题目内容
A．whereB．whiteC．wholeD．what
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Something very odd is going on in our country at the moment. On one hand, we hear every day about the "cuts", the closure of libraries and old people’s homes; on the other, we read about 220 councils paying their senior executives more than the Prime Minister and still advertising handsome salaries for "non-jobs", such as climate change officials and "future shape managers", which have swollen our council payroll by 180,000 over 13 years. The BBC loves to tell us nightly about those terrible "cuts", but never admits that public spending is still scheduled to soar over the next four years, from ￡696 billion to ￡739 billion. The ￡130 billion a year we pay in interest on our public debt—which is still rising by ￡3 billion a week—has become easily the largest item of state expenditure, projected by the Taxpayers’ Alliance to rise to ￡190 billion by 2014, equating to ￡7,600 for every household in the land. Beside such mind-boggling figures, the mere ￡10 billion which the CBI last week said we need to spend on new infrastructure to deal more efficiently with our waste may seem like chickenfeed. Although this made front-page news, I looked back to a column I wrote in January 2007 which quoted precisely the same figure as being estimated by the Institute of Civil Engineers, plus ￡8 billion a year in running costs estimated by one of our leading waste firms, Biffa. The problem, as I have noted more than once, is the ludicrous shambles we have made of our once-efficient waste disposal system, thanks initially to the EU’s 1999 landfill directive (introduced in part, as its preamble declares, to help save the planet from global warming). This directive was always going to hit Britain harder than any other EU country, because we have traditionally used more of our rubbish to reclaim land rendered useless by such things as quarrying. To meet the EU’s targets, we now have to show that every year more of our rubbish is recycled: hence the growing plethora of bins and bags which causes such confusion and ill-feeling. But the stark fact is that much of this frenzy of activity is a gigantic sham, designed to fool the EU into thinking we are meeting its targets, on pain of hefty fines if we fail. Waste is counted as being recycled when it is merely collected for recycling. Much of what happens to it subsequently is hidden from view, whether it be the millions of tons we export to China and elsewhere abroad, or the millions more which are quietly landfilled, because we have no other facilities to deal with it. A greater mystery arises, however, when we look at the directive which set all this off. The targets it sets refer only to "biodegradable" rubbish, such as kitchen and garden waste. It also includes paper, but there is no mention of tins, plastic, glass and those other categories for which our councils now supply us with separate bins. (One council, it was reported last week, now expects its householders to sort their rubbish into nine different receptacles. ) So why has our Government decided to use a directive targeted at biodegradable waste to create a ludicrously complicated system of its own, which requires us to separate all these other types of rubbish as well It is this system that experts such as the Institute of Civil Engineers have been warning us would cost ￡10 billion to set up and ￡8 billion a year to run. If it had genuinely led to a recycling regime that was efficient and useful, it might be commended. What we have instead is half-baked; riddled, as I gather, with corruption; and has, in many respects, destroyed the recycling system we once enjoyed that relied on the market to recycle things, such as paper, for which there was a demand. Now, of the huge quantities of waste nominally collected for recycling, much has either to be exported or landfilled because it produces no useful end-product. (I even reported once on an enterprising local TV programme which secretly filmed 600 tons of perfectly good garden compost being landfilled in our county tip. ) We once had a refuse disposal system admired across the world, which made landfilling a public benefit, not something to be looked on as almost as evil as smoking. So why do our bureaucrats appear to misuse an EU directive, to create an unholy shambles which so signally fails to realise the benefits claimed for it According to the author, the oddity that is going on in the country is that ______.
Maybe unemployment isn’t so bad after all. A new study says that, income notwithstanding, having a demanding, unstable and thankless job may make you even unhappier than not having a job at all. Given that a paid position gives workers purpose and a structured role, researchers had long thought that having any job would make a person happier than being unemployed. That turns out to be true if you move into a high-quality job—but taking a bad job is detrimental to mental health. Australian National University researchers looked at how various psychosocial work attributes affect well-being. They found that poor-quality jobs—those with high demands, low control over decision making, high job insecurity and an effort-reward imbalance—had more adverse effects on mental health than joblessness. The researchers analyzed seven years of data from more than 7,000 respondents of an Australian labor survey for their Occupational and Environmental Medicine study in which they wrote: as hypothesized, we found that those respondents who were unemployed had significantly poorer mental health than those who were employed. However, the mental health of those who were unemployed was comparable or more often superior to those in jobs of the poorest psychosocial quality... The current results therefore suggest that employment strategies seeking to promote positive outcomes for unemployed individuals need to also take account of job design and workplace policy. Moving from unemployment to a job with high psychosocial quality was associated with improvements in mental health, the authors said. Meanwhile, the mental health of people in the least-satisfying jobs declined the most over time—and the worse the job, the more it affected workers’ well-being. Unemployed people in the Australian study had a mental-health score (based on the five-item Mental Health Inventory, which measures depression, anxiety and positive well-being in the previous month) of 68.5. Employed people had an average score of 75. 1. The researchers found that moving from unemployment to a good job raised workers’ scores by 3.3 points, but taking a bad job led to a 5.6 point drop below average. That was worse than remaining unemployed, which led to decline of about one point. These findings underscore the importance of employment to a person’s well-being. Rather than seeking any new job, the study suggests, people who are unemployed or stuck doing lousy work should seek new positions that offer more security, autonomy and a reasonable workload. But that’s a lot easier said than done. Perhaps employers could be persuaded to be more mindful of the mental health of their workers happier employees are a benefit to their employers. "The erosion of work conditions," the researchers noted, "may incur a health cost, which over the longer term will be both economically and socially counterproductive. \ Which of the following is NOT mentioned as characterizing the seeking of new positions by the unemployed
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.
患者，男，56岁。乏力、腹胀半年。查：贫血貌，肝肋下lcm，脾肋下7cm。血常规：WBC 260×109/L， Hb 78g/L，PLT400×109/L。 根据以上资料首选的治疗为
微信支付 
支付宝支付