MAI是指（）。

A:小区干扰 B:信道干扰 C:码间干扰 D:多址干扰

A businessman must keep records of the money he takes in and the money he spends. The work of keeping such records is called bookkeeping. The work of deciding how the records should be set up is called accounting. An accountant also finds out, by studying the records, whether or not a business is doing well. The accountant must know many things about the business.
Suppose a man owns a small clothing store, he keeps records that show that he spent money for newspaper advertising and for suits, shirts, shoes, and neckties to sell to his customers. He had to pay a young man to help him in the store. He also paid rent and had other expenses.
At the end of the year, he must take an inventory. That is, he counts how many pieces of clothing he has on hand. Then he must find out exactly how many he sold, how much money he took in, and how much money he spent in running the business. If he took in more than he spent, he made a profit for the year. If he spent more than he took in, he suffered a loss. He depends on his store accounting records to get all this information.The owner of a small clothing store can keep records without much trouble. But a big oil company or a big bank has many difficult accounting problems. The company must know how much money is to be paid by its debtors and how much it owes other companies for supplies. It must know how much it has lost in depreciation, or wear and tear of its equipment. All of this information must be kept in the company’s accounts. Big companies employ many accountants.After a company’s accountants finish their yearly count, their work must be officially examined. Experts from outside company double-check the records to be sure the accounts are correct.

After taking an inventory, if the owner found that he had got more money than he had spent, he made（）

A:a profit B:a loss C:an income D:an interest

Text 2
Could the bad old days of economic decline be about to return Since OPEC agreed to supply-cuts in March, the price of crude oil has jumped to almost $ 26 a barrel, up from less than $ 10 last December. This near tripling of oil prices calls up scary memories of the 1973 oil shock ,when prices quadrupled, and 1979-1980, when they also almost tripled. Both previous shocks resulted in double-digit inflation and global economic decline. So where are the headlines warning of gloom and doom this time
The oil price was given another push up this week when Iraq suspended oil exports. Strengthening economic growth, at the same time as winter grips the northern hemisphere, could push the price higher still in the short tern.
Yet there are good reasons to expect the economic consequences now to be less severe than in the 1970s. In most countries the cost of crude oil now accounts for a smaller share of the price of petrol than it did in the 1970s. In Europe, taxes account for up to four-fifths of the retail price, so even quite big changes in the price of crude have a more muted effect on pump prices than in the past.
Rich economies are also less dependent on oil than they were, and so less sensitive to swings in the oil price. Energy conservation, a shift to other fuels and a decline in the importance of heavy, energy-in-tensive industries have reduced oil consumption. Software, consultancy and mobile telephones use far less oil than steel or car production. For each dollar of GDP (in constant prices), rich economies now use nearly 50% less oil than in 1973 .The OECD estimates in its latest Economic Outlook that, if oil prices averaged $ 22 a barrel for a full year, compared with $13 in 1998, this would increase the oil import bill in rich economies by Only 0.25～0.5 % of GDP. That is less than one-quarter of the income loss in 1974 or 1980. On the other hand, oil-importing emerging economies--to which heavy industry has shifted--have become more energy-intensive, and so could be more seriously squeezed.
One more reason, not to lose sleepover. The rise in oil prices is that, unlike the rises in the 1970s, it has not occurred against the background of general commodity price inflation and global excess demand. A sizable portion of the world is only just emerging from economic decline. The Economist’ s commodity price index is broadly unchanging from a year ago. In 1973 commodity prices jumped by 70%, and in 1979 by almost 30%.

The estimates in Economic Outlook show that in rich countries（）

A:heavy industry becomes more energy-intensive B:income loss mainly results from fluctuating crude oil prices C:manufacturing industry has been seriously squeezed D:oil price changes have no significant impact on GDP

Text 4
Could the bad old days of economic decline be about to return Since OPEC agreed to supply - cuts in March, the price of crude oil has jumped to almost $ 26 a barrel, up from less than $10 last December. This near - tripling of oil prices calls up scary memories of the 1973 oil shock, when prices quadrupled, and 1979 -80, when they also almost tri- pled. Both previous shocks resulted in double - digit inflation and global economic decline. So there are the headlines warning of gloom and doom this time
The oil price was given another push up this week when Iraq suspended oil experts. Strengthening economic growth, al the’ same time as winter grips the northern hemisphere, could push the price higher still in the short Item.
Yet there are good reasons to expect the economic consequences now to be less severe than in the 1970s. In most countries the cost of crude oil now accounts for a smaller share of the price of petrol than it did in the 1970s. In Europe, tuxes account for up to four - fifths of the retail price, so even quite big changes in the price of crude have a more muted effect on pump prices than in the past.
Rich economies are also less dependent on oil than they were, and so less sensitive to swings in the ’oil price. Energy conservation, a shift to other fuels and a decline in the importance of heavy, energy-intensive industries have reduced oil consumption. Software, consultancy and mobile telephones use far less oil than steel or car production. For each dollar of GDP (in constant prices) rich economies now use nearly 50% less oil than in 1973. The OECD estimates in its latest Economic Outlook that, oil prices averaged $ 22 a barrel for a full year, compared with $13 in 1998, this would increase the oil import bill in rich economies by only 0.25 - 0.5% of GDP. That is less than one-quarter of the income loss in 1974 or 1980. On the other hand, oil-importing emerging economies—to which heavy industry has shifted—have become more energy-intensive, and se could he more seriously squeezed.
One more reason net to lose sleep over the rise in oil prices is that, unlike the rises in the 1970s, it has not occurred against the background of general commodity-price inflation and global excess demand. A sizable portion of the world is only just emerging from economic decline. The Economist’s commodity price index is broadly unchanging from a year ago. In 1973 commodity prices jumped by 70%, and in 1979 by almost 30%.

The estimates in Economic Outlook show that in rich countries（）

A:heavy industry becomes mare energy-intensive B:income loss mainly results from fluctuating crude oil. prices C:manufacturing industry has been seriously squeezed D:oil price changes have no significant impact on GDP

? ?Could the bad old days of economic decline be about to return? Since OPEC agreed to sup-ply-cuts in March, the price of crude oil has jumped to almost $ 26 a barrel, up from less than $10 last December. This near-tripling of oil prices calls up scary memories of the 1973 oil shocks resulted in double-digit inflation and global economic decline. So where are the headlines warning of gloom and doom this time?
? ?The oil price was given another push up this week when Iraq suspended oil exports. Strengthening economic growth, at the dame time as winter grips the northern hemisphere, could push the price higher still in the short term.
? ?Yet there are good reasons to expect the economic consequences now to be less severe than in the 1970s. In most countries the cost of crude oil now accounts for a smaller share of the price of petrol than it did in the 1970s. In Europe, taxes account for up to four-fifths of the retail price, so even quite big changes in the price of crude have a more muted effect on pump prices than in the past.
? ?Rich economics are also less dependent on oil than they were, and so less sensitive to swings in the oil price. Energy conservation, a shift to other fuels and a decline in the importance of heavy, energy-intensive industries have reduced oil consumption. Software, consultancy and mobile telephones use far less oil than steel or car production. For each dollar of GDP (in constant prices) rich economics now use nearly 50% less oil than in 1973. The OECD estimates in its latest Economic Outlook that, if oil prices averaged $ 22 a barrel for a full year, compared with $13 in 1998, this would increase the oil import bill in rich economies by only 0.25%～0.5% of GDP. That is less than one-quarter of the income loss in 1974 or 1980. On the other hand, oilimporting emerging economies—to which heavy industry has shifted— have become more energy-intensive, and so could be more seriously squeezed.
? ?One more reason not to lose sleep over the rise in oil prices is that, unlike the rises in the 1970s, it has not occurred against the background of general commodity-price inflation and global excess demand. A sizable portion of the world is only just emerging from economic decline. The Economist’s commodity price index is broadly unchanging from a year ago. In 1973 commodity prices jumped by 70%, and in 1979 by almost 30%.

The estimates in Economic Outlook show that in rich countries ______.

A:heavy industry becomes more energy-intensive B:income loss mainly results from fluctuating crude oil prices C:manufacturing industry has been seriously squeezed D:oil price changes have no significant impact on GDP

If your sense of well-being fluctuates with stock market, you might be comforted to know that money can’t buy you happiness anyway.
In one American study conducted in 1993, level of income was shown to have an inverse relation to happiness: The group whose income had declined was happier overall than the group whose income had increased. A soon-to-be published review of the hundreds of studies on this subject supports the 1993 findings.
In developed countries, the correlation between income and happiness is close to zero and sometimes negative.
With a correlation between level of income and happiness somewhere between 0.12 and 0.18, the United States is near the bottom of the list; that factors other than income are overwhelmingly more important in explaining happiness.
Also, as our material wealth increases, the gap between income and satisfaction with life seems to be widening. Predictably, money has its most positive effect on the poor, but once a person has achieved a minimal standard of living level of income has almost nothing to do with happiness.
Close relationship, rather than money, is the key to happiness. Indeed, the number of one’s personal friends is a much better indicator of overall satisfaction with life than personal wealth. One stands a better chance of achieving a satisfying life by spending time with friends and family than by striving for higher income. Incidentally, in the US, as people become richer, the probability of divorce increases.
Our need for companionship is partly biological. All primates respond with pleasure to demonstrations of affection and with pain to loss of companionship. Isolated monkeys will sacrifice food just for the glimpses of another monkey. By ignoring our biologically programmed need for each other, we risk physical and mental distress.
A recent cross-national study of mental depression in the US found that in advanced countries, there is a rising tide of major depression. Teenage suicides have increased in recent decades in almost all advanced countries. Moreover, in the US since World War II, there has been an actual decline in the proportion of people who report themselves to be "very unhappy."
You can easily test the claim that companionship exceeds wealth as a source of happiness. Ask yourself which has a greater influence on your satisfaction with life: your income or the affection of your intimate companions and the well-being of your children Conversely, which would make you more depressed: a reduction in salary or a divorce and isolation from your friends
Capitalism succeeds in creating material riches, but it is less successful in building companionable societies and protecting family integrity. But developing countries still have much work to do in pursuing material wealth, where a rise in productivity still greatly increases happiness. For poorer countries, the time is not yet ripe for a shift in priorities from wealth accumulation to companionship.
Can we afford to believe that the pursuit of material gain will lead to self-fulfilhnent We should continue to enjoy our wealth in good company, or else we may find that it is not satisfying.
Which of the following is the least likely cause of one’s unhappiness in advanced countries

A:Loss of friends. B:Reduction of income. C:Death of a family member. D:Divorc

A businessman must keep records of the money he takes in and the money he spends. The work of keeping such records is called bookkeeping. The work of deciding how the records should be set up is called accounting. An accountant also finds out, by studying the records, whether or not a business is doing well. The accountant must know many things about the business.
Suppose a man owns a small clothing store, he keeps records that show that he spent money for newspaper advertising and for suits, shirts, shoes, and neckties to sell to his customers. He had to pay a young man to help him in the store. He also paid rent and had other expenses.
At the end of the year, he must take an inventory. That is, he counts how many pieces of clothing he has on hand. Then he must find out exactly how many he sold, how much money he took in, and how much money he spent in running the business. If he took in more than he spent, he made a profit for the year. If he spent more than he took in, he suffered a loss. He depends on his store accounting records to get all this information.The owner of a small clothing store can keep records without much trouble. But a big oil company or a big bank has many difficult accounting problems. The company must know how much money is to be paid by its debtors and how much it owes other companies for supplies. It must know how much it has lost in depreciation, or wear and tear of its equipment. All of this information must be kept in the company’s accounts. Big companies employ many accountants.After a company’s accountants finish their yearly count, their work must be officially examined. Experts from outside company double-check the records to be sure the accounts are correct.

After taking an inventory, if the owner found that he had got more money than he had spent, he made（）

A:a profit B:a loss C:an income D:an interest

A businessman must keep records of the money he takes in and the money he spends. The work of keeping such records is called bookkeeping. The work of deciding how the records should be set up is called accounting. An accountant also finds out, by studying the records, whether or not a business is doing well. The accountant must know many things about the business.
Suppose a man owns a small clothing store, he keeps records that show that he spent money for newspaper advertising and for suits, shirts, shoes, and neckties to sell to his customers. He had to pay a young man to help him in the store. He also paid rent and had other expenses.
At the end of the year, he must take an inventory. That is, he counts how many pieces of clothing he has on hand. Then he must find out exactly how many he sold, how much money he took in, and how much money he spent in running the business. If he took in more than he spent, he made a profit for the year. If he spent more than he took in, he suffered a loss. He depends on his store accounting records to get all this information.The owner of a small clothing store can keep records without much trouble. But a big oil company or a big bank has many difficult accounting problems. The company must know how much money is to be paid by its debtors and how much it owes other companies for supplies. It must know how much it has lost in depreciation, or wear and tear of its equipment. All of this information must be kept in the company’s accounts. Big companies employ many accountants.After a company’s accountants finish their yearly count, their work must be officially examined. Experts from outside company double-check the records to be sure the accounts are correct.

After taking an inventory, if the owner found that he had got more money than he had spent, he made（）

A:a profit B:a loss C:an income D:an interest