题目内容
(由单选和多选组成。) 某日化厂为增值税一般纳税人，2005年8月发生以下业务： (1) 生产成套化妆品礼品盒1000套全部售出，不含税销售单价为每套90元，外购原材料7万元，取得增值税发票，注明税款11900元； (2) 三八妇女节发给本厂职工一批化妆品，该企业无同类产品价格，该批化妆品成本为1万元，成本利润率为10%； (3) 将自产的化妆品，向某美容院长期投资，该产品生产成本6万元，成本利润率10%，本企业无同类产品销售价格； (4) 本月进口一批化妆品，关税完税价格1.4万元，关税税率为500%。消费税税率为30%。 根据上述资料回答下列问题： 该企业销售产品应纳的增值税和消费税合计为( )。
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Will humans always be superior to machinesThis statement actually consists of a series of three related claims: (1) machines are tools of human minds; (2) human minds will always be superior to machines; and (3) it is because machines are human ’tools that human minds will always be superior to machines. While I concede the first claim, whether I agree with the other two claims depends partly on how one defines "superiority," and partly on how willing one is to humble oneself to the unknown future scenarios.(41) After all, would any machine even exist unless a human being invented it Of course not. Moreover, I would be hard-pressed to think of any machine that cannot be described as a tool. Even machines designed to entertain or amuse us—for example, toy robots, cars and video games, and novelty items—are in fact tools, which their inventors and promoters use for engaging in commerce and the business of entertainment and amusement.(42) And, the claim that a machine can be an end in itself, without purpose or utilitarian function for humans whatsoever, is dubious at best, since I cannot conjure up even a single example of any such machine.(43) As for the statement’s second claim, in certain respects machines are superior. We have devised machines that perform number-crunching and other rote cerebral tasks with greater accuracy and speed than human minds ever could. However, if one defines superiority not in terms of competence in performing rote tasks but rather in other ways, human minds are superior. Machines have no capacity for independent thought, for making judgments based on normative considerations, or for developing emotional responses to intellectual problems.(44)Up until now, the notion of human-made machines that develop the ability to think on their own, and to develop so-called "emotional intelligence," has been pure fiction. Besides, even in fiction we humans ultimately prevail over such machines—as in the cases of Frankenstein’s monster and Hat, the computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Yet it seems presumptuous to assert with confidence that humans will always maintain their superior status over their machines. In other words, machines will soon exhibit the traits to which we humans attribute our own superiority.(45) And insofar as humans have the unique capacity for independent thought, subjective judgment, and emotional response, it also seems fair to claim superiority over our machines. Besides, should we ever become so clever a species as to devise machines that can truly think for themselves and look out for their own well-being, then query whether these machines of the future would be "machines" anymore.[A] Recent advances in biotechnology, particularly in the area of human genome research, suggest that within the twenty-first century we’ll witness machines that can learn to think on their own, to repair and nurture themselves, to experience Visceral sensations, and so forth.[B] The statement is clearly accurate insofar as machines are tools of human minds.[C] In sum, because we devise machines in order that they may serve us, it is fair to characterize machines as "tools of human minds."[D] It’s hardly surprising that human-made machine can do the most works that belong to human before.[E] In fact, it is because we can devise machines that are superior in these respects that we devise them--as our tools—to begin with.[F] When we develop any sort of machine we always have some sort of end in mind—a purpose for that machine. 45（）
J.Marfin指出，企业模型应具有完整性、适用性和 【18】 性。
Our daily existence is divided into two phases, as distinct as day and night. We call them work and play. We work many hours a day and we allow the necessary minimum for such activities as eating and shopping. 46) The rest we spend in various activities which are known as recreations, an elegant word which disguises the fact that we usually do not even play in our hours of leisure, but spend them in various forms of passive enjoyment or entertainment.We need to make, therefore, a hard-and-fast distinction not only between work and play but, equally, between active play and passive entertainment. 47) It is, I suppose, the decline of active play — of amateur sport — and the enormous growth of purely receptive entertainment which have given rise to a sociological interest in the problem. If the greater part of the population, instead of indulging in sport, spend their hours of leisure "viewing" television programs, there will inevitably be a decline in health and physique. In addition, we have yet to trace the mental and moral consequences of prolonged diet of sentimental or sensational spectacles on the screen. 48) There is, if we are optimistic, the possibility that the diet is too thin and unnourishing to have much permanent effect on anybody. Nine films out of ten seem to leave absolutely no impression on the mind or imagination of those who have seen them.49) It is only when entertainment is active, participated in, practiced, that it can properly be called play, and as such it is a natural use of leisure. In that sense play stands in contrast to work, and is usually regarded as an activity that alternates with work.Work itself is not a single concept. We say quite generally that we work in order to make a living. Some of us work physically, tilling the land, minding the machines, digging the coal; others work mentally, keeping accounts, inventing machines, teaching and preaching, managing and governing. 50) There does not seem to be any factor common to all these diverse occupations, except that they consume our time, and leave us little leisure. 47) It is, I suppose, the decline of active play — of amateur sport — and the enormous growth of purely receptive entertainment which have given rise to a sociological interest in the problem
Although there are many skillful Braille readers, thousands of other blind people find it difficult to learn that system. They are thereby shut (1) from the world of books and newspapers, having to (2) on friends to read aloud to them.A young scientist named Raymond Kurzweil has now designed a computer which is a major (3) in providing aid to the (4) .His machine, Cyclops, has a camera that (5) any page, interprets the print into sounds, and then delivers them orally in a robot-like (6) through a speaker. By pressing the appropriate buttons (7) Cyclops’s keyboard, a blind person can "read" any (8) document in the English language.This remarkable invention represents a tremendous (9) forward in the education of the handicapped. At present, Cyclops costs $ 50,000. (10) , Mr. Kurzweil and his associates are preparing a smaller (11) improved version that will sell (12) less than half that price. Within a few years, Kurzweil (13) the price range will be low enough for every school and library to (14) one. Michael Hingson, Director of the National Federation for the Blind, hopes that (15) will be able to buy home (16) of Cyclops for the price of a good television set.Mr. Hingson’s organization purchased five machines and is now testing them in Maryland, Colorado, Iowa, California, and New York. Blind people have been (17) in those tests, making lots of (18) suggestions to the engineers who helped to produce Cyclops."This is the first time that blind people have ever done individual studies (19) a product was put on the market," Hingson said. "Most manufacturers believed that having the blind help the blind was like telling disabled people to teach other disabled people. In that (20) , the manufacturers have been the blind ones. 2（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付