工程余料是指在基建、技改、应急等工程中___的剩余物资。​​​​​​​

工程结余物资是指基建、技改、应急等项目因工程变更等原因无法在原项目中应用，且___的物资。​​​​​​​

___负责组织本专业逆向物资入库前的回收、保管、鉴定、修复、入库运输、入库移交、处置计划等工作。​​​​​​​

各级物资使用管理部门负责提出本专业范畴报废物资年度预算申请、提出技术鉴定申请、预估可回收报废物资数量、___。​​​​​​​

各级物资使用管理部门负责再利用本专业产生的___。​​​​​​​

各级物资使用管理部门应___回收逆向物资。​​​​​​​

各分子公司物资部负责组织分子公司逆向物资鉴定小组鉴定___、达到轮换年限的储备物资及因其他原因需鉴定的储备物资。​​​​​​​

地市级单位物资部门负责组织本单位逆向物资的接收入库、___、保管等工作。​​​​​​​

各级财务部门负责核定逆向物资的___。​​​​​​​

未收回报废物资，由___书面说明未能收回报废物资的原因，财务部门核实损失金额，相关部门会签后，呈领导审批。​​​​​​​

退运物资___、工程余料、工程结余物资入库前由各级物资使用管理部门负责组织使用价值鉴定,物资部门根据___入库。​​​​​​​

闲置物资由各级物资部门按照职责分工组织同级逆向物资鉴定小组对其进行___鉴定。​​​​​​​

未收回报废物资是指应回收但因各种客观原因如：___、___等原因无法回收的报废物资，不包括现场处理的报废物资。​​​​​​​

鉴定为报废的___，纳入报废物资管理。​​​​​​​

鉴定为直接可用的逆向物资,纳入___。​​​​​​​

鉴定为修复后可用的逆向物资，由物资使用管理部门落实资金___后，纳入闲置物资管理。​​​​​​​

物资使用管理部门负责将工程余料、工程结余物资在___之日起15天内完成退库移交工作。​​​​​​​

工程余料、工程结余物资按___退库。​​​​​​​

退运物资或资产、工程余料、工程结余物资在___前，由物资使用管理部门负责回收、保管。​​​​​​​

物资使用管理部门向物资部门移交报废审批手续的时，需提前___个工作日提出入库申请。​​​​​​​

报废物资入库前需完成报废审批手续，报废审批手续应明确___。​​​​​​​

物资使用管理部门应根据物资部门的反馈意见，足额将报废物资___。​​​​​​​

报废物资入库时，物资使用管理部门应提交报废物资___和___。​​​​​​​

报废物资入库时，物资部门仓管人员和移交部门人员应___核实。​​​​​​​

地市级单位物资部门负责对本单位入库逆向物资统一造册登记，确保报废物资___，避免资产流失。​​​​​​​

地市级单位物资部门负责保证本单位闲置物资信息完整、规范和___，并及时逐级上报逆向物资动态管理情况。​​​​​​​

闲置物资由物资使用管理部门做好检测和修复，___后移交入库或直接运至项目施工现场临时仓库。​​​​​​​

确实无法明确使用方向的闲置物资，经___批准后方可入库。​​​​​​​

闲置物资入库时，须提交相关的资料，包括但不限于资产卡片编号、投运时间、修试记录、___、图纸、技术文件等。​​​​​​​

闲置物资鉴定报告应明确逆向物资的鉴定结果、使用方式、允许存放的期限、___、预测再利用的成本等。​​​​​​​

对于需要拆除、运输的闲置物资，物资使用管理部门应确保物资拆除后的___，拆分、包装完好。​​​​​​​

工程结余物资要转为闲置物资的，由物资使用管理部门提交不能在原项目使用的___，物资部门办理转为闲置物资的手续。​​​​​​​

计量表计退运后，由物资使用管理部门在3个抄表周期内完成___工作。​​​​​​​

达到轮换年限的储备物资及因其他原因需鉴定的储备物资，经鉴定可用的，转为闲置物资后由___负责再利用工作。​​​​​​​

达到轮换年限的储备物资及因其他原因需鉴定的储备物资，鉴定为报废的，物资部门应在鉴定完成后___个月内完成报废审批手续。​​​​​​​

有毒、有害的危险品报废物资由项目单位委托专业回收公司现场回收、处理，物资部门不设立专门的___仓库。​​​​​​​

逆向物资___以物资账面价值或账面净值计价，由物资使用管理部门移交入库时提供，经财务部门核定。​​​​​​​

按公司《仓储配送管理办法》保管报废物资，需做到___相符。​​​​​​​

根据物资种类对报废物资进行___保管，物资种类包括设备类、线缆类、原材料类、办公用品类、瓷瓶类等。​​​​​​​

闲置物资入库后，按照___进行分类存放、保管、保养，并全公司信息共享。​​​​​​​

“机不可失，时不再来”指的是___

是 ___

在客观规律面前，人的主观能动性表现在___

事物的联系和运动之间的关系___

唯物辩证法的总特征是___

___

“割下来的手就不再是人手”这句话体现了___

唯物辩证法认为发展的实质是___

区分新事物和旧事物的标志在于看它们___

质量互变规律揭示了___

质和事物的存在是___

在实际工作中，要注意掌握分寸，防止“过”或“不及”，其关键在于___

区分量变和质变的根本标志是看___

量变的复杂性是指___

量变中的阶段性部分质变表现了___

量变中的局部性部分质变是___

揭示事物发展的趋势和道路的规律是___

“肯定和否定相互渗透，在一定意义上，肯定就是否定。”这是一种___

事物的否定方面是指___

作为辩证的否定的“扬弃”是___

辩证的否定是事物发展的环节,因为辩证的否定___

否定之否定规律___

事物发展的周期性体现了___

直线论的错误在于只看到___

循环论的错误在于___

对立统一规律揭示了___

唯物辩证法的实质和核心是___

辩证法所说的矛盾是指___

矛盾的基本属性是___

依据是___

矛盾问题的精髓是___

题的方法都是___

“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?___