题目内容
乳匀机
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
The Rational Unified Process (RUP) is a software engineering process, which captures many of best practices in modern software development. The notions of (21) and scenarios have been proven to be an excellent way to capture function requirements. RUP can be described in two dimensions - time and content. In the time dimension, the software lifecycle is broken into cycles. Each cycle is divided into four consecutive (22) which is concluded with a well-defined (23) and can be further broken down into (24) - a complete development loop resulting in a release of an executable product, a subset of the final product under development, which grows incrementally to become the final system. The content structure refers to the disciplines, which group (25) logically by nature.
TEXT B The romantic image of the trusty postman, delivering letters to the farthest-flung corners of the land, makes the reform of postal services a sensitive subject. This is especially true when the impetus for reform comes from the European Union. This month the European Parliament starts work on a directive, drawn up by the European Commission, to remove the last monopolies in postal markets by 2009--the final stage in a slow and laborious liberalisation that began in 1992. Directives in 1997 and 2002 chipped away at the centuries-old monopolies enjoyed by national operators, and the proposed new law will open the whole market to competition by abolishing the "reserved area" on mail weighing less than 50 grams. But although the legislative wheels are in motion, some countries are as sceptical as ever. The commission says it has deliberately pursued postal liberalisation at a slower pace than other market openings. This is partly due to its technical complexity. Unlike in telecoms, post has no physical network to share. Many countries had to create independent regulators from scratch in order to monitor mar ket access and prices. The size of the heavily unionised postal industry also prompted caution. It employs some 5m people directly and indirectly, and its turnover is roughly 1% of Europe’s combined GDP. But arguably the biggest drag on liberalisation is old-fashioned resistance to open markets, plus a dash of reverence for letter writing. One opponent of the 2009 deadline talks of "a noble industry that we want to protect" and lauds the virtues of pen and paper. All postal operators recognise, however, that the epistolary habit has taken a hit from the Internet. With deadening pragmatism, the commission says liberalisation will improve quality and choice and reduce state subsidies. Countries that have already opened their markets, such as Sweden and Britain, agree. Since Sweden’s Posten AB was privatised in 1993, prices for business customers have fallen by 30%, though they have risen for consumers. The postal network has been extended, with new outlets in supermarkets and longer opening hours. Proponents of reform argue that Sweden, which has one of the lowest population densities in the EU, disproves the argument that rural countries cannot both have open markets and provide a standard service for everyone. But France, Spain, Italy and other countries worry that abolishing the "reserved area" will damage this universal-service obligation. Last month Francois Loos, France’s industry minister, said 2009 was "an indicative date" for competition rather than a firm deadline. A spokesman for PostEurop, a lobby group representing European postal operators, says several countries would prefer a deadline of 2012 at the earliest, with the wholly implausible argument that more time is needed to research the impact of liberalisation. The commission knows a delaying tactic when it sees one. Operators have had years to prepare for liberalisation. But some countries, such as Greece and Luxembourg, seem to want to protect their national monopolies at any cost. The attitudes of central European countries are more difficult to predict. Their governments supported the liberal services directive, which favoured their mobile, comparatively cheap workforces, but have expressed doubts about opening protected home markets to competition. Incumbents may have less to fear from competition than they think, however. In countries with open markets, the former monopolists have remained dominant. In Britain the Royal Mail has 96.5% of the market; in Sweden Posten AB has 91.5%. Regulators do not expect big changes in either country. Indeed, some advocates of liberalisation worry that open postal markets will fail to attract new entrants and that eliminating the reserved area will not guarantee competition. The debate over market opening is an opportunity to find out what people really want from their postal services and a chance to rethink how they work, says Michael Critelli, the boss of Pitney Bowes, a company that makes postal equipment and software. Some people might, for example, choose to have domestic mail delivered to their offices on weekdays, he suggests. But such innovations will happen only if national governments can be discouraged from stamping the commission’s proposals "return to sender". All of the following are reasons of slow-paced reform of postal services EXCEPT
TEXT C Marriage may be about love, but divorce is a business. For global couples--born in different countries, married in a third, now working somewhere else and with children, pensions and other assets sprinkled over the world--a contested divorce is bliss for lawyers and a nightmare for others. Divorce laws vary wildly, from countries (such as Malta) that still forbid it to Islamic states where for the husband, at least--it may be obtained in minutes. Rules on the division of property and future financial obligations vary hugely too. France expects the poorer party, usually the wife, to start fending for herself almost immediately; England and some American states insist on lifelong support. Some systems look only at the "acquest"; others count the lot. A few, like Austria, still link cash to blame. Japan offers a temptingly quick cheap break, but--for foreigners--little or no enforceable contact with the kids thereafter, notes Jeremy Morley, a New York-based "international divorce strategist". Other places may be mum-friendly when it comes to money but dad-friendly on child custody. The European Union is trying to tidy up its divorce laws. A reform in 2001 called Brussels II tried to stop forum shopping, in which each party sought the most favourable jurisdiction, by ruling that the first court to be approached decides the divorce. That worked--but at the cost of encouraging trigger-happy spouses to kill troubled marriages quickly, rather than trying to patch them up. This, says David Hodson, a specialist in international divorce law, favours the "wealthier, more aggressive, more unscrupulous party". It goes against the general trend towards counselling, mediation and out-of-court settlement. An EU measure called Rome Ⅲ, now under negotiation and pencilled in to come into force in 2008, tries to ensure that the marriage is ended by the law that has governed it most closely. It may be easy for a Dutch court to apply Belgian law when dealing with the uncontested divorce of a Belgian couple, but less so for a Spanish court to apply Polish rules, let alone Iranian or Indonesian, and especially not when the divorce is contested. Such snags make Rome Ⅲ "laughably idiotic--a recipe for increasing costs", according to John Cornwell, a London lawyer. Britain and Ireland say they will opt out. That, says Mr. Hodson, will give a further edge to London. Since a judgment in 2000 entrenched the principle of "equality" in division of marital, assets, England, home to hundreds of thousands of expatriates, has become a "Mecca for wives", says Louise Spitz of Manches, a London law firm. David Truex, who runs a specialist international divorce outfit, reckons that at least a fifth of divorce cases registered in London’s higher courts now have an international element. For the typical global couple, such high-profile, big-money cases matter less than the three basic (and deeply unromantic factors) in marriage planning. According to Mr. Truex, a rich man should choose his bride from a country with a stingy divorce law, such as Sweden or France, and marry her there. Second, he should draw up a pre-nuptial agreement. These are binding in many countries and have begun to count even in England. Third, once divorce looms, a wife may want to move to England or America (but should avoid no-alimony states such as Florida) I for husbands, staying in continental Europe is wise. Outside Europe, the country--or American State--deemed the most "appropriate" in terms of the couple’s family and business connections will normally get to hear the case. But here too unilateral action may be decisive. When Earl Spencer, brother of Princess Diana, divorced his first wife he surprised her by issuing proceedings in South Africa where they were then living. In England, where they had been domiciled, she might have got a better deal. She ended up suing her lawyers. The lesson for couples How you live may determine the length and happiness of your marriage. Where you live is likely to determine how it ends. Rome III is questioned by some people because
TEXT C Marriage may be about love, but divorce is a business. For global couples--born in different countries, married in a third, now working somewhere else and with children, pensions and other assets sprinkled over the world--a contested divorce is bliss for lawyers and a nightmare for others. Divorce laws vary wildly, from countries (such as Malta) that still forbid it to Islamic states where for the husband, at least--it may be obtained in minutes. Rules on the division of property and future financial obligations vary hugely too. France expects the poorer party, usually the wife, to start fending for herself almost immediately; England and some American states insist on lifelong support. Some systems look only at the "acquest"; others count the lot. A few, like Austria, still link cash to blame. Japan offers a temptingly quick cheap break, but--for foreigners--little or no enforceable contact with the kids thereafter, notes Jeremy Morley, a New York-based "international divorce strategist". Other places may be mum-friendly when it comes to money but dad-friendly on child custody. The European Union is trying to tidy up its divorce laws. A reform in 2001 called Brussels II tried to stop forum shopping, in which each party sought the most favourable jurisdiction, by ruling that the first court to be approached decides the divorce. That worked--but at the cost of encouraging trigger-happy spouses to kill troubled marriages quickly, rather than trying to patch them up. This, says David Hodson, a specialist in international divorce law, favours the "wealthier, more aggressive, more unscrupulous party". It goes against the general trend towards counselling, mediation and out-of-court settlement. An EU measure called Rome Ⅲ, now under negotiation and pencilled in to come into force in 2008, tries to ensure that the marriage is ended by the law that has governed it most closely. It may be easy for a Dutch court to apply Belgian law when dealing with the uncontested divorce of a Belgian couple, but less so for a Spanish court to apply Polish rules, let alone Iranian or Indonesian, and especially not when the divorce is contested. Such snags make Rome Ⅲ "laughably idiotic--a recipe for increasing costs", according to John Cornwell, a London lawyer. Britain and Ireland say they will opt out. That, says Mr. Hodson, will give a further edge to London. Since a judgment in 2000 entrenched the principle of "equality" in division of marital, assets, England, home to hundreds of thousands of expatriates, has become a "Mecca for wives", says Louise Spitz of Manches, a London law firm. David Truex, who runs a specialist international divorce outfit, reckons that at least a fifth of divorce cases registered in London’s higher courts now have an international element. For the typical global couple, such high-profile, big-money cases matter less than the three basic (and deeply unromantic factors) in marriage planning. According to Mr. Truex, a rich man should choose his bride from a country with a stingy divorce law, such as Sweden or France, and marry her there. Second, he should draw up a pre-nuptial agreement. These are binding in many countries and have begun to count even in England. Third, once divorce looms, a wife may want to move to England or America (but should avoid no-alimony states such as Florida) I for husbands, staying in continental Europe is wise. Outside Europe, the country--or American State--deemed the most "appropriate" in terms of the couple’s family and business connections will normally get to hear the case. But here too unilateral action may be decisive. When Earl Spencer, brother of Princess Diana, divorced his first wife he surprised her by issuing proceedings in South Africa where they were then living. In England, where they had been domiciled, she might have got a better deal. She ended up suing her lawyers. The lesson for couples How you live may determine the length and happiness of your marriage. Where you live is likely to determine how it ends. Usually when divorcing, laws of which country might be most favorable to the wife financially
微信支付 
支付宝支付