题目内容
很多生产事故发生后，由于施救不当或者盲目施救，造成了更大的伤亡损失。请根据给定材料，概述施救不当、盲目施救造成伤亡扩大的原因。 [要求] 紧扣给定资料，全面，有条理，不必写成文章，不超过300字。
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Questions 9 and 10 are based on the following news item. At the end of the news item, you will be given 10 seconds to answer each question. Now listen to the news. According to the news, which of the following statements is true
Patents, said Thomas Jefferson, should draw "a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not". As the value that society places on intellectual property has increased, that line has become murkier--and the cause of some embarrassment, too. Around the world, patent offices are being inundated with applications. In many cases, this represents the extraordinary inventiveness that is occurring in new fields such as the internet, genomics and nanotechnology. But another, less-acceptable reason for the flood is that patent offices have been too lax in granting patents, encouraging many firms to rush to patent as many, often dubious, ideas as possible in an effort to erect legal obstacles to competitors. The result has been a series of messy and expensive court baffles, and growing doubts about the effectiveness of patent systems as a spur to innovation, just as their importance should be getting bigger. In 1998 America introduced so-called "business-method" patents, granting for the first time patent monopolies simply for new ways of doing business, many of which were not so new. This was a mistake. It not only ushered in a wave of new applications, but it is probably inhibiting, rather than encouraging, commercial innovation, which had never received, or needed, legal protection in the past. Europe has not, so far, made the same blunder, but the European Parliament is considering the easing of roles for innovations incorporated in software. This might have a similarly deleterious effect as business-method patents, because many of these have been simply the application of computers to long-established practices. In Japan, firms are winning large numbers of patents with extremely narrow claims, mostly to obfuscate what is new and so to ward off rivals. As more innovation happens in China and India, these problems are likely to spread there as well. There is an urgent need for patent offices to return to first principles. A patent is a government-granted temporary monopoly (patents in most countries are given about 20 years’ protection) intended to reward innovators in exchange for a disclosure by the patent holder of how his invention works, thereby encouraging others to further innovation. The qualifying tests for patents are straightforward--that an idea be useful, novel and not obvious. Unfortunately most patent offices, swamped by applications that can run to thousands of pages and confronted by companies wielding teams of lawyers, are no longer applying these tests strictly or reliably. For example, in America, many experts believe that dubious patents abound, such as the notorious one for a "sealed crustless sandwich". Of the few patents that are re-examined by the Patent and Trademark Office itself, often after complaints from others, most are invalidated or their claims clipped down. The number of duplicate claims among patents is far too high. What happens in America matters globally, since it is the world’s leading patent office, approving about 170,000 patents each year, half of which are granted to foreign applicants. Europe’s patent system is also in a mess in another regard: the quilt of national patent offices and languages means that the cost of obtaining a patent for the entire European Union is too high, a burden in particular on smaller firms and individual inventors. The European Patent Office may award a patent, but the patent holder must then file certified translations at national patent offices to receive protection. Negotiations to simplify this have gone on for over a decade without success. As a start, patent applications should be made public. In most countries they are, but in America this is the case only under certain circumstances, and after 18 months. More openness would encourage rivals to offer the overworked patent office evidence with which to judge whether an application is truly novel and non-obvious. Patent offices also need to collect and publish data about what happens once patents are granted--the rate at which they are challenged and how many are struck down. This would help to measure the quality of the patent system itself, and offer some way of evaluating whether it is working to promote innovation, or to impede it. But most of all, patent offices need to find ways of applying standards more strictly. This would make patents more difficult to obtain. But that is only right. Patents are, after all, government-enforced monopolies and so, as Jefferson had it, there should be some "embarrassment" (and hesitation) in granting them. In the last 3a paragraph, "The qualifying tests for patents are straightforward--that an idea be useful, novel and not obvious." Here, "obvious" means ______.
Patents, said Thomas Jefferson, should draw "a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not". As the value that society places on intellectual property has increased, that line has become murkier--and the cause of some embarrassment, too. Around the world, patent offices are being inundated with applications. In many cases, this represents the extraordinary inventiveness that is occurring in new fields such as the internet, genomics and nanotechnology. But another, less-acceptable reason for the flood is that patent offices have been too lax in granting patents, encouraging many firms to rush to patent as many, often dubious, ideas as possible in an effort to erect legal obstacles to competitors. The result has been a series of messy and expensive court baffles, and growing doubts about the effectiveness of patent systems as a spur to innovation, just as their importance should be getting bigger. In 1998 America introduced so-called "business-method" patents, granting for the first time patent monopolies simply for new ways of doing business, many of which were not so new. This was a mistake. It not only ushered in a wave of new applications, but it is probably inhibiting, rather than encouraging, commercial innovation, which had never received, or needed, legal protection in the past. Europe has not, so far, made the same blunder, but the European Parliament is considering the easing of roles for innovations incorporated in software. This might have a similarly deleterious effect as business-method patents, because many of these have been simply the application of computers to long-established practices. In Japan, firms are winning large numbers of patents with extremely narrow claims, mostly to obfuscate what is new and so to ward off rivals. As more innovation happens in China and India, these problems are likely to spread there as well. There is an urgent need for patent offices to return to first principles. A patent is a government-granted temporary monopoly (patents in most countries are given about 20 years’ protection) intended to reward innovators in exchange for a disclosure by the patent holder of how his invention works, thereby encouraging others to further innovation. The qualifying tests for patents are straightforward--that an idea be useful, novel and not obvious. Unfortunately most patent offices, swamped by applications that can run to thousands of pages and confronted by companies wielding teams of lawyers, are no longer applying these tests strictly or reliably. For example, in America, many experts believe that dubious patents abound, such as the notorious one for a "sealed crustless sandwich". Of the few patents that are re-examined by the Patent and Trademark Office itself, often after complaints from others, most are invalidated or their claims clipped down. The number of duplicate claims among patents is far too high. What happens in America matters globally, since it is the world’s leading patent office, approving about 170,000 patents each year, half of which are granted to foreign applicants. Europe’s patent system is also in a mess in another regard: the quilt of national patent offices and languages means that the cost of obtaining a patent for the entire European Union is too high, a burden in particular on smaller firms and individual inventors. The European Patent Office may award a patent, but the patent holder must then file certified translations at national patent offices to receive protection. Negotiations to simplify this have gone on for over a decade without success. As a start, patent applications should be made public. In most countries they are, but in America this is the case only under certain circumstances, and after 18 months. More openness would encourage rivals to offer the overworked patent office evidence with which to judge whether an application is truly novel and non-obvious. Patent offices also need to collect and publish data about what happens once patents are granted--the rate at which they are challenged and how many are struck down. This would help to measure the quality of the patent system itself, and offer some way of evaluating whether it is working to promote innovation, or to impede it. But most of all, patent offices need to find ways of applying standards more strictly. This would make patents more difficult to obtain. But that is only right. Patents are, after all, government-enforced monopolies and so, as Jefferson had it, there should be some "embarrassment" (and hesitation) in granting them. What suggestion does the author offer for the solution of those problems
Two conflicts convinced Western countries that they dared not reduce their forces too drastically, The first was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. This came at the height of the happiness at the end of the Cold War and the new era of peace that was expected to follow. By January 1991 it was apparent that attempts to persuade Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to withdraw through a combination of military threats, economic pressure, and diplomatic inducements had failed. American, British, and French forces found themselves using military equipment and concepts designed to deal with the Warsaw Pact in central Europe to defeat a moderate-sized Third World country. This brought home the lesson that in a world in which total war had become too horrific to contemplate even a limited war was no small matter and would demand considerable commitment. Even so, the Gulf War was a relatively straightforward confrontation. It was against a known enemy over a clear-cut matter of principle and fought by means that played to the West’s comparative advantages, for example in air power. To defense planners, this was much to be preferred to the considerably more complicated types of conflict where opponents merged easily into their surroundings, and adopted guerrilla warfare rather than open battle. Prudent defense planners never want to get involved in messy civil wars, while the military dislikes having to get between warring groups. It is usually easier to get in than out of these conflicts. Yet even as troops were returning from the Gulf in the summer of 1991, Yugoslavia was starting to fall apart. By 1992, British and French forces were being deplored in Bosnia, along with contingents from other countries, to try to deliver humanitarian aid and soften the blows of a bitter ethnic conflict. Eventually, in 1995, now joined by the Americans, they began to take a much tougher line and this created the conditions for a political settlement, although not an early withdrawal of outside forces. They were still needed to keep the peace. The experience of these conflicts illustrates some of the difficulties now faced by defense planners. They must prepare for a wide range of operations, from set-piece battles to vicious inter-communal skirmishes. Even though they may hope that total wars are things of the past for the major industrialized countries, limited wars might still require the sort of capabilities once assumed to be relevant only to total wars. Limited wars also come in all shapes and sizes. In 1982 the Falklands War was won through achieving naval superiority followed by an amphibious landing, while in 1991 Kuwait was liberated through air supremacy followed by a heavy armored advance. The first stage of the Gulf crisis involved a naval blockade -- the last stage involved light forces protecting Kurds. Bosnia involved a hybrid force of infantry geared to a low-intensity conflict supported by air power conducting a high-intensity campaign. Future conflicts might involve direct attacks on environmental targets or attempts to exploit the West’s growing dependence on information technology. Terrorism and international criminal organizations are now often presented as the most serious threats to Western societies. According to the article, in the future which kind of warfare will be the main war form
微信支付 
支付宝支付