司机运行途中发现Ⅱ级沙害时（或接到Ⅱ级沙害限速运行的调度命令），以___速度运行；通过沙害地点后，还应立即报告运行情况、沙害信息。（标准第119条）

司机运行途中发现Ⅲ级沙害或接到Ⅲ级沙害的通知时，应立即停车；但已越过沙害地点的列车，准许以___的速度运行至前方站，运行途中加强瞭望。（标准第119条）

司机发现线路晃车,但不危及行车安全时，司机应立即降速运行，并报告车站值班员或列车调度员。后续列车按列车调度员或车站值班员的通知___通过晃车地点。（标准第120条）

行车直接相关信息系统(以下简称信息系统)，包括___等。（行规第13条）

网络安全防护措施应与系统同步规划、同步建设、同步使用；网络安全管理应坚持___、综合防范、技术与管理并重。（行规第13条）

隔离开关操作使用单位应配备绝缘靴、绝缘手套、___等安全用具。（行规第14条）

操作隔离开关时的注意事项包括___。（行规第14条）

动车组、机车、自轮运转特种设备配属单位均应配备规定数量的___、，使用后及时配齐。（行规第18条）

使用列车无线调度通信设备发布、转达调度命令时，司机应记录___，收发双方须复诵核对，涉及本列其他司机、列车长、车辆乘务员的，由本务司机向相关人员转达。（行规第22条）

遇哪些情况，不安装货列尾主机___。（行规第30条）

电力机车重联、附挂台数和多弓运行时升弓间距的限制条件是___。（行规第31条）

电力机车、动车组禁止驶入和禁止停留地点的规定包括___。（行规第31条）

切除弹停制动装置的机车进行滚动试验方法及注意事项包括___。（行规第33条）

机车回送方式分为___。（行规第34条）

机车___故障的机车禁止回送。特殊情况下必须回送时，由机务段进行技术鉴定后，确定具体回送方案和安全保障措施、安排专业技术人员随车监控，电报通知调度所（须明确回送限制条件），调度所依据电报安排回送。（行规第34条）

货物列车（单机挂车）货运票据、列车编组顺序表交接办法为___。（行规第43条）

机车重联调车时应遵守哪些规定___。

调车作业中遇哪些情况应进行试拉___。（行规第57条）

货物列车遇哪些情形不准退行___。（行规第136条）

列车运行途中发生弓网故障时，司机应立即___，并向车站值班员（列车调度员）报告停车地点、停车原因。（行规第156条）

受电弓故障必须登顶处理时，司机按“信息上报”申请登顶作业。司机接到“接触网已停电准许登顶作业”的调度命令后，按规定做好___后方准登顶作业。

信息上报：系指___向车站值班员（或列车调度员）报告列车运行或行车设备故障信息，车站值班员接到报告或发现行车设备故障向列车调度员报告的过程。（行规用语说明）

按站间组织行车：___，但按站（所）间区间放行列车，未接到列车到达前方站（线路所）的到达点前不得开行后续列车，列车在区间仍按通过信号机的显示要求运行。（行规用语说明）

使用CIR设备发布或转达调度命令时，机车乘务员应在途中抄令登记簿中记录调度命令___，并与发令人（转达人）核对，遇接收临时限速、临时降弓调度命令时，须核对限速、降弓地段有无长短链。（标准第34条）

由机车乘务员连接软管时，由副司机负责。连接软管后，___，严禁脚蹬风管。（标准第24条）

出段前，机班全员共同确认___，鸣笛要道准备出段。（标准第18条）

机车出入段转线（含调车）过程中，___确认调车信号或道岔位置、道岔表示器，并注意邻线机车车辆的移动情况。（标准第18条）

无停放制动、自动换端功能的机车，在司机换端过程中，副司机须监护机车制动状态，发现有溜逸迹象须立即使用___等任一方法防溜，并严禁解除LKJ防溜报警。

到发线坡度不超过2.0‰的车站，仅限旅客列车办理本务机车立折换挂作业时，摘开机车前，司机采用___方可摘开车钩.

短路铜线须在轨道电路调谐区内使用，使用时擦净轨面沙土、油泥，将两端磁铁吸附在左右股轨头，确保吸附牢靠、接触良好。使用完毕及时撤除。（行规第18条）

自动站间闭塞区段，超长列车头部越过出站信号机（未压上出站方面的轨道电路）发车时，列车调度员可不发布调度命令。（行规第22条）

电力机车自动过分相装置地面传感器故障停用或恢复使用时，列车调度员需发布调度命令。（行规第22条）

调整回送货列尾主机、电池时，列车调度员可不发布调度命令。（行规第22条）

调度集中（CTC）区段集控站出站信号机无法开放，以调度命令作为占用区间的行车凭证时，列车调度员需发布调度命令。（行规第22条）

在禁止保留车车站保留列车时，列车调度员可不发布调度命令。（行规第22条）

GSM-R区段司机须及时确认签收调度命令，列车调度员未收到司机的签收回执时，应按传送失败处理，使用列车无线调度通信设备发布，若无法直接发布时通知相关车站转达或停车交递命令。（行规第22条）

普速调度台发布的调度命令内容涉及高速铁路时，须一并下达给相关客专调度台。转发行车调度命令时，在命令内容前增加“转发×台×月×日×号调度命令”。（行规第22条）

列车列尾装置故障（丢失）运行时，由发车人员组织简略试验良好后方可发车，在调度集中（CTC）区段车务无人站由机车乘务员负责。（行规第30条）

列车列尾装置故障（丢失）运行时，沿途各站应通过列车尾部标志或尾部车辆车号确认列车完整。调度集中（CTC）区段车务无人站原则上办理通过，须停车时，由机车乘务员确认列车完整。（行规第30条）

出段担当货物列车牵引任务的机车须各自携带一台已建立“一对一”关系的列尾主机。列尾主机的安装与摘解由列尾作业人员负责，无列尾作业人员的由车站负责，在调度集中（CTC）区段车务无人站由机车乘务员负责，应与司机共同核对“一对一”关系。（行规第30条）

“任何个别（无论怎样）都是一般”。这句话的正确含义是___

在唯物辩证法看来，水果同苹果、梨、香蕉、桔子等的关系是___

“是就是是，不是就是不是，除此之外都是鬼话。”这是一种___

真象和假象的区别在于___

有的哲学家说，在大风扬起的尘土中，每一粒尘土的运动状况都是纯粹必然的。这是种___

“或然率”是指___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author think of the 2015 report by the Census Bureau?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author say about the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What do Jones and Klenow think of the comparison between France and the U.S. in terms of real consumption per person?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What is an advantage of the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What can we infer from the passage about American people’s economic well-being?___

大学生的成才目标是___。

现代人才素质的灵魂是___。

___是人才素质的基础.

世界政治格局发展的必然趋势是___。

在全面发展的教育中德、智、体、美是缺一不可，统一存在的，其中处于主导地位的是___。

时代精神的内涵十分丰富，其中___居于核心地位。

民族精神是一个民族赖以生存和发展的精神支撑。中华民族在五千年的发展中所形成的伟大民族精神的核心是___。

下列名言反映中华民族是一个艰苦奋斗的民族的有___。

___是人才素质的基本内容

10。___是我们立党立国的根本指导思想

衡量大学生全面发展的一个重要标准是___

独立生活意识指___

___作为社会主义核心价值体系的精髓，解决的是应当具备什么样的精神状态和精神风貌的问题。

___是人才素质的综合体现.

人们对生活在其中的世界及人与世界的关系的总的看法和根本观点就是___

人生观的核心是___

人的本质属性是___

社会主义社会人生价值标准是___

回答人为什么活着___

表明人应当怎样对待生活___

判别什么样的人生才有意义___

下列人生态度中正确的是___

下列属于正确的人生目的的是___

___认为,金钱可以主宰一切.

___ 认为，社会和他人是达到个人目的的手段。

___认为，人生的全部内容就在于满足感官的需求与快乐。

马克思对于人的本质的论断确立与___

人与自然关系的实质是___

在社会交往和公共生活中公民应该遵守的道德准则是___