| 词汇 | example_english_loser |
| 释义 | Examples of loserThese examples are from corpora and from sources on the web. Any opinions in the examples do not represent the opinion of the Cambridge Dictionary editors or of Cambridge University Press or its licensors. Furthermore, when such encounters happen the females do not necessarily retreat with the losers; the winners thereby gain more potential mates. The most memorable thing about the complex power struggle that had this result was the fate of the losers. In particular losers see the reduction of the value of their production fall significantly more (in percentage) than the percentage increase that winners observe. The second is the equity consideration where likely losers may oppose privatization. Since voting generates winners and losers, the losers are unhappy even when they had a chance to vote for their favorite option. Thus, while risk inevitably involves losers, at the same time there are also winners. What explains the difference in losers' behaviour in these countries? In this debate we know relatively little about the losers, beyond aggregated figures or anecdotal accounts. Furthermore, in some programme areas the losers from retrenchment are diffuse and the gainers are focused. An interest group approach focusing exclusively on concentrated winners and losers is unlikely to offer adequate explanations. Majorities of losers were supportive of proportional representation, while majorities of winners were opposed. The difference between institutional stability and change may then depend upon how many people perceive themselves as losers. We can take this a bit farther: if reforms are embraced by losers and winners alike why are electoral institutions so stable? In contrast, being among the congressional winners or losers does not seem to make a difference. We examine the effects of voting for the winners and losers of presidential and congressional elections on political trust. In every market there are winners, losers, buyers, sellers, and inevitably, beggars who are the downside of all economic systems of production and distribution. Plan conversions produce potential winners and losers compared to expectations of benefits under the old plan. A competent analysis that highlights the losers from a policy development (and there always are losers) can do the same. Thus, congressional winners in both 1972 and in 1996 frequently were also presidential losers. Winners are thus risk aversive when evaluating electoral reform proposals, while losers may even be risk seeking. A possible system-wide solution would involve a negotiated or 'market-like exchange', whereby the winners compensate the losers. However, the tick feeding aggregation creates not only mutual winners, but also some losers (discussed above). In this process, not all timar-holders were losers; wealthier ones could turn to tax-farming. The losers in global restructuring then try to reassert themselves through organized resistance. One of the shortcomings of the book is the lack of sufficient attention to the ' losers ' of the reform period, specifically subaltern sectors. She stresses how much she wants to reject the thinking behind terms such as ' winners and losers, centers and margins, progress and regress ' (p. 5). As a whole, the rural population appears to have considered that there were both winners and losers following movement to towns. When a party failed to find common ground upon which all their members could stand, these conventions often broke up as the losers bolted. Once in place, new democratic institutions produce both expected and unexpected winners and losers, prompting political actors to respond strategically to the new institutional incentives. The main losers in the growth of interdependent trans-national empires have been conventional states, which have seen the value of legal sovereignty decline. Everyone must be able to recognize that, while losers in certain respects, they are gainers in others. If true, this should further bias our tests toward finding greater differences between election losers and retirees. 63. Reelection losers and retirees were considered "eligible" lame ducks. At the calculated average level, some individuals are gainers and some are losers. Two transitions are necessary - to a market economy and a democratic polity - and each produces losers as well as winners. We posited that losers would be more likely to protest against the political regime. Because people prefer winning over losing, the winners are less likely and the losers more likely to push for radical changes in the system. The need is to continually map the winners and the losers that are hidden in arguments of principles. Without positive efficiency effects, some generations would be net losers. Market-oriented policy reforms alter the distribution of resources in society, producing winners and losers, and tamper with regulatory and distributive bargains that implicate powerful interests. Table 6 reports a final experiment designed to evaluate how winners and losers reason about changing electoral rules. If such a bias exists, there should be a relationship between levels of protest potential and over-(under-)report of the vote for losers. The losers are excluded, thus 'die at birth'. Politicians, in turn, want to co-ordinate by only offering parties that can gain sufficient support, and refrain from maintaining permanent losers. We find losers more risk aversive than winners in just one of the six tests. Both involve intense preparation, are high-stakes competitions, and have winners and losers. Such polarization inevitably results in temporary solutions, as losers pursue advantage in the next round. The temptation would be that those states that saw themselves as losers, or saw major sections of their population as losers, would bargain for compensation. The financial well-being of academic health centers and the continued generous compensation of medical school faculty have been the winners; education and research, the losers. Winners in a political struggle are strengthened, not weakened, by their victory, and their increased power comes at the losers' expense. In some of these experiments, losers appeared relatively insensitive to risks associated with changing democratic institutions. Fourthly, rules are clearly designed to insulate electoral institutions from electoral loser's preferences. Although appeal to the risks of change may dampen winners' support for reforms, appeals to risk may not dissuade losers from wanting change. I am one of the losers here on the chatline. Because of the ranking between constraints, the grammar generates information about the well-formedness relation between losers even under the assumptions in the previous paragraph. If not, which are the winners, which are the losers? There are also concentrated losers with relatively low organization costs. Further, it would be reasonable to say that government employees and migrants were also among the losers. There are both winners and losers when media change. The winners may promote discriminatory measures to maintain their edge over the losers. In this case, we consider whether electoral losers are less risk averse or more risk seeking when considering proposals to change institutions. Thus, our major question of interest is, are losers less risk averse than winners when reasoning about proposals for changing electoral institutions? Table 2 reports descriptive data illustrating differences in support for reform proposals across electoral winners and losers. Furthermore, there are relatively few who perceive themselves as chronic losers in the electoral arena. First, the common veto-point logic applies best to policies of redistribution because such measures have outright losers. When disruption of this magnitude occurs, winners and losers are created, and the losers often fail to accept their losses without a fight. In two other tests, losers might actually be seen as risk seeking. The results suggest that agricultural regions were overall losers in the distribution of these particular transfers. We speculate that the experience of winning and losing has the most pronounced impact on people's attitudes when winners and losers are clearly defined. We find that people who are among the losers of the presidential contest show lower levels of trust. Thus, within each country engaged in trade there are distinct winners and losers. First, generational accounting frames the discussion in terms of generational conflict - the old against the young, parents against children, winners against losers. The results give important insights into the systemic impacts of environmental policies as well identifying and quantifying the potential impacts to the winners and losers. Building exporters (or, creating winners) before creating losers seems a much more sensible strategy. Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. The history of the world is a history of armed struggles; the winners write history, while the losers risk disappearing from the gene pool. The losers are wealthy states that maintain spending levels above the minimum level even after resources have been re-allocated to the municipalities. The biggest losers comprised the large number of workers, who were retrenched in the early stages of the divestiture. The rationale is that with this allocation of resources the gainers can, at least in principle, compensate the losers. The overall losers in these rearrangements were the brothers and other non-resident agnates of the deceased male. Unfortunately, in reality, the question of winners and losers very often cannot be avoided in public policy decisions. Regarding the sectors, there are many similarities between winners and losers under both offsetting instruments. In any drastic social change there are likely to be winners and losers. The losers are no longer random but distributed according to the wealth, sophistication, and technological access of their parents. In recent years historians of nationalism, like historians of science, have been turning to the stories of the losers. The procedural winners and losers are necessarily substantive winners and losers. However, the information to order the losers is contained in this tableau. Coping with family transitions : winners, losers and survivors. The social partnership that develops means compensating the losers from the market, while labor agrees to moderate its demands for higher wages. We thus turn the tree of winners into a tree of losers. Significant difference between winners and losers in response to risk frame (reading across, p 0.14). Here, however, we have found evidence that losers may not find the risks associated with change as motivating a reason to oppose change. If anything, losers may be willing to gamble. Respondents are classified as winners and losers based on their responses to the three electoral loss questions. A straightforward hypothesis of risk aversion would suggest that, like winners, losers are likely to shy away from the risks of change. The gap is even larger (29.4 per cent) when big winners are compared to losers. Do considerations of risk associated with institutional change affect winners and losers the same way? Do losers have higher protest potential than winners? These examples are from corpora and from sources on the web. Any opinions in the examples do not represent the opinion of the Cambridge Dictionary editors or of Cambridge University Press or its licensors. |
反思网英语在线翻译词典收录了377474条英语词汇在线翻译词条，基本涵盖了全部常用英语词汇的中英文双语翻译及用法，是英语学习的有利工具。