根据《中华人民共和国内河交通安全管理条例》，任何船舶不得超载运输货物或者旅客。

根据《中华人民共和国内河交通安全管理条例》，任何船舶不得进入或者穿越海事管理机构公布的禁航区。

根据《中华人民共和国内河交通安全管理条例》，设置水产养殖区，涉及航道的，渔业行政主管部门应当征求航道主管部门和海事管理机构的意见。

根据《中华人民共和国内河交通安全管理条例》，特大内河交通事故的报告、调查和处理，按照省级人民政府有关规定执行。

根据《中华人民共和国内河交通安全管理条例》，遇有紧急情况，需要对航道进行修复或者对航道、码头前沿水域进行疏浚的，作业人可以先施工后申请。

载运危险化学品的船舶，遇有紧急情况，可以在任何水域进行停泊，而不必向海事管理机构报告。（ ）

《中华人民共和国中华人民共和国内河交通安全管理条例》规定，船舶、浮动设施在遇险，应当及时求助，无需开展自救工作，等待救援。

根据《内河渡口渡船安全管理规定》，梯级河段、库区下游以及水位变化较大的渡口水域，渡口不必标识警戒水位线和停航封渡水位线。

根据《内河渡口渡船安全管理规定》，禁止水泥船、排筏、农用船舶、渔业船舶或者报废船舶从事渡运。

根据《内河渡口渡船安全管理规定》，可运载危险货物的渡船也可以同时渡运旅客和危险货物。

根据《内河渡口渡船安全管理规定》，日渡运量较少的渡口及载客定额12人以下的渡船，应当制定应急措施，每月至少组织一次演练。

根据《内河渡口渡船安全管理规定》，渡口渡船应当服从指挥，在不危及自身安全的情况下，积极参与水上搜寻救助。

根据《内河渡口渡船安全管理规定》，鼓励运用鼓励运用视频监控等先进技术手段对渡运安全进行安全管理和监督检查。

根据《内河渡口渡船安全管理规定》，渡口运营人应当督促渡船清点并如实记录每航次渡船载客数量及车辆驾驶员等随船过渡人员，并开展定期或者不定期核查。

根据《内河渡口渡船安全管理规定》，载客20人以下的渡船可仅配备渡工。

根据《内河渡口渡船安全管理规定》，设置渡口，选址应当在水流平缓、水深足够、坡岸稳定、视野开阔、适宜船舶停靠的地点，并远离危险物品生产、堆放场所。

根据《内河渡口渡船安全管理规定》，超过渡船限载、限高、限宽、限长标准的车辆，采取有效保护措施后方可以渡运。

根据《内河渡口渡船安全管理规定》，如果车辆所载的危险货物与渡船的船舶载运危险货物适装证书相符，渡船可以载运装载有危险货物而未持有相应《道路运输证》的车辆。

根据《内河渡口渡船安全管理规定》，某乡镇政府取消了该乡镇的某渡口，此举合法合规。

根据《内河渡口渡船安全管理规定》，渡船逾期未检验或者检验不合格，不得从事渡运。

根据《内河渡口渡船安全管理规定》，渡船应当按照规定控制荷载分布，保证装载平衡和稳性，采取安全措施防止车辆及货物移位。

某乡镇人民政府在征求渡口所在地海事管理机构意见的基础上审批某渡口设置，该行为没有违反《内河渡口渡船安全管理规定》。

根据《内河渡口渡船安全管理规定》要求，渡运危险货物车辆的渡口可以不设置危险货物车辆专用通道。

海事管理机构根据有关法律、行政法规和本规定对内河运输船舶检验、交通安全及防止污染水域实行监督管理。

根据《内河运输船舶标准化管理规定》，对不符合内河运输船舶标准船型指标体系中的强制性要求的新建、改建内河运输船舶，海事管理机构应当不予办理通过船闸、升船机等通航设施的手续。

根据《内河运输船舶标准化管理规定》，任何组织和个人不得使用交通运输部明文规定已经淘汰的水泥质船舶、木质船舶、挂桨机船舶从事内河运输。

根据《中华人民共和国防治船舶污染内河水域环境管理规定》，船舶发生事故，造成或者可能造成内河水域污染的，船舶所有人或者经营人应当及时消除污染影响。不能及时消除污染影响的，海事管理机构可以采取清除、打捞、拖航、引航、过驳等必要措施，发生的费用由海事部门承担。

根据《中华人民共和国防治船舶污染内河水域环境管理规定》，船舶经船舶检验机构检验可以免除配备相应的污染物处理装置的，应当在相应的船舶检验证书中予以注明。

根据《中华人民共和国防治船舶污染内河水域环境管理规定》，船舶污染物接收单位在污染物接收作业完毕后，应当向船舶出具污染物接收处理单证后，可以自行处理污染物。

根据《中华人民共和国防治船舶污染内河水域环境管理规定》，船舶使用的燃料应当符合有关法律法规和标准要求，鼓励船舶使用清洁能源。

根据《中华人民共和国防治船舶污染内河水域环境管理规定》，船坞内进行的修造作业结束后，作业单位应当进行坞内清理和清洁，确认不会造成水域污染后，方可沉坞或者开启坞门。

根据《中华人民共和国防治船舶污染内河水域环境管理规定》，港口、码头、装卸站应当接收靠泊船舶生产经营过程中产生的船舶污染物。

根据《中华人民共和国防治船舶污染内河水域环境管理规定》，港口管理部门应当配合地方人民政府制定船舶污染事故应急预案，开展应急处置工作。

根据《中华人民共和国防治船舶污染内河水域环境管理规定》，船舶不得超过相关标准向大气排放动力装置运转产生的废气以及船上产生的挥发性有机化合物。

根据《中华人民共和国防治船舶污染内河水域环境管理规定》，交付船舶载运污染危害性质不明的货物，海事管理机构应当委托具备相应技术能力的机构进行货物污染危害性评估分类，确定安全运输条件。

根据《中华人民共和国防治船舶污染内河水域环境管理规定》，禁止向内河水域排放船舶垃圾。

根据《中华人民共和国防治船舶污染内河水域环境管理规定》，某船舶将燃油舱中的污染物通过过驳方式交付储存，双方应当遵守污染危害性货物过驳作业管理要求。

根据《中华人民共和国防治船舶污染内河水域环境管理规定》，船舶在港从事污染物接收、燃料供受等相关作业的，在开始作业时，只能通过甚高频向海事管理机构报告作业时间、作业内容等信息。

根据《中华人民共和国防治船舶污染内河水域环境管理规定》，某船舶在长江航行，为了方便处理垃圾，该船可以使用焚烧炉进行垃圾焚烧。

根据《中华人民共和国防治船舶污染内河水域环境管理规定》，船舶应当将使用完毕的《油类记录簿》《货物记录簿》在船上保留2年。

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___

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___