全面推行安全风险管理是实现铁路科学发展、安全发展的战略举措。

铁路开展安全风险管理的指导思想和主要内容就是要通过实施安全风险管理，增强安全风险的防范意识，构建安全风险的防控体系，达到强化安全基础、最大限度减少或消除安全风险、确保铁路安全的目的。

在风险管理中，风险和危险是两个完全相同的概念。

隐患就是指危险、危害事件发生的可能性与后果严重程度的综合度量。

当危险暴漏在人类的生产活动中时就成为了风险。

危险源是指超出了人们设定的安全界限的一种状态或行为，如：超标、两违等现象等，它是直接导致事故发生的根源。

安全风险只能定性不能定量表述，因此它不具备可评估的特点。

风险规避是风险评估过程中的一种重要且常用的操作方法。

安全风险管理的首要环节就是要从源头上化解和降低风险。

安全风险是客观存在的，并不是人们主观臆想出来。

安全风险是不可预知的，同时也不具备可控性。

风险管理是指管理主体通过风险识别，采用合理的经济和技术手段对风险进行综合处置，以实现最大安全保障的科学管理方法。

环境的不安全因素、设备的异常状态和人员的违章行为是构成安全风险最基本的因素。

职工培训不是案例风险管理的内在要求。

职工培训是激励职工积极性的重要措施。

职工培训工作的基本原则是：坚持先培训、后就业和先培训后上岗。

职工培训的基本特点是在职性、经济性和社会性。

职工培训的一般特点是成人性、实用性、针对性、适应性、多样性。

铁路运输具有运量大、速度快、案例、受气候条件影响大，以及点多、线长、面广的特点。

职工培训的三级网络要实行逐级负责、领导负责、分工島、岗位负责。

职工培训可分为岗前培训和适应性培训。

岗位培训是突出的终身教育。

岗位培训具有明显的制度性。

岗位培训具有直接的效益性。

岗位培训要逐步实现规范化、制度化。

班组培训的内容不包括政治思想和品德教育。

班组培训主要内容有故障处理和非正常情况下的应急处置。

班组培训的基本方法不包括集体学习。

班组培训的基本方法有岗位练兵和示范教育等。

班组长培训是提高班组长素质的重要途径。

班组思想政治工作有及时性和超前性、针对性和有效性等特点。

做好班组思想政治工作是保证安全运输生产和加强路风建设的需要。

班组思想政治工作应当遵循安全与鼓励相结合的原则。

班组民主管理会实行民主集中制。

班组民主管理会和班组行政会可以联合召开，但是会议主持人要分开，会议内容要分开，不能混在一起。

要建设先进的企业文化，必须先建设班组文化。

班组民主管理会和班组会是一样的，没有区别。

班组职工是民主管理活动的主体，发挥班组每个职工的积极性是搞好班组民主管理的关键。

班组长即是安全生产的带头人，又是班组的行政管理者。

安全文化是铁路班组文化建设的首要内容。

“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?___