题目内容
Advances in computers and data networks inspire visions of a future "information economy" in which everyone will have (1) to gigabytes of all kinds of information anywhere and anytime. (2) information has always been a (3) difficult commodity to deal with, and, in some ways, computers and high-speed networks make the problems of buying, (4) , and distributing information goods worse (5) better. The evolution of the Internet itself (6) serious problems. (7) the Internet has been privatized, several companies are (8) to provide the backbones that will carry traffic (9) local networks, but (10) business models for interconnection—who pays how much for each packet (11) , for example—have (12) to be developed. (13) interconnection standards are developed that make (14) cheap and easy to transmit information across independent networks, competition will (15) . If technical or economic (16) make interconnection difficult, (17) transmitting data across multiple networks is expensive or too slow, the (18) suppliers can offer a significant performance (19) ; they may be able to use this edge to drive out competitors and (20) the market. 5（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Some drug makers pay key leaders in a field of medicine, such as chairs of departments in medical schools, tens of thousands of dollars if they are saying the right things about their product. They manipulate medical education sessions, lectures, articles in medical journals, research studies, even personal conversations between physicians to get their product message across. Now a huge collection of drug company internal documents—revealed as part of a law-suit-offers a wealth of detail. In 1996, Dr. David Franklin, an employee of the drug company Parke-Davis, filed the lawsuit under federal whistleblower statutes alleging that the company was illegally promoting a drug called Neurontin for so called "off-label" uses. Under federal law, once the FDA approves a drug, a doctor can prescribe it for anything. But the law specifically prohibits the drug company from promoting the drug for any unapproved uses. In 2004, the company, by then a division of Pfizer admitted guilt and agreed to pay $ 430 million in criminal and civil liability related to promoting the drug for off-label use. Spokespeople for Pfizer say that any wrong doing occurred before Pfizer acquired the company. But Pfizer fought hard to keep all the papers related to the suit under seal. A judge denied the request and they are now part of the Drug Industry Document Archive at the University of California, San Francisco. What is most interesting is not the illegal actions they reveal, but the details of activities that are perfectly legal. And according to people familiar with the industry, the methods detailed in these company memos are routine. One tactic identifies certain doctors as "thought leaders,"—those whose opinions influence the prescribing pattern of other doctors. Those whose views converge with the company goals are then showered with rewards, research and educational grants. In the Parke-Davis case 14 such big shots got between $10,250 and $158,250 between 1993 and 1997. "Medical education drives this market," wrote the author of one Parke-Davis business plan in the files. Many state licensing boards require physicians to attend sessions in what is called continuing medical education (CME) to keep current in their field. At one time, medical schools ran most CME courses. Now, an industry of medical education and communications committees(MECCs) run most of the courses. These companies with innocent sounding names like Medical Education Systems set up courses, sometimes in conjunction with medical meetings, at other times often in fancy restaurants and resorts. The drug companies foot the bill, with the program usually noting it was financed by an "unrestricted educational grant" from the company. Using MECCs, Parke-Davis set up conference calls so that doctors could talk to one another about the drugs. The moderators of the calls, often thought leaders or their younger assistants, received $ 250 to $ 500 a call. Drug company reps were on the line, instructed to stay in a "listen only" mode, but monitoring to be sure the pitch met their expectations. Clearly, many of the physicians in these schemes are not innocent bystanders. Whether it is ghost writing, making telephone calls to colleagues or leading a CME session, many of the doctors got paid well. Others received a free meal or transportation to a resort to listen to an "educational session." Physicians often claim they are not influenced by payments from the pharmaceutical industry. But with the methods so thoroughly detailed in these papers, drug companies clearly believe they are getting their money’s worth. The phrase "off-label" (line 4, paragraph 2) most probably means
Britain’s undeclared general election campaign has already seen the politicians trading numbers as boxers trade punches. There is nothing new in such statistical slanging matches(相互谩骂)What is new is an underestimation of worry about what has been happening to official statistics under the Labour government. One of the most important figures for Gordon Brown when presenting his pre-election budget on March 16th was the current-budget balance. This is the gap between current revenues and current spending. It matters to the chancellor of the exchequer(财政部长) because he is committed to meeting his own "golden rule" of borrowing only to invest, so he has to ensure that the current budget is in balance or surplus over the economic cycle. Mr. Brown told MPs that he would meet the golden rule for the current cycle with ￡ 6 billion ($11.4 billion) to spare—a respectable-sounding margin, though much less than in the past. However, the margin would have been halved but for an obscure technical change announced in February by the Office for National Statistics to the figures for road maintenance of major highways. The ONS said that the revision was necessary because it had been double-counting this spending within the current budget. If this were an isolated incident, then it might be disregarded. But it is not the first time that the ONS has made decisions that appear rather convenient for the government. Mr. Brown aims to meet another fiscal rule, namely to keep public net debt below 40% of GDP, again over the economic cycle. At present he is meeting it but his comfort room would be reduced if the S 21 billion borrowings of Network Rail were included as part of public debt. They are not thanks to a controversial decision by the ONS to classify the rail-infrastructure corporation within the private sector, even though the National Audit Office, Parliament’s watchdog, said its borrowings were in fact government liabilities. This makes it particularly worrying that the official figures can show one thing, whereas the public experiences another. One of the highest-profile targets for the NHS is that no patient should spend more than four hours in a hospital accident and emergency department. Government figures show that by mid-2004, the target was being met for 9696 of patients. But according to a survey of 55,000 patients by the Healthcare Commission, an independent body, only 77% of patients said they stayed no more than four hours in A&E. One way to help restore public confidence in official statistics would be to make the ONS independent, as the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have suggested. Another would be for the National Audit Office to assess how the government has been performing against targets, as the Public Administration Committee has recommended. What can be inferred about the ONS
女，胃大部分切除术后8小时未排尿，下腹部胀痛难忍，有尿意但不习惯床上排尿。 医嘱：给该病人实施导尿术，插尿管的深度是多少( )。
Some drug makers pay key leaders in a field of medicine, such as chairs of departments in medical schools, tens of thousands of dollars if they are saying the right things about their product. They manipulate medical education sessions, lectures, articles in medical journals, research studies, even personal conversations between physicians to get their product message across. Now a huge collection of drug company internal documents—revealed as part of a law-suit-offers a wealth of detail. In 1996, Dr. David Franklin, an employee of the drug company Parke-Davis, filed the lawsuit under federal whistleblower statutes alleging that the company was illegally promoting a drug called Neurontin for so called "off-label" uses. Under federal law, once the FDA approves a drug, a doctor can prescribe it for anything. But the law specifically prohibits the drug company from promoting the drug for any unapproved uses. In 2004, the company, by then a division of Pfizer admitted guilt and agreed to pay $ 430 million in criminal and civil liability related to promoting the drug for off-label use. Spokespeople for Pfizer say that any wrong doing occurred before Pfizer acquired the company. But Pfizer fought hard to keep all the papers related to the suit under seal. A judge denied the request and they are now part of the Drug Industry Document Archive at the University of California, San Francisco. What is most interesting is not the illegal actions they reveal, but the details of activities that are perfectly legal. And according to people familiar with the industry, the methods detailed in these company memos are routine. One tactic identifies certain doctors as "thought leaders,"—those whose opinions influence the prescribing pattern of other doctors. Those whose views converge with the company goals are then showered with rewards, research and educational grants. In the Parke-Davis case 14 such big shots got between $10,250 and $158,250 between 1993 and 1997. "Medical education drives this market," wrote the author of one Parke-Davis business plan in the files. Many state licensing boards require physicians to attend sessions in what is called continuing medical education (CME) to keep current in their field. At one time, medical schools ran most CME courses. Now, an industry of medical education and communications committees(MECCs) run most of the courses. These companies with innocent sounding names like Medical Education Systems set up courses, sometimes in conjunction with medical meetings, at other times often in fancy restaurants and resorts. The drug companies foot the bill, with the program usually noting it was financed by an "unrestricted educational grant" from the company. Using MECCs, Parke-Davis set up conference calls so that doctors could talk to one another about the drugs. The moderators of the calls, often thought leaders or their younger assistants, received $ 250 to $ 500 a call. Drug company reps were on the line, instructed to stay in a "listen only" mode, but monitoring to be sure the pitch met their expectations. Clearly, many of the physicians in these schemes are not innocent bystanders. Whether it is ghost writing, making telephone calls to colleagues or leading a CME session, many of the doctors got paid well. Others received a free meal or transportation to a resort to listen to an "educational session." Physicians often claim they are not influenced by payments from the pharmaceutical industry. But with the methods so thoroughly detailed in these papers, drug companies clearly believe they are getting their money’s worth. The drug companies are willing to pay leading doctors to
微信支付 
支付宝支付