横越线路时，应走地道或天桥。必须横越线路时，应___，并注意左右机车、车辆的动态及脚下有无障碍物。

禁止使用国家明令淘汰和危及生产安全的工艺、___。

人员下道避车时应面向列车认真瞭望，防止列车上的抛落、坠落物或___伤人。

有关机务段要结合实际细化保证人身安全和作业安全的措施，并对所有在电气化区段工作的人员进行安全培训，学习后进行安全考试。取得___合格证后，方可上岗。

作业处所、建筑物上距牵引供电设备高压带电部分不足___m时，接触网必须停电，按规定办理停电手续并做好防护措施后方准作业。

储存、运输、使用___等危险物品应按照规程操作，搬运时应轻拿轻放。

当接触网绝缘破坏或不良时，在其支柱、支撑结构及其金属结构上，在回流线与钢轨上，都可能出现___

严禁在电气化区段___清扫或用水管冲洗机车上的部件。

工作前坚持安全讲话。根据天气、作业环境、___、人员、机具等情况，有针对性地提出安全注意事项。

电气化铁路开通前，必须对___进行电气化安全知识教育。

除牵引供电专业人员按规定作业外，任何人及所携带的物件、作业工器具等须与牵引供电设备高压带电部分保持___m以上距离，与回流线、架空地线、保护线保持 m以上距离。

电气化铁路区段房建、通信、信号、电力、给水、信息、照明、广播、防灾、视频、红外、安全监控等各种室外设备金属箱体、外壳等均需安装牢固，除专业特殊规定外应___。

站内其他线路作业，躲避本线列车时，下道距离不小于___m

机车运行中巡视机械间或走廊时要走稳把牢，开关车门时防止___。

在非正常情况下，机车乘务员要严格按照列车调度员命令升降弓，防止将电带入___。

严格执行电力、内燃机车人孔盖、爬梯等部位___规定。未办理登顶手续前，严禁登顶作业。

电气化铁路附近发生火灾时，必须立即通知车站值班员、列车（供电）调度员或___值班人员。

发现牵引供电设备断线及其部件损坏，或发现牵引供电设备上挂有线头、绳索、塑料布或脱落搭接等异物，均不得与之接触，应立即通知附近车站，在牵引供电设备检修人员到达未采取措施前，任何人员均应距已断线或异物处所___m以外。

冬季作业场所、通道、固定走行线及时清除冰雪并采取___措施。房檐（风雨棚）的冰挂做到及时清除。

遇雷雨天气时，禁止操作接触网隔离开关。严禁___操作隔离开关。

绝缘靴、绝缘手套等安全用品，应___进行一次绝缘耐压试验，并存放在阴凉干燥、防尘处所，使用前用干布擦拭，并进行外观检查，发现有漏气、裂损等现象禁止使用。

电气化区段在站内处理列车顶部故障，处置列车机车顶部突发事件前，有关车站（机车乘务员）必须向___报告。

机车乘务员在列车站停或区间停车下车检查机车走行部或处理故障时，必须密切注意邻线过往列车，遇邻线列车通过时，不准在列车的___作业、行走或停留。

禁止___检查处理故障或接触高压带电部件。

需进入高压室或变压器室处理故障前，必须双人确认___，拔下电源钥匙并随身携带后，方准进入。

电力机车运行中发生故障需要登机车顶部检查弓网状态或处理故障时，乘务员应断开主断路器，降下受电弓，向车站值班员、供电调度员申请办理___，接到停电命令后，穿戴好防护用具、验电和挂好接地线，方准进行。

严禁班前、班中饮酒；严禁脱岗、串岗，但有事可以私自替班或换班。

电气化区段严禁攀登机车、动车、各种车辆顶部或车辆装载的货物上。

必须检查确认车上车下无人员作业、无防护标志并呼唤后方准启机。

运行中不得向外抛扔杂物、抛撒火种，只在司机室、机械间准许吸烟。

机车在机务段（折返车间）无接触网、无电区进行整备作业，机车顶部作业完毕并确认车顶无人和遗留物件后，在有电区对车顶天窗及登顶通道加锁。

作业人员下道避车时160km/h 限速线路，距钢轨头部外侧距离不小于2.5米。

各类罐车在电气化铁路区段发生泄漏时，严禁登上车顶处理。必须将其牵到前方站处理。

必须熟知生产场所的设备、环境、危险因素、作业方法及防范措施。

隔离开关开闭作业时，必须执行本人操作本人监护制度。

不准飞乘飞降，以车代步。

在电气化区段，接触网的各导线及其相连部件，通常均带有高压电，因此禁止直接或间接通过任何物件(如导线、水流、棒条)与上述设备接触。

班前充分休息，工作中精力集中。

遇应急救援抢险和进入电气化铁路区域等特殊情况下，分配工作的领导或管理、指挥人员，必须向其传达或讲明有关的安全注意事项。

自接触网设备第一次受电开始，在未办理停电接地手续之前，所有人员均须按无电对待。

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___

社会公德最基本的要求是___

通过其规定和实施，影响人们思想，培养和提高人们法律意识，引导人们依法行为的作用是法律的___

有序的公共生活是构建和谐社会的___

一行人在过路口时迎面遇到红灯，看到近处没有车辆便径直通过。他这样做是___

任何一个社会成员，无论具有何种身份、职业和地位，都必须在公共生活中遵守社会公德。这体现了社会公德具有的___特点。

影响公共生活、公共秩序、文明礼貌、清洁卫生以及其他影响社会生活的最主要行为规范是___