铜的火法精炼的目的是什么？

光网络设备调测时，一旦发生光功率过高就容易导致烧毁光模块事故，以下操作符合规范要求的是：（）

A、调测前，必须先掌握单板要求的接收光功率参数，严格按照调测指导书说明的受光功率要求进行调测；

B、输入光信号在接入单板接收光口前，必须先测试光功率是否满足调测要求，禁止光功率超过接收过载点时进行不加光衰自环的操作，保证输入光功率不超过器件允许的最大值。

C、进行过载点测试时，达到国标即可，禁止超过国标2个dB以上，否则可能烧毁光模块。

D、使用OTDR等能输出大功率光信号的仪器对光路进行测量时，要将通信设备与光路断开。

E、不能采用将光纤连接器插松的方法来代替光衰减器。

下列关于先用权的说法哪些是正确的？（）

A．只有合法获得的技术才能主张先用权抗辩

B．先用权可以与原有企业一并转让或者继承

C．先用权中的原有范围仅指专利申请日前已有的生产规模

D．已经完成实施发明创造所必需的主要技术图纸属于已经作好制造、使用的必要准备

（）不属于《作战篇》的主要内容。

A、举兵十万，日费千金

B、兵贵胜，不贵久

C、大军未动，粮草先行

D、因粮于敌

试述经济全球化及其内在矛盾。

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.

Which of the following may possibly be the reason for why several EU countries are now pressing ahead with their own harmonisation deal（）

A. Vetoes from some countries blocked Rome III from being put into effect

B. Citizens in those countries require the government to do so

C. Rome Ⅲ was just too ambitious to encompass all the issues that may occur in Europe, thus lacking of feasibility in specific cases

D. Differences between civil law system and common law system force this