regions, the Medicare program alone could save about $40 billion a year. Overutilization is driven by many factors—"defensive" medicine by doctors trying to avoid lawsuits; patients’ demands; a pervading belief among doctors and patients that newer, more expensive technology is better. The most important factor, however, may be the perverse financial incentives of our current system. Overconsultation and overtesting have now become facts of the medical profession. The culture in practice is to grab patients and generate volume. "Medicine has become like everything else," a doctor told me recently. "Everything moves because of money." Consider medical imaging. According to a federal commission, from 1999 to 2004 the growth in the volume of imaging services per Medicare patient far outstripped the growth of all other physician services. In 2004, the cost of imaging services was close to $100 billion, or an average of roughly $350 per person in the United States. Not long ago, I visited a friend—a cardiologist in his late 30s—at his office on Long Island to ask him about imaging in private practices. "When I started in practice, I wanted to do the right thing," he told me matter-of-factly. "A young woman would come in with palpitations. I’d tell her she was fine. But then I realized that she’d just go down the street to another physician and he’d order all the tests anyway: echocardiogram, stress test, Holter monitor—stuff she didn’t really need. Then she’d go around and tell her friends what a great doctor— a thorough doctor—the other cardiologist was. "I tried to practice ethical medicine, but it didn’t help. It didn’t pay, both from a financial and a reputation standpoint." Last year, Congress approved steep reductions in Medicare payments for certain imaging services. Deeper cuts will almost certainly be forthcoming. This is good; unnecessary imaging is almost certainly taking place, leading to false-positive results, unnecessary invasive procedures, more complications and so on. But the problem in medicine today is much larger than imaging. Doctors are doing too much testing and too many procedures, often for the sake of business. And patients, unfortunately, are paying the price. "The hospital is a great place to be when you are sick," a hospital executive told me recently. "But I don’t want my mother in here five minutes longer than she needs to be.\ According to the author, which statement is NOT true
Careerists are people whose serf-image is determined almost exclusively by their jobs. (S1) ____________ everything they do is designed to (S2) ____________ their careers. They are defined by their jobs. When you meet a careerist at a party, he immediately tells you his (S3) ____________. Take away a careerist’s job and he does not know who he is. He loses his identity. His life is seriously out-of- balance. This (S4) ____________ disease is called careerism. Workaholics may or may not be careerists. Workaholics also spend most of their time and (S5) ____________ on their jobs. But there may be different reasons for their work (S6) ____________ They may not even (S7) ____________ with their jobs. Work may simply be an escape, an effort to avoid dealing with life. On the other hand, (S8) ____________. Careerists may not even like their jobs. In fact, they may not even work that hard. They may spend most of their time on organizational politics and other schemes for advancement. (S9) ____________. A workaholic may be working to help others or to support a noble cause. If we are working on projects we sec as important to social transformation, ( S10 ) ________________________ Managers must be alert to both careerist and workaholics, recognize the differences, and seek to help both move in the direction of wholeness. S10
(每小题的备选答案中有一个或一个以上符合题意)1995年，甲按房改标准价800元/m2，购买了本单位A小区的一套60m2的住房。2000年，甲退休。 2002年1月，甲补齐了标准价与成本价的差价200元/m2。3月．甲拟重新购买住房，在媒体上看到下列一则广告：“某小区即将全面开工建设，现火爆开盘，决定内部发售。该小区到CBD商圈仅10min路程，房屋开盘售价每套20万元。”4月，甲拟购买某开发公司开发建设的B小区住房。该开发公司销售人员向甲推荐了C户型，并做了如下介绍：“该户型经实测，套内建筑面积为85m2，套内使用面积为71m2。阳台为全封闭，阳台底板水平投影面积为3m2，由于阳台围护物向外倾斜，增大了阳台的使用空间5%。该户型应分摊的共有建筑面积为16m2。”7月，甲以1500元/m2购买了B小区C户型的住房，并将A小区的住房出售。 如果你是房地产经纪人，向甲推荐的商品房预售广告应当具备( )等内容。
微信支付 
支付宝支付