题目内容
According to Brian Harper, to quit being a priest ______.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
听力原文： If you are going to create a TV show that plays week after week, it needs an actor who can play a believer, you know, a person who tends to believe everything. Tonight in our show we have David Duchovney, who has starred in the popular TV series, The X-Files. Thanks to his brilliant performance in the TV series, David has become one of the best-known figures in the country. Interviewer: Good evening, David, I'm so glad to have you here.
David: It's my pleasure. Thank you for inviting me on the show.
Interviewer: David, have you often been on the radio shows？
David: Oh, yes, quite often. To be frank, I love to be on the show.
Interviewer: Why？
David: You know, I want to know what people think about the TV series and about me, my acting, etc.
Interviewer: OK, David, let's first talk about the character you played in The X-Files. The character, whose name is Mulder is supposed to be a believer. He deals with those unbelievable, wild and often disastrous events. He must be, I mean, Mulder, someone who really believes in the things he meets in order to keep on probing into those mysteries.
David: That's true. Remember those words said by Mulder. What is so hard to believe？ Whose intensity makes even a most skeptical viewer believe the paranormal and our rigorous government conspiracies, without every reason to believe that life in the persistent survey is driving us out of our territorial sphere, etc.
Interviewer: I believe, I guess, David, your contribution to the hot series is quite apparent. Now let's talk about your personal experience. From what I have read, I know that starting from your childhood, you were always a smart boy, went to the best private school, and were accepted at most of the Ivy League colleges. Not bad for a low middle class kid from a broken family on New York's Lower Eastside. It's even more surprising when you, who were on your way to a doctorate at Yale to took a few acting classes and got beaten by the book.
David: You bet. My mother was really surprised when I decided to give up all that in order to become an actor.
Interviewer: Sure. But talking about Mulder, the believer in The X-Files, what about you, David？ Do you believe at all in real life, the aliens, people from outer space, you know, UFOs, government conspiracies, all the things that the TV series deal with？
David: Well, government conspiracies, I think, are a little far fetched. Because I mean, it's very hard for me to keep a secret with a friend of mine. And you can tell me that the entire government is going to come together and hide the aliens from us？ I find that hard to believe. In terms of aliens, I think they are real. They must be.
Interviewer: So you could believe in aliens？
David: Oh, yeah.
Interviewer: The character you played in The X-Files, Fox Mulder, is so dark and moody. Are you dark and moody in life？
David: I think so. I think what they wanted was somebody who could be this hearted, driven person, but not behave that way and therefore be hearted and driven but also appear to be normal and not crazy at the same time. And I think that I could, I can, I can afford that.
Interviewer: What haunts you now？ What drives you now？
David: What drives me is failure and success and all of those things, so ...
Interviewer: Where are you now？ Are you haunted and driven, failed or successful, which？
David: Yeah, both.
Interviewer: All of the above？
David: I always feel like a failure.
Interviewer: Do you mean now you feel like a failure？
David: Yeah, I mean, sometimes you know, like I come back to New York, so it's like, everything is different. So I lie on bed and think, two years ago, three years ago, very different. Maybe I'm doing well, but then I think, you know there are just so many other things that I want to do and...
Interviewer: Your father and mother divorced when you were eleven. Does that have effect on your life to
There has been much hullabaloo about corporate accounting scams in America, yet perhaps the biggest accounting oversight of all time remains hidden in governments' own national figures. GDP per head is the most commonly used measure of a country's success, yet it is badly flawed as a guide to a nation's economic well-being. A new study in the OECD's 2006 "Going for Growth" report considers some alternatives.
Economists spend much time discussing how to boost GDP growth. The OECD itself drew attention this week to the widening gap between American' s and Europe's GDP per head. Yet a nation's well-being depends on many factors ignored by GDP, such as leisure time, income inequality and the quality of the environment. GDP was developed primarily as a planning tool to guide the huge production effort of the Second World War. It was never intended to be the definite yardstick of economic welfare. Would another indicator change the ranking of countries or their relative performance over time？
GDP is not even the best gauge of the monetary aspects of living standards. It measures the value of goods and services produced by the residents of a country. But some of the income of earned in Britain, say, is paid to non-residents, while residents receive income from abroad. Adding net income from abroad to GDP gives us gross national income (GNI, also known as gross national product), which is more relevant for the prosperity of a nation.
Most countries' rank by GNI pre head is similar to that by GDP. One exception is Ireland: its GDP per head is one of the highest in the OECD, but because of large net outflows of investment income, its GNI per head is merely around the OECD average. Its average GNI growth rate over the past decade has also been about one percentage point less than on a GDP basis.
Another flaw is that GDP makes no allowance for the depreciation of the capital stock. Subtracting this from GNI leaves net national income (NNI), which is probably the best national account measure of welfare. Awkwardly, the numbers are harder to come by, making it difficult to compare across countries and over time.
But even NNI is an imperfect measure of people's welfare: it excludes the value of such important things as leisure, inequality and the environment. GDP should ideally be reduced to take account of pollution and the using-up of non-renewable resources, but no standard accounts that can do this are yet available.
On the other hand, the OECD has made a brave attempt to adjust GDP for the distribution of income. To most observers, a country where a few families enjoy huge wealth but most live in abject poverty would have a lower level of well-being than one with the same GDP but less poverty. A dollar of income is, in effect, worth more in the hands of the poor, though just how much more depends on attitudes towards inequality, the gap between American and most other rich countries, which have a more equal distribution of income, should be greatly reduced. By this measure, adjusted income per head is higher in France than in America.
Inequality has also risen in recent years in most countries. Assuming again a strong aversion to equality, average adjusted income per head grew by only 0.6% a year in OECD countries between 1985 and 2002, against 1.4% for GDP per head. But such estimates are sensitive to big value judgments. If, instead, people care little about inequality, then the adjustment will be much smaller.
Longer holidays and shorter working hours increasing an individual's well-being, yet conventional national accounts completely overlook such benefits. America is one of the world's richest countries, yet its workers toil longer hours than those elsewhere. As a result, adjusting GDP for leisure also narrows the gap between America and Europe.
So far, neither the adjustment for inequality
Harper has made a television program to ______.
Which of the following is TRUE？
微信支付 
支付宝支付