简述脑与精神活动的关系。

假设有关系r[R]，R的子集的任意两个子集X，Y。如果对关系中的任何两个元组t，u，只要t[X]=u[Y]，就有t[Y]=u[X]，记为X→Y，则称在关系r上 【18】 。

某企业采用DDN专线通过一台Cisco路由接入Internet。请阅读以下路由器的配置信息，并补充横线处的配置命令(参数)或注释，按注释要求完成路由器的配置。
Router＞en 进入特权模式
Router # config terminal 进入全局模式
Router(config) # ______ 设置特权口令为Cisco
Router(config) # line vty 0 4
Router(config-line) # password abcl23 ______
Router(config-line) # exit
Router(config) # interface eth0/0 进入以太网接口配置模式
Router(config-if) # ip address 202.117.1.1 255.255.255.0
设置IP地址和掩码
Router(config-if) # no shutdown
Router(config-if) # exti
Router(config) # ______ serial0/0 进入串口S0/0配置模式
Ronter(config-if) # ip address 211.175.132.10 255.255.255.252设置IP地址和掩码
Router(config-if) # ______ 指定带宽为1Mbps
RoUter(config-if) # ______ 封装PPP协议
Router(config-if) # no edp enable
Router(config-if) # no shutdown
Router(config-if) # end
Router＞

判断SLE活动度的指标包括以下哪些______

A．多关节炎、关节痛

B．类风湿结节

C．蛋白尿、血尿、管型尿

D．溶血性贫血、血小板减少

E．血清C3、C4水平下降

She was French; he was English; they had just moved to London from Paris. When he found out about her affair, she begged for a reconciliation. He was more ruthless: the same afternoon, he filed for divorce in France, one of the stingiest jurisdictions in Europe for the non-earning spouse and where adultery affects the court’s ruling. Had she filed first in England her conduct would have been irrelevant, and she would have had a good chance of a large share of the marital assets, and even maintenance for life.

International divorce is full of such dramas and anomalies, so the natural response of policymakers is to try to make things simpler and more predictable. But the biggest attempt in recent years to do just that, in a European agreement called Rome Ⅲ, has just been shelved. Instead, several EU countries are now pressing ahead with their own harmonisation deal. Many wonder if it will work any better.

At issue is the vexed question of which country’s law applies to the break-up of a mixed marriage. The spouses may live long-term in a third country and be temporarily working in a fourth. The worst way to sort that out is with expensive legal battles in multiple jurisdictions.

The main principle at present is that the first court to be approached hears the case. Introduced in 2001, this practice has worked well in preventing international legal battles, but has made couples much more trigger-happy, because the spouse who hesitates in order to save a troubled marriage may lose a huge amount of money. Rome III aimed to remove the incentive to go to court quickly. Instead, courts in any EU country would automatically apply the local law that had chiefly governed the marriage. This approach is already in force in countries such as the Netherlands. A couple that moved there and sought divorce having spent most of the marriage in France, say, would find a Dutch court dividing assets and handling child custody according to French law.

That works fine among continental European countries where legal systems, based on Roman law, leave little role for precedent or the judge’s discretion. You can look up the rules on a website and apply them. But it is anathema in places such as England, where the system favours a thorough (and often expensive) investigation of the details of each case, and then lets judges decide according to previous cases and English law.

Another snag is that what may suit middle-class expatriates in Brussels (who just happened to be the people drafting Rome Ⅲ) may not suit, for example, a mixed marriage that has mainly been based in a country, perhaps not even an EU member, with" a sharply different divorce law. Swedish politicians don’t like the idea that their courts would be asked to enforce marriage laws based on, say, Islamic sharia.

The threat of vetoes from Sweden and like-minded countries has blocked Rome Ⅲ. But a group of nine countries, led by Spain and France, is going ahead. They are resorting to a provision in EU rules-never before invoked-called " enhanced co-operation" This sets a precedent for a "multi-speed’" Europe in which like-minded countries are allowed to move towards greater integration, rather than seeking a "big-bang" binding treaty that scoops up the willing and unwilling alike. Some countries worry that using enhanced co-operation will create unmanageable layers of complexity, with EU law replaced by multiple adhoc agreements.

The real lesson may be that Rome III was just too ambitious. A more modest but useful goal would be simply to clarify the factors that determine which court hears a divorce, and then let that court apply its own law. David Hodson, a British expert, proposes an international deal that would start by giving greatest weight to any prenuptial agreement, followed by long-term residency, and then take into account other factors such as nationality. That would then make it easier to end marriages amicably, with mediation and out-of-court agreement, rather than a race to start the beastly business of litigation.

According to the text, what might possibly be a reasonable course in determining which court hears a divorce.9（）

A. Prenuptial agreement-long-term residency-nationality

B. Long-term residency-birth place-nationality of the party who filed divorce

C. Prenuptial agreement-nationality-birth place

D. Court first hears the case-prenuptial agreement-long-term residency