subsidise-100

14年考研英语难吗

《维多利亚2：黑暗之心》指令代码大全，参数修改教程。



友情提示：小改怡情，大改伤身，可以成为强人，但请不要成为超人。

玩家对游戏的热情和攻克游戏的难度的程度成反比关系.。

文件篇

1. 把全世界都划入你的势力范围? 改派表示毫无难度。

2. 国家政府以及政党 及其效果的修改。

3. 用事件解决自己领土内的铁路 要塞 海军基地 问题。

4. 倒，人口太多了。军需商赚不到钱。

5.技工失业了，连农民和劳工都失业咯 不给力啊. 并含改变工厂消耗产出和使用的劳动人群和快速改变生产部队时间的方法。

6. 领土内外族人太多，改派表示看着很不爽，修改同化速度和可接受民族，和Victoria 2historycountries文件解析。

7. 较为快速的殖民地本土化

8.看着敌人首都很富饶，一次战争割到他灭国，割地可以割让首都。

9. 修改列强的个数和列强，次强，开化，未开化国家等的修正效果。

10.这个游戏玩到2012年，改派表示压力不大，并包含时间无限的方法。

11. 改派的殖民者是不怕吃苦的，在任何生活环境都可以进行殖民活动，包含增加国家焦点方法。

12. 时代在变革，19世纪，生化来袭。

13. 不动如山,侵略如火,疾如林,徐如风,天地之间,惟我独尊。——给攻城部队加BUFF。

14. 还在为占领ENG,RUS等领土大国的繁琐而苦恼吗，WGM帮您讨论下可行性，包括游戏全面提速的方法。

存档篇

主要分两种：

一. 一些常用参数的修改

二 . 省份的修改，并含省份产出资源和雇用劳动力数量的改变。

奢求：请坛友给个帖做纪念吧，以肯定作者，满足下小小的虚荣心。

1. 把全世界都划入你的势力范围? 改派表示毫无难度。

E:Paradox InteractiveVictoria 2common nationalvalues.txt文件。

国家特色就是游戏中政治一栏里评价自由 次序 的那东西的修正效果。

估计以后有MOD 这个文件会很有文章。

在common文件夹打开nationalvalues文件，在最后添加代码：

nv_wgm = {

mobilisation_size = 0.04 #动员规模大小。

mobilisation_economy_impact = 1.0 #动员对经济的影响。

badboy = -1 #每月减少恶名值。

war_exhaustion = -1 #每月减少厌战值。

research_points = 10 #每天增加研究点数。

diplomatic_points_modifier = 8 #每月增加外交点数的8倍。

influence_modifier = 10 #列强影响力增加10倍 好像每天基础影响力约等于0.25。

leadership = 3 #加领导力。

global_pop_militancy_modifier = -1 #POP斗争性减100%。

#号后面为说明文字 可删除 各种修正可根据喜好使用。

然后在history文件夹的countries文件夹里找到你想有此效果的国家文件打开，找到nationalvalue = XX_**这行，

把你之前的nv_wgm 替换掉这里的XX_** 重新开档 有效（后面有介绍在存档里改变国家特色的方法）

2. 国家政府以及政党 及其效果的修改。

E:Paradox InteractiveVictoria 2common governments.txt文件。

打开 例如：

democracy = { #民主制。

liberal = yes #允许或不允许的政党性质。

socialist = yes。

conservative = yes。

reactionary = yes。

communist = yes。

anarcho_liberal = yes。

fascist = yes

election = yes #可否举行选举。

duration = 96 #选举的周期 嫌选举麻烦的朋友可改长时间 原为48 48个月也就是4年 我改为96。

appoint_ruling_party = no。

E:Paradox InteractiveVictoria 2commoncountries 例如Two Sicilies.txt 两西西里的打开。

party = {

name = "SIC_conservative"。

start_date = 1830.1.1 #出现时间。

end_date = 2000.1.1 #解散时间。

ideology = conservative #政党类型 保守主义。

economic_policy = interventionism #干涉主义。

trade_policy = protectionism #保护贸易。

religious_policy = moralism #伦理主义。

citizenship_policy = limited_citizenship #有限公民权。

war_policy = pro_military #扩军主义。

名词翻译：reactionary 反动主义 state_capitalism 国家资本主义 residency 居留权 laissez_faire放任主义free_trade 自由贸易 pluralism 多元化。

anti_military 裁军主义 secularized 世俗化 full_citizenship 完整公民权 planned_economy计划经济 pro_atheism 无神论 jingoism 沙文主义。

可根据各种类型 填写 集各种政党优点与一身。

E:Paradox InteractiveVictoria 2common issues.txt文件 打开最开头。

例如：

party_issues = {。

trade_policy = {。

protectionism = { #保护贸易。

max_tariff = 1 #最大关税+100%。

min_tariff = -0.25 #最小关税-25%。

free_trade = {

max_tariff = 0.25。

min_tariff = -1。

economic_policy = {。

laissez_faire = {。

max_tax = 0.5 #最大税率50%。

factory_owner_cost = 1.0 #工厂花费100%。

rules = {

build_factory = yes #玩家可否建厂。

expand_factory = yes #玩家可否扩建工厂。

open_factory = yes #玩家可否重开工厂。

destroy_factory = yes #玩家可否摧毁工厂。

build_railway = yes #玩家可否修建铁路。

factory_priority = yes #玩家可否设置工厂工人优先级。

can_subsidise = yes #玩家可否进行工业补贴。

pop_build_factory = no #资本家可否建厂。

pop_expand_factory = no #资本家可否扩建工厂。

pop_open_factory = no #资本家可否重开工厂。

delete_factory_if_no_input = no #资本家可否移除工厂。

......

求关于弱势群体的医疗保障的英文文献3000字以上最好是理论类的 若有中英对照追加100分

2014年的英语考试已经比去年较难，考研阅读特点之一是文章很难读懂，有些考生由于词汇量小，句子分析能力差，根本读不懂文章，所以也无法考到理想的分数。其次是选项迷惑性大，排除错误选项需要很多时间，而且不一定选对。作为考研英语试卷体系中发展最成熟、题型最稳定的部分，阅读主要考查的是考生理解文章结构、把握具体信息和解答不同类型题目的能力。

辩论稿 关于核能的坏处 英文的.!急.!

Equity and health sector reforms: can low-income countries escape the medical poverty trap?。

ProfMargaret Whitehead PhDa, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, ProfGöran Dahlgren MAb and Timothy Evans MDc。

aDepartment of Public Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK。

bSwedish National Institute of Public Health, Stockholm, Sweden。

cHealth Equity Division, The Rockefeller Foundation, New York, NY, USA。

Available online 12 September 2001.。

Article Outline。

Private finance for public services。

Out-of-pocket expenses for private services。

Medical poverty trap。

Untreated morbidity。

Reduced access to care。

Long-term impoverishment。

Irrational use of drugs。

What can be done about the medical poverty trap?。

Conclusion

Acknowledgements。

References

In the past two decades, powerful international trends in market-oriented health-sector reforms have been sweeping around the world, generally spreading from the northern to the southern, and from the western to the eastern hemispheres. Global blueprints have been advocated by agencies such as the World Bank to promote privatisation of health-service providers, and to increase private financing—via user fees—of public providers. Furthermore, commercial interests are increasingly promoted by the World Trade Organisation, which has striven to open up public services to foreign investors and markets.1, 2 and 3 This policy could pave the way for public funding of private operators in health and education sectors,2 especially in wealthy, industrial countries in the northern hemisphere.。

Although such attempts to undermine public services pose an obvious threat to equity in the well established social-welfare systems of Europe and Canada, other developments pose more immediate threats to the fragile systems in middle-income and low-income countries. Two of these trends—the introduction of user fees for public services, and the growth of out-of-pocket expenses for private services—can, if combined, constitute a major poverty trap.。

Private finance for public services。

Introduction of user fees for public services has become entrenched in many developing countries since publication of the World Bank policy document of 1987.4 This strategy was part of a health-policy package, which in turn was one component of common macroeconomic structural-adjustment programmes for countries facing debt.5 The World Bank strategy has been powerfully reinforced by the practice of making user fees a condition of loans and aid from international donors, for example, in Kenya and Uganda.。

Private financing of public health services has also increased in countries with high and stable economic growth rates, such as China and Vietnam. Privatisation is claimed to increase the public's appreciation of health services and prevent overuse.4 Fees are assumed to offer financial possibilities to health providers for improvement of quality of services.6。

Such privatisation policies in health care, however, are highly regressive, because pooling of risk is reduced and care costs fall more directly on the sick (who are most likely to be poor, children, or elderly), than on healthy individuals. The World Bank's counter-argument was that revenues from user fees could be used to subsidise those least able to afford care.7 Exemption schemes were proposed to get round the difficulty of poor people not being able to afford essential services. During the 1990s, the World Bank predicted that in one sweep, this user-fee policy would improve poorer groups' access to and use of essential health services.7 Why then is there widespread dissatisfaction with this policy in developing countries? The answer lies in the actual, rather than the predicted, effects experienced by families and communities.。

Out-of-pocket expenses for private services。

A second trend reinforcing the effect of user charges in the public sector, is the increase in private medical practices, and an explosive growth in private pharmacies.8 In developing countries, pharmaceutical drugs now account for 30 to 50% of total health-care expenditure, compared with less than 15% in established market economies.9 Private drug vendors, especially in Asia and parts of Africa, tend to cater for poor people who cannot afford to use professional services. These vendors, who are often unqualified, frequently do not follow prescribing regulations. In parts of China and India, drug vendors can be found on nearly every street corner.10 Limited access to professional health services, and aggressive marketing of drugs on an unregulated market have not only generated an unhealthy and irrational use of medicines, but also wasted scarce financial resources—especially, among poor people.。

Medical poverty trap。

The positive assumptions on which these strategies have been based are not borne out by the evidence. Results of empirical studies on the effects of these policies point to severe negative consequences.11 and 12 Rises in out-of-pocket costs for public and private health-care services are driving many families into poverty, and are increasing the poverty of those who are already poor. The magnitude of this situation—known as “the medical poverty trap”—has been shown by national household surveys and participatory poverty alleviation studies.11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 The main effects fall into four categories.。

Untreated morbidity。

The most severe effects are felt by those who are denied services because they cannot afford them and whose sickness goes untreated. Such people are at risk of further suffering and deterioration in health. In the Caribbean, between 14 and 20% of people who reported illness indicated that they did not seek care because of lack of funds for treatment or transport.17 In the Kyrgyz Republic, more than half the patients referred to hospital were not admitted, because they could not afford hospital costs.15 In some Indian rural areas, 17% of people who reported illness did not seek care, of whom more than a quarter cited financial reasons.18。

Untreated sickness among poor people is recorded not only in countries with serious economic difficulties, but also in those with high and stable economic growth. For example, access to essential health services in rural China was renowned, but has been drastically reduced despite a yearly economic growth rate of almost 10% in the past two decades. In household surveys in rural China, 35–40% of people who reported that they had had an illness did not seek health care, with financial difficulties cited by poor people as the main reason.13 and 19 Additionally, 60% of those referred to hospital by a doctor never contacted the hospital because they knew they could not afford to pay the high user charges.13 Costs to individuals and society from untreated morbidity are potentially devastating.。

Reduced access to care。

Introduction of high user fees has typically caused an indiscriminate reduction in access to care. The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development has recently summarised the experiences of user fees: “Of all measures proposed for raising revenue from local people this [user fees] is probably the most ill advised. One study of 39 developing countries found that the introduction of user fees had increased revenues only slightly, while significantly reducing the access of low-income people to basic social services. Other studies have shown that fees reinforce gender inequality.20 Poor people delay seeking care until an emergency situation arises, because of financial constraints.11 This delay often forces them eventually to seek care at a more expensive level, typically at a hospital, rather than at a health centre. The negative effects of user fees are therefore two-fold: poorer health and increased medical expenditure. High user fees are thus inefficient and inequitable.。

However, advocates of private finance argue that negative effects of user fees are not inevitable. Efficient and fair systems for waiving user fees could be established, and thereby secure access to public health-care services for those not able to pay.7 In practice, establishment of well functioning systems for waiving fees has proved very difficult.21 A major difficulty is to identify very poor people in a population in which poverty is rife. Another difficulty is that no public funds are set aside to compensate local providers for reduction or elimination of fees for some of their poorer patients. Public health-care providers, who depend on revenue from fees, are likely to start to give priority to patients who can pay. In many countries, this trend is reinforced because revenue from fees is directly linked to health staff payments and salaries.22 In such a financial climate, public hospitals tend to favour rich people, who generally gain greater shares of public funds than poor people.。

Long-term impoverishment。

People buy care even if it costs them their long-term livelihood, because medical expenses are often forced payments. Their difficulty is not in allocation of scarce resources, but rather whether or not they can find money for urgent treatment such as surgery. The negative social effects of direct user fees for health care are also greater than most other fees, because these expenses are unexpected and total cost is often not known until after treatment.。

2014考研英语一难吗

http://www.tribune.ie/article.tvt?_scope=Tribune/News/Comment&id=72481&SUBCAT=Tribune/News&SUBCATNAME=News。

Nuclear a bad idea because it's stupid 。

The more time we waste debating nuclear, the less we'll have to make Ireland a real clean-energy state 。

BUILDING nuclear power stations in Ireland is not going to happen. But that won't stop some people from wanting to waste time and resources debating the issue.。

So who benefits? The main boosters for nuclear are: 。

1) Amicus, an ESB trade union desperate to distract attention from the urgentlyneeded reforms that will see its power diminished; 2) the Chinese Communist Party; 。

3) professional media controversialists who wrongly see this as harmless fun; and 4) Dick Cheney. The more time we waste debating nuclear, the less time and resources we'll have to actually do the more profitable work of improving energy efficiency, deploying technologies we will actually use and making Ireland a world-class site for cleanenergy innovation.。

I'm no sandal-wearing, muesli-eating crusty. I believe in free markets and profit-maximising capitalism. I don't give a fiddler's fart about some hippie morality agonising about nuclear technology.。

I'm from the country that nuked Japan. Twice.。

Nuclear isn't a bad idea because it's wrong. Nuclear is a bad idea because it's stupid. It's crap business and worse economics. As Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute puts it, "nuclear power died of an incurable attack of market forces." If only people would stop trying to revive the corpse.。

If nuclear power is such a great deal, why is there not a single cent of private capital at risk in new nuclear building anywhere in the world?。

Why, even after the US Congress in 2005 offered to spend $38bn to entirely subsidise the building of six new plants, did business credit rating agency Standard & Poor's leave its risk profile for nuclear precisely the same? S&P calls nuclear a "risky business practice" because most of the issues involved - like where to put the waste (under the Hill of Tara? ) and how to really account for the additional carbon footprint from mining, enrichment and construction - are further away than ever from being resolved.。

"Why should we take the word of central planners in Beijing over capitalists in New York?" asks Lovins. "I don't get it. If you take markets seriously, you have to pay attention to market behaviour."。

Nuclear advocates conjure up studies to make it seem economic, even arguing it's cheaper, which is breathtakingly dishonest. The cost of a delivered kilowatt hour from nuclear is actually up to twice as much as for wind. If you want to reduce the perkilowatt cost for electricity and reduce carbon emissions, nuclear compares very unfavourably to a combination of 'negawatts' - electricity never used because of conservation measures - and 'micropower'.。

'Micropower' - industrial combined heat and power units plus small-scale renewables at your house - used to be considered fringe.。

No longer. Micro-power in 2002 surpassed nuclear in worldwide installed capacity and today accounts for onesixth of all generation. And because the model is less industrial age and more like an energy internet, it is more reliable. Oh, and with no union jobs and almost entirely from private capital.。

In fact, last year saw a record $100bn in investment in renewables, up from $80bn in 2005 - R&D for solar (where Silicon Valley sees a medium-term goldmine), wind turbine building, next-generation 'smart' electricity grids, biofuels.。

If Ireland allows itself to get drawn into a pointless debate over the nuclear red herring, it will be our fault - because the Irish media will have given credibility to a topic that will get a lot of people quite upset, and thus more tuned in.。

The future of your kids is worth more than protecting a handful of union jobs in outdated, centrally-planned electricity factories. Because we have shied away from this fight, keeping our energy future in the hands of some relic trade unionists, it's not going to be easy. It may already be too late to save jobs at multinationals which gave up waiting on us to get our energy act together. We may have to buy unions off with a fat pension pay-off along with their P45s. Every minute we waste on this nuclear red herring means that pay-off goes up. Amicus understands this. Do my misguided pro-business friends?。

新加坡留学费用要多少？

2014考研英语一不难。

考研英语复习计划：

1、重点是考研词汇、基本语法，同时，阅读理解训练也要开始。语法等不会有什么变化，词汇每年大纲虽然有所修订，但变动不大，因此找本前一年的《大纲》先看着。有许多同学正好在这一阶段考CET6级，由于6级和考研难度大致相当，词汇量也差不多，所以可以结合起来复习。

2、词汇方面，应该在已经大体掌握意思的基础上，开始深入掌握用法，尤其是固定搭配和习惯用法。另一个重点是解决长难句，掌握各种句式。同时要加大阅读量，一方面提高阅读能力，另一方面也通过阅读来巩固语法、词汇和句式。本阶段必须进行相当量的题型专项练习，通过做题来巩固。

3、冲刺复习阶段的重要任务也有两个，一是进行大量模考练习，二是强化训练短文写作。对短文写作的强化，首先要对可能的命题范围作出预测。考研英语作文命题不会冷僻，不会很专业，通常都与学习生活紧密联系，或反映当前社会热点问题。例如保持健康、如何读书、环境保护、乱承诺等都曾是出题范围。了解到这些大概范围后，有意识地多阅读一些相关文章，熟悉有关观点、句式、词汇，多动笔写写，在考场上就可成竹在胸。

原文地址：http://www.qianchusai.com/subsidise-100.html