The dove was the __________ of love and peace. A: eligibility B: cowry C: emblem D: dole
The dove was the __________ of love and peace. A: eligibility B: cowry C: emblem D: dole
以下不属于构成DHTML的技术是（） A: AJavaScript B: BCSS C: CVBScript D: DOLE
以下不属于构成DHTML的技术是（） A: AJavaScript B: BCSS C: CVBScript D: DOLE
His short______in the living room had been long enough to keep him awake now. A: dove B: dose C: dole D: doze
His short______in the living room had been long enough to keep him awake now. A: dove B: dose C: dole D: doze
如果在创建表中建立需要禁止四舍五入的字段，其数据类型应当为（）。 A: A数字类型 B: B备注类型 C: C货币类型 D: DOLE类型
如果在创建表中建立需要禁止四舍五入的字段，其数据类型应当为（）。 A: A数字类型 B: B备注类型 C: C货币类型 D: DOLE类型
如果在创建表中建立需要存储True/False的字段，其数据类型应当为（）。 A: A数字类型 B: B备注类型 C: C是/否类型 D: DOLE类型
如果在创建表中建立需要存储True/False的字段，其数据类型应当为（）。 A: A数字类型 B: B备注类型 C: C是/否类型 D: DOLE类型
如果在创建表中建立需要存放图片文档的字段，其数据类型应当为（）。 A: A文本类型 B: B货币类型 C: C是/否类型 D: DOLE类型
如果在创建表中建立需要存放图片文档的字段，其数据类型应当为（）。 A: A文本类型 B: B货币类型 C: C是/否类型 D: DOLE类型
如果在创建表中建立能存放最多6.4万个字符的字段，其数据类型应当为（）。 A: A文本类型 B: B备注类型 C: C是/否类型 D: DOLE类型
如果在创建表中建立能存放最多6.4万个字符的字段，其数据类型应当为（）。 A: A文本类型 B: B备注类型 C: C是/否类型 D: DOLE类型
如果有一个长度为2K字节的文本快要存入某一字段，则该字段的数据类型应是（）。 A: A字符型 B: B文本型 C: C备注型 D: DOLE对象
如果有一个长度为2K字节的文本快要存入某一字段，则该字段的数据类型应是（）。 A: A字符型 B: B文本型 C: C备注型 D: DOLE对象
It’s been 30 years since Congress revised US patent laws to encourage universities to embrace the world of commerce. Critics predicted that the integrity of academic research would be compromised by patent-grubbing and attempts to build companies around the latest laboratory findings. But such fears did not come true, says a new report from the National Academics released Monday. The panel—chaired by Mark Wrighton. Chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis—examined a vast file of scholarly work on how universities have managed intellectual property in the wake of the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act and concluded that things are pretty much hunky-dory (极好的) right now. Or, as the report says: The Bayh-Dole legal framework and the practices of universities have not seriously undermined academic norms of uninhibited inquiry, open communication, or faculty advancement based on scholarly merit. There is little evidence that intellectual property considerations interfere with other important avenues of transferring research results to development and commercial use. At the same time, however, the Academies’ panel warns universities not to go overboard hunting for patents. While some universities have made millions of dollars by licensing discoveries from their labs, raising money should not be the main goal. Instead, the report says, universities should aim to disseminate (传播) technology as widely as possible for the public good. This may mean passing up the best-paying licensing deal and taking one that allows for broader use of the technology. For most schools, it adds, the likelihood of “raising significant revenue, from patents is small, the probability of disappointment is high, and the risk of “distorting and narrowing” the use of new knowledge is great It’s important not to get carried away with racking up patents at the expense of the university’s primary obligation to disseminate new knowledge and technologies, says panel member David Korn assistant provost (教务长) for research at Harvard University. A former dean of the Stanford University Medical School, Korn was involved in reviewing a set of high-minded guidelines for universities that were largely adopted by the panel. These “Nine Points to Consider in Licensing” were previously endorsed by the Association of University Technology Managers. The phrase “racking up” (Line 1, Para. 4) means.
It’s been 30 years since Congress revised US patent laws to encourage universities to embrace the world of commerce. Critics predicted that the integrity of academic research would be compromised by patent-grubbing and attempts to build companies around the latest laboratory findings. But such fears did not come true, says a new report from the National Academics released Monday. The panel—chaired by Mark Wrighton. Chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis—examined a vast file of scholarly work on how universities have managed intellectual property in the wake of the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act and concluded that things are pretty much hunky-dory (极好的) right now. Or, as the report says: The Bayh-Dole legal framework and the practices of universities have not seriously undermined academic norms of uninhibited inquiry, open communication, or faculty advancement based on scholarly merit. There is little evidence that intellectual property considerations interfere with other important avenues of transferring research results to development and commercial use. At the same time, however, the Academies’ panel warns universities not to go overboard hunting for patents. While some universities have made millions of dollars by licensing discoveries from their labs, raising money should not be the main goal. Instead, the report says, universities should aim to disseminate (传播) technology as widely as possible for the public good. This may mean passing up the best-paying licensing deal and taking one that allows for broader use of the technology. For most schools, it adds, the likelihood of “raising significant revenue, from patents is small, the probability of disappointment is high, and the risk of “distorting and narrowing” the use of new knowledge is great It’s important not to get carried away with racking up patents at the expense of the university’s primary obligation to disseminate new knowledge and technologies, says panel member David Korn assistant provost (教务长) for research at Harvard University. A former dean of the Stanford University Medical School, Korn was involved in reviewing a set of high-minded guidelines for universities that were largely adopted by the panel. These “Nine Points to Consider in Licensing” were previously endorsed by the Association of University Technology Managers. The phrase “racking up” (Line 1, Para. 4) means.