题目内容
Why are so many people unhappy in their jobs There are two primary reasons. First, some people are convinced that earning a living is wasting time that they could spend enjoying themselves or uncovering their true talents. If this is the case with you, recall your last long vacation. Was it two weeks of complete enjoyment More likely it was a week and a half of fun in the sun, with another half a week of "Boy, I can’t wait to get back to work." If you didn’t feel such vacation blues, then imagine taking a leave of absence. You could use it to work on a novel, enroll in classes or just sit around watching TV. At the end of three months, in all likelihood, your self-esteem would be at an all- time low. While all work and no play is not good, all play and no work is disastrous. We need to feel we are accomplishing something. We also need some form of order in our lives. The second and perhaps more prevalent reason for people not to like their work is that they feel trapped. Once you’ve been at a company for five years and have a spouse, a mortgage and a child, you often feel you have very little choice about jumping ship if things aren’t turning out as you’d planned. A steady paycheck can be the biggest manacle of all. People resent having to do something because they have no other choice. If you find yourself resenting your job because you can’t afford to quit, it may be time to prepare what one career counselor humorously calls a "cyanide capsule". He recalls spy movies in which the secret agent has such a capsule hidden somewhere on his body. If he’s captured and tortured unbearably, he has an option. And having an option gives him the strength to hold on a little longer in the hope that the situation may change. Rather than cyanide, your option takes the form of an up-to-date resume. You might also take a weekly glance through the help-wanted section, and make some visits to industry functions where low-key networking can take place. You’re not giving up on your current job. Rather, you are providing yourself with an option. If things get unbearable at work, you could jump ship. Being in this position can do wonders for your attitude. It allows you to enjoy your work since, in reality, you are there only because you want to be. At the core of adopting a positive attitude to your workplace is, above all, assuming responsibility for your own situation. Most people feel controlled by their environment, but they really aren’t. They have to learn to manage that environment so they can get from it what they need. With an up-to-date resume ready as an option, you may feel better at your job because ______.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
AIDS AIDS is Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. The human immunodeficiency virus (人类免疫缺损病毒)called HIV is believed to cause AIDS. There is no cure. People who get the disease will die. AIDS itself does not kill. However, it attacks and destroys the body’’s defense system that fights against infection. When this happens, a person has little ability to fight off many other diseases including pneumonia(肺炎), cancer and tuberculosis (结核病). A new study says the number of women in the United States with AIDS has increased sharply. The study says AIDS is increasing faster among women than among men. Eighteen percent of AIDS patients are women. This is almost 3 times the rate 10 years ago. Most women get the AIDS virus from having sexual relations with men. Pregnant women with the disease can pass it to their babies. The effect of AIDS in America is greatest in large cities. AIDS is the leading cause of death among all people in 79 cities. It is the leading cause of death among women in 15 cities. These include New York City and Miami, Florida. Doctors in the United States first noted AIDS 14 years ago in homosexual (同性恋的)men in New York and California. In the United States AIDS spread first among homosexual men. Then it appeared in people who shared needles to put illegal drugs into their blood. It also appeared in people who had received infected blood products at hospitals. The AIDS virus is spread through the exchange of infected blood or body fluids released during sexual activity. It is also spread by having sexual relations with someone who has the virus. And it is spread by sharing drug needles that have infected blood on them. AIDS has affected several famous American athletes. Two years ago, former tennis player Arthur Ashe died of the disease. At about the same time, former basketball player Magic Johnson announced that he has the AIDS virus. The most recent athlete to be affected is Gregory Louganis. Louganis won a number of gold medals in Olympic diving competition. He announced on television that he has AIDS. President Clinton met with Louganis and praised him for discussing his sickness. Mr. Clinton said it is important to educate the public. Activists have succeeded in educating Americans about AIDS and the people who have it. They also have been urging the federal government to increase efforts to find a cure for AIDS. Scientists first identified the virus that is believed to cause AIDS in 1983. Many of them then thought they could produce an anti-AIDS vaccine(痘苗). Such a medicine could be given to people to protect against the disease. However, scientists at American government agencies, universities and drug companies have failed to produce an anti-AIDS vaccine. But they are continuing effort to find better treatments for a cure. What is not likely to happen
Ice Cream For Dogs1. Humans not only love eating ice cream, they enjoy feeding it to their pets(宠物). Market studies show that two-thirds of all dog owners give ice cream to their dogs. Unfortunately, says William Tyznik, an expert on animal nutrition(营养)at Ohio State University, ice cream is not good for dogs. "It has milk sugar in it," he says," which dogs cannot digest very well. "2. Bothered by that knowledge but aware of the desire of dog owners to please their companions, Tyznik invented a new frozen treat for dogs that, he says, is more nutritious than ice cream—and as much fun to eat. The product, called Frosty Paws, is made of a liquid by-product (副产品) of cheese and milk with the sugar removed. Frosty Paws also contains refined soy flour, water, vegetable oil, vitamins and minerals. It took Tyznik, who has also invented a horse feed (called Tizwhiz)and another dog food (named Tizbits), three years to perfect the Frosty Paws formulas, and two attempts to commercialize it. After losing B 25, 000 trying to market the invention himself, Tyznik sold the rights to Associated Ice Cream of Westervile, Ohio, which makes the product and packages it in cups.3. Tyznik claims that Frosty Paws has been tested extensively and that "dogs love it". Of 1,400 dogs that have been offered the product, he says, 89 percent took it on the first try. Three out of four preferred it to Milk-Bone or sausages. The product, which will be available in the ice-cream section of supermarkets, comes in packs of three or four cups, costing between 6 1. 79.4. What would happen if a human should mistake Frosty Paws for real ice cream Nothing, says Tyznik. Its harmless, but frankly, he says, it wont taste very good.A. The price of Frosty PawsB. No harm to humanC. The creation of a new kind of ice cream for dogsD. Harm to humanE. Feeding ice-creams to dogsF. Attraction to dogs
Who’s Afraid of Google Rarely if ever has a company risen so fast in so many ways as Google, the world’s most popular search engine. This is true by just about any measure: the growth in its market value and revenues; the number of people clicking in search of news, the nearest pizza parlor or a satellite image of their neighbor’s garden; the volume of its advertisers; or the number of its lawyers and lobbyists. Such an ascent is enough to evoke concerns -- both paranoid(偏执的) and justified. The list of constituencies that hate or fear Google grows by the week. Television networks, book publishers and newspaper owners feel that Google has grown by using their content without paying for it. Telecoms firms such as America’s AT&T and Verizon are annoyed that Google prospers, in their eyes, by free-riding on the bandwidth that they provide; and it is about to bid against them in a forthcoming auction for radio spectrum. Many small firms hate Google because they relied on exploiting its search formulas to win prime positions in its rankings, but dropped to the Internet’s equivalent of Hades after Google modified these algorithms(运算法则). And now come the politicians. Libertarians dislike Google’s deal with China’s censors. Conservatives moan about its uncensored videos. But the big new fear is to do with the privacy of its users. Google’s business model assumes that people will entrust it with ever more information about their lives, to be stored in the company’s "cloud" of remote computers. Some users now keep their photos, blogs, videos, calendars, e-mail, news feeds, maps, contacts, social networks, documents, spreadsheets (电子数据表), presentations, and credit-card information -- in short, much of their lives -- on Google’s computers. But the privacy problem is much subtler than that. As Google compiles more information about individuals, it faces numerous trade-offs. At one extreme it could use a person’s search history and advertising responses in combination with, say, his location and the itinerary in his calendar, to serve increasingly useful and welcome search results and ads. This would also allow Google to make money from its many new services. But it could scare users away. As a warning, Privacy International, a human-rights organization in London, has berated Google, charging that its attitude to privacy "at its most blatant is hostile, and at its most benign is ambivalent". And Google could soon, if it wanted, compile files on specific individuals. This presents "perhaps the most difficult privacy issues in all of human history," says Edward Felten, a privacy expert at Princeton University. Speaking for many, John Battelle, the author of a book on Google and an early admirer, recently wrote on his blog that "I’ve found myself more and more wary" of Google "out of some primal, lizard-brain fear of giving too much control of my data to one source."More JP Morgan than Bill Gates Google is often compared to Microsoft; but its evolution is actually closer to that of the banking industry. Just as financial institutions grew to become repositories of people’s money, and thus guardians of private information about their finances, Google is now turning into a supervisor of a far wider and more intimate range of information about individuals. Yes, this applies also to rivals such as Yahoo! and Microsoft. But Google, through the sheer speed with which it accumulates the treasure of information, will be the one to test the limits of what society can tolerate. It does not help that Google is often seen as arrogant. Granted, this complaint often comes from sourgrapes rivals. But many others are put off by Google’s assertion of its own holiness, as if it merited unquestioning trust. This after all is the firm that chose "Don’t be evil" as its corporate motto and that explicitly intones that its goal is "not to make money", as its boss, Eric Schmidt, puts it, but "to change the world". Its ownership structure is set up to protect that vision. Ironically, there is something rather cloudlike about the multiple complaints surrounding Google. The issues are best parted into two cumuli: a set of "public" arguments about how to regulate Google; and a set of "private" ones for Google’s managers, to do with the strategy the firm needs to get through the coming storm. On both counts, Google -- contrary to its own propaganda -- is much better judged as being just like any other "evil" money-grabbing company.Grab the money That is because, from the public point of view, the main contribution of all companies to society comes from making profits, not giving things away. Google is a good example of this. Its "goodness" stems less from all that guff about corporate altruism than from Adam Smith’s invisible hand. It provides a service that others find very useful -- namely helping people to find information (at no charge) and letting advertisers promote their wares to those people in a finely targeted way. Given this, the onus of proof is with Google’s would-be prosecutors to prove it is doing something wrong. On antitrust, the price that Google charges its advertisers is set by auction, so its monopolistic clout is limited; and it has yet to use its" dominance in one market to muscle into others in the way Microsoft did. The same presumption of innocence goes for copyright and privacy. Google’s book-search product, for instance, arguably helps rather than hurts publishers and authors by rescuing books from obscurity and encouraging readers to buy copyrighted works. And, despite Big Brotherish talk about knowing what choices people will be making tomorrow, Google has not betrayed the trust of its users over their privacy. If anything, it has been better than its rivals in standing up to prying governments in both America and China. That said, conflicts of interest will become inevitable -- especially with privacy. Google in effect controls a dial that, as it sells ever more services to you, could move in two directions. Set to one side, Google could voluntarily destroy very quickly any user data that it collects. That would assure privacy, but it would limit Google’s profits from selling to advertisers information about what you are doing, and make those services less useful, ff the dial is set to the other side and Google hangs on to the information, the services will be more useful, but some dreadful intrusions into privacy could occur. The answer, as with banks in the past, must lie somewhere in the middle in that the right point for the dial is likely to change, as circumstances change. That will be the main public interest in Google. But, as the bankers (and Bill Gates) can attest, public scrutiny also creates a private challenge for Google’s managers: how should they present their case One obvious strategy is to allay concerns over Google’s trustworthiness by becoming more transparent and opening up more of its processes and plans to scrutiny. But it also needs a deeper change of heart. Pretending that just because your founders are nice young men and you give away lots of services, society has no right to question your motives no longer seems sensible. Google is a capitalist tool -- and a useful one. Better, surely, to face the coming storm on that foundation, than on a stale slogan that could be your undoing. The author of a book on Google and an early admirer John Battelle thinks that ______.
Most Adults in U. S. Have Low Risk of Heart Disease More than 80 percent of US adults have a less than 10 percent risk of developing heart disease in the next 10 years, according to a report in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. Just 3 percent have a risk that exceeds 20 percent. "I hope that these numbers will give physicians, researchers, health policy analysts, and others a better idea of how coronary heart disease is distributed in the US population, " lead author Dr. Earl S. Ford, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, said in a statement. The findings are based on analysis of data from 13,769 subjects, between 20 and 79 years of age, who participated in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1988 to 1994. Overall, 82 percent of adults had a risk of less than 10 percent, 15 percent had a risk that fell between 10 to 20 percent, and 3 percent had a risk above 20 percent. The proportion of subjects in the highest risk group increased with advancing age, and men were more likely than women to be in this group. By contrast, race or ethnicity had little effect on risk distributions. Although the report suggests that most adults have a low 10-year risk of heart disease, a large proportion have a high or immediate risk, Dr. Daniel S. Berman, from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, and Dr. Nathan D. Wong, from the University of California at Irvine, note in a related editorial. Aggressive treatment measures and public health strategies are needed to shift the overall population risk downward, they add. Only 3 percent of US adults have a more than 10 percent 10-year risk of heart disease.
微信支付 
支付宝支付