题目内容
In the game, how many Pawns does each player have
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
[A] Dr Daniel Stanley, an oceanographer, has found volcanic shards in Egypt that he believes are linked to the explosion. Computer simulations by Mike Rampino, a climate modeler from New York University, show that the resulting ash cloud could have plunged the area into darkness, as well as generating lightning and hail, two of the 10 plagues.[B] The cloud could have also reduced the rainfall, causing a drought. If the Nile had then been poisoned by the effects of the eruption, pollution could have turned it red, as happened in a recent environmental disaster in America. The same pollution could have driven millions of frogs on to the land, the second plague. On land the frogs would die, removing the only obstacle to an explosion of flies and lice--the third and fourth plagues. The flies could have transmitted fatal diseases to cattle (the fifth plague) and boils and blisters to humans (the sixth plague).[C] Moses, which will be broadcast in December 2002, will suggest that much of the Bible story can be explained by a single natural disaster, a huge volcanic eruption on the Greek island of Santorini in the 16th century BC.[D] The hour-long documentary argues that even the story of the parting of the Red Sea, which allowed Moses to lead the Hebrews to safety while the pursuing Egyptian army was drowned, may have its origins in the eruption. It repeats the theory that "Red Sea" is a mistranslation of the Sea of Reeds, a much shallower swamp.[E] The programme tells the story of how Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt after a series of plagues had devastated the country. But it also uses new scientific research to argue that many of the events surrounding the exodus could have been triggered by the eruption, which would have been a thousand times more powerful than a nuclear bomb.[F] Computer simulations show that the Santorini eruption could have triggered a 600ft-high tidal wave, traveling at about 400 miles an hour, which would have been 6ft high and a hundred miles long when it reached the Egyptian delta. Such an event would have been remembered for generations, and may have provided the inspiration for the story.[G] Fresh evidence that the Biblical plagues and the parting of the Red Sea were natural events rather than myths or miracles is to be presented in a new BBC documentary.Order: 43
案例分析题中国居民张某2009年收入情况如下：(1)1月1日以市场价格出租市区一套居民住房，租期1年，合同注明租金共计24000元，在此之前为出租房屋支付装修费2000元。并缴纳了相关税费；(2)为某上市公司提供管理咨询，上市公司实际支付不含税咨询费45000元(不考虑相关税费)；(3)每月工资8000元，年终奖金36000元；(4)2009年12月因意外伤害获得保险赔偿收入12万元。根据上述资料和税法有关规定，回答下列问题(计算结果保留两位小数)： 提供管理咨询服务应缴纳的个人所得税（）元。
TEXT D The Roslin Institute announced last week that it had applied to patent the method by which its scientists had cloned Dolly the sheep. The patent, if granted, would apply to "nuclear transfer technology" in both human and animal cells. One point of the patent is to help fund research into cures for diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, cancer and heart failure. Its other aim is to make some money. Last May, the Roslin Institute was taken over by Geron, an American biotech company. Geron has committed ＄32.5 million to research at the Roslin. It wants to get its money back. Two scientists from Stanford who developed the use of restriction enzymes, one of the fundamental techniques in biotechnology, made about pounds 80 million out of it in the 17 years before the patent expired. So you can see why Geron-Roslin is so keen to get its patent. There’s nothing wrong with that. Without the prospect of a return at the end of investment, no one would ever lend money to anyone involved in bio-medical research—and given the huge sums now required to develop a new drug, or a new diagnostic test for some medical condition, that would mean there wouldn’t be any research. It is wonderful when people give money to worthwhile causes with no hope of personal gain. But appealing to altruism simply won’t raise the billions required to develop and market drugs and therapies that rely on biotechnology. For that, you have to appeal to investors’ self-interest—which is why the bulk of medical research is funded not by charities or even tax-payers but by private companies and individuals. The fact that biotech research depends on patents generates profound hostility. The opposition to the patenting of genetic sequences, cells, tissues and clones—critics call it "the privatization of nature"—takes many forms, from a Luddite desire to stop scientific research to a genuine, if mistaken, conviction that common ownership is always morally preferable to private property. But all of the objections have a single root. the sense that it must be wrong to make money out of the constituents of the human body. They cannot be "owned" by any individual, because they belong to everyone. There cannot be "property in people". That is a profound mistake. The truth is rather the opposite: there is only property in things because there is property in people. People own their own bodies, and that ownership is the basis of their property rights (and most other individual rights, come to that). The problem with the law as it stands is that it doesn’t sufficiently recognize an individual’s property rights over his or her own body, and his or her entitlement to make money out of it. The outcome of a lawsuit in the US nearly 10 years ago defined the de facto rules governing the ownership of human tissues, and the financial exploitation of the discoveries that derive from them. In Moorev the Regents of UCLA the issue was whether an individual was entitled to a share of the profits that a biotech company made from developing drugs or treatments derived from cells that came from his body. Dr David Golde had discovered that John Moore, one of his patients, had a pancreas whose cells had some unusual properties that might be helpful in treating a form of cancer. In his laboratory, Golde developed what his called a "cell line" from Moore’s cells and patented it. When Moore found out, he sued Dr Golde for a share of whatever profits the cell line generated. Mr. Moore lost. The court said he had no right to any of those profits, because he did not own the cells removed from his body. Moreover, the court held that since "research on human cells plays a critical role in medical research", granting property rights to the patient from whom the cells came threatened to "hinder research by restricting access to the raw materials". In essence, that decision said that biotech companies could own and make money out of human cells and tissue—but the person from whom that tissue or cells came could not. The logic behind that decision is bizarre. No one except the most unreconstructed communist disputes that I own my own body. Indeed, it is only because I own my body that I can come to own anything else independent of it, mixing my labor with something being the most fundamental means by which I can come to own it. If cells from Mr. Moore’s body are his property, how can anyone else come to own them—unless he sells or gives those cells to them (778 words) Why does the author mention the Stanford scientists in the second paragraph
某模拟网站的主页地址是：http://localhost/djks/index.htm，打开此主页，浏览“航空知识”页面，查找“f-10歼十歼战机”的页面内容并将它以文本文件的格式保存到考生文件夹7下，命名为“i10.txt”。
微信支付 
支付宝支付