当被保险人的年龄不在保险产品的保障范围之内时，保险人通常可以解除保险合同，但是，为了

在摄影中常用到三种光线（）光、（）光源、（）光源。

英国纯粹是一个海洋国家，由于可以全心全意的发展海上力量，英国的海军装备精良，是最强大的。但是，由于高技术的发展，单靠某种力量并不是可靠的。一旦新的技术革命发生，原有的武力形式失去了优越性，建立在这种武力形式上的霸权就会瓦解。这在一定程度上反映出近代以来的英国

A．依靠强大海军获取世界霸权

B．不断凭借技术革新走向全球霸权

C．凭借地缘优势走向全球霸权

D．霸权资源单一导致霸权的短暂性

教师节前夕，“全国教书育人楷模”评选结果正式揭晓，汪金权成为湖北省唯一当选教师。昨日，汪金权在北京受到中 * * * * 胡 * * 的接见。汪 金权表示，受到 * * 接见深受鼓舞，当选“全国教书育人楷模”是党和人民给予自己的崇高荣誉，自己一定不辜负 * * 的嘱托，不辜负党和人民的希望，做好教书育人的本职工作，让更多学生成人成才。据悉，今年全国共有10位教师获“全国教书育人楷模”荣誉称号，另有22位教师获提名奖。汪金权是蕲春四中语文教师。23年前从华中师大毕业后，他放弃在黄冈中学的工作机会，申请调到山区学校任教。他安贫乐道，默默奉献，先后从微薄收入中拿出10多万元，资助200多名贫困学生完成学业。教育部已下发通知，要求全国教育系统开展向“全国教书育人楷模”学习的活动。

（1）胡 * * 接见汪金权说明我国实施什么战略？汪金权安贫乐道，默默奉献承担什么责任？

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

（2）全国教育系统开展向“全国教书育人楷模”学习的活动体现国家把教育摆在什么地位？为什么？

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

坐标转换

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