题目内容
女性，18岁。乏力、疲倦、面色苍白3个月。血常规：WBC4.5×109/L，Hb 72g/L，PLT145×109/L，MCV 62fl，MCHC 28%。 不考虑下列哪种疾病
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Threats from nomadic people in the north were (31) throughout Chinese history. They were continually attacking the Chinese northern (32) . With each new emperor, came endless debate about how to (33) the barbarians. There were four options. (34) offensive campaigns to drive them away or to destroy them; create defensive garrisons; develop diplomatic and (35) ties with them, or build a wall to keep them out. All the options were (36) at various times. Experience showed that (37) campaigns were too costly and very risky, (38) defensive garrisons could not respond quickly enough (39) lightning attacks along a long border. The third option would seem to be a very (40) one and it was in fact tried successfully (41) a couple of occasions. Wall building became the most favored option in many dynasties. The three dynasties which (42) the most walls were the Qin, the Han and the Ming. The effectiveness of the Great Wall in history is still a controversial (43) . Historical records show that the wall (44) at many times (45) repel invaders. Only on two occasions when a dynasty weakened from (46) were invaders from the north (47) advance and conquer. (48) , scholars think the Chinese wall builders were themselves responsible for the unrest on the border. The nomads were people who did not farm, so they (49) trade with China for many essentials. When the Chinese refused to trade with them, they had no option (50) raid border towns.
30岁女性患者，突发畏寒、发热39℃，伴腰痛、尿频、尿痛，有双肋脊角压痛与叩痛，尿蛋白 (+)，白细胞(+++)，白细胞管型1～3/HP，血肌酐89μmol/L，清洁中段尿培养有大肠埃希菌生长，菌落计数＞105/ml，白细胞15.6×109/L，中性粒细胞分类0.85。本例最可能的诊断是
2010年1月，A国有企业集团(以下简称A集团)拟将其全资拥有的B国有独资公司(以下简称B公司)整体改制设立C股份有限公司。A集团制定了相应的方案，该方案有关要点如下： (1) B公司截至2009年12月31日经评估确认的净资产为5000万元。A集团拟联合D公司、赵某和钱某共同发起设立C股份有限公司。股份有限公司的股本总额拟定为9000万元(每1股面值为1元。下同)其中：A集团拟将B公司的全部净资产按照100%的折股比例折算为股本，D公司、赵某和钱某分别以现金2000万元、1000万元和专利技术1000万元出资。 (2) 该公司于2011年2月首次公开发行股票并上市，向社会公开发行的股份数额为5000万元，3月，该公司董事会拟增加董事，公司召开股东大会讨论有关董事会中董事选举的问题，7名董事候选人相关情况以及拟在股份有限公司任职情况如下： 张某，拟任董事，海外研究生毕业，现欠招商银行一笔数额较大的留学归国人员创业贷款到期尚未清偿。 王某，拟任董事，本科学历，现担任C股份有限公司监事职务。 李某，拟任董事，大专学历，现担任D公司总经理。 赵某，拟任董事，大专学历，C股份有限公司成立时的发起人，在C股份有限公司上市时没有认购发行的股份。2005年3月起任一家企业总经理。2006年9月该企业破产清算完结，赵某对该企业破产负有个人责任。 钱某，拟任独立董事，工学博士学历，C股份有限公司成立时的发起人，在C股份有限公司上市时没有认购发行的股份。 孙某，拟任独立董事，管理学博士学历，现担任D公司副经理。 黄某，拟任独立董事，教授，现在某大学法学院任职。 [要求] 根据上述内容以及公司法律制度的相关规定，回答下列问题：1.根据本题要点(1)所述内容，拟定的股份有限公司发起人人数、折股比例是否符合《中华人民共和国公司法》的规定并分别说明理由。
Moral responsibility is all very well, but what about military orders Is it not the soldier’s duty to give instant obedience to orders given by his military superiors And apart from duty, will not the soldier suffer severe punishment, even death, if he refuses to do what he is ordered to If, then, a soldier is told by his superior to burn this house or to shoot that prisoner, how can he be held criminally accountable on the ground that the burning or shooting was a violation of the laws of war These are some of the questions that are raised by the concept commonly called "superior orders", and its use as a defense in war crimes trials. It is an issue that must be as old as the laws of war themselves, and it emerged in legal guise over three centuries ago when, after the Stuart restoration in 1660, the commander of the guards at the trial and execution of Charles I was put on trial for treason and murder. The officer defended himself on the ground "that all I did was as a soldier, by the command of my superior officer whom I must obey or die," but the court gave him short shrift, saying that "When the command is traitorous, then the obedience to that command is also traitorous." Though not precisely articulated, the rule that is necessarily implied by this decision is that it is the soldier’s duty to obey lawful orders, but that he may disobey--and indeed must, under some circum-stances-unlawful orders. Such has been the law of the United States since the birth of the nation. In 1804, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that superior orders would justify a subordinate’s conduct only "if not to perform a prohibited act," and there are many other early decisions to the same effect. A strikingly illustrative case occurred in the wake of that conflict which most Englishmen have never heard (although their troops burned the White House) and which we call the War of 1812. Our country was baldly split by that war too and, at a time when the United States Navy was not especially popular in New England, the ship-in-the-line Independence was lying in Boston Harbor. A passer-by directed abusive language at a marine standing guard on the ship, and the marine, Bevans by name, ran his bayonet through the man. Charged with murder, Bevans produced evidence that the marines on the Independence had been ordered to bayonet anyone showing them disrespect. The case was tried before Justice Joseph Story, next to Marshall, the leading judicial figure of those years, who charged that any such order as Bevans had invoked "would be illegal and void," and, if given and put into practice, both the superior and the subordinate would be guilty of murder. In consequence, Bevans was convicted. The order allegedly given to Bevans was pretty drastic, and Boston Harbor was not a battlefield; perhaps it was not too much to expect the marine to realize that literal compliance might lead to bad trouble. But it is only too easy to conceive of circumstances where the matter might not be at all clear. Does the subordinate obey at peril that the order may later be ruled illegal, or is protected unless he has a good reason to doubt its validity According to the fourth paragraph, Bevans was found guilty because he ______ .
微信支付 
支付宝支付