一一一

flyingnoodle

一篮球教练发展出一套积分方式，入樽数*2-射失数，Kim得了48分，问Ola多少分
(1) Kim和Ola的入樽数相等，Ola比Kim射失数多3个
(2) Ola的射失数是入樽数的两倍
选D

楼主这题不是B吗??? 是基金原题啊... 基金选的是B...


搂在能说哈做法吗

-- by 会员 虎哥 (2011/11/15 1:19:39)

JJ题目有问题，今天有另2位高分同学都反映这题选D

flyingnoodle

At an orientation meeting, the travelers were told that a visa, a landing card, and evidence of inoculation against typhoid fever would be needed by each of them.

A.    a visa, a landing card, and evidence of inoculation against typhoid fever would be needed by each of them
B.    they would need a visa, a landing card, and evidence of their being inoculated against typhoid fever
C.    they would need evidence of being inoculated against typhoid fever and a visa and landing card
D.    they would each need a visa, a landing card, and evidence of inoculation against typhoid fever
E.    they would need visas, landing cards, and evidence of inoculation against typhoid fever for each of them.


亲，这个吧？

-- by 会员 m1nt (2011/11/15 1:29:18)

太猛了，这个都能找到，还有，我喜欢你的头像

小茉子

Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995
Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (TDRA)
Trademark dilution theory 商标稀释理论is one of the most contentious aspects of trademark law.Although Congress enacted the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (“FTDA”) in 1996, courts struggle to interpret the statutory language.The definition of dilution is unclear, and the appropriate standard for injunctive relief is hotly contested.激辩申请禁止侵权
   Additionally, no uniform framework for litigating dilution claims exists.The Supreme Court’s 2003 edict on trademark dilution in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. did little to quell disputes because the Court only addressed the standard of harm necessary for injunctive relief.Recently, in response  to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the FTDA in  Moseley, Congress proposed an overhaul of the trademark anti-dilution law.Presently, Congress appears close to enacting the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (“TDRA”).
   This note evaluates whether  the proposed TDRA provides beneficial alternatives to the  current definition of dilution, methodologies for analyzing claims, and standard of harm necessary for injunctive relief.  art I provides an overview of trademark law and historical highlights of trademark dilution, including the emergence of blurring and tarnishment theories.  art II  investigates the inherent weaknesses of the FTDA definition of dilution, explores courts’various methodologies for  analysis of dilution claims, and explains the interpretations of the standard of harm necessary for injunctive relief.  art III explains the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the FTDA and identifies statutory language changes made by the TDRA in the three areas of dilution law explored in Part II.  art IV discusses the prospective impact  of the TDRA in the three areas highlighted in Part II.  art  V concludes the TDRA effectively addresses the need for a clear definition of dilution and analytical framework, and presents a pragmatic standard for injunctive relief.
     Until 2006, the FTDA was distinguished from most state trademark dilution laws in several ways: (1) The FTDA protects only "famous" trademarks; most state statutes do not explicitly require trademarks to be "famous" to be protected against dilution. (2) The FTDA, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, protected only against "actual" dilution of a trademark, whereas most state statutes provided trademark owners with a remedy whenever they could show a "likelihood" of dilution. (3) The Supreme Court suggested (although it did not have occasion to hold) that the FTDA protected only against dilution by "blurring" and not against dilution by "tarnishment" (see below).
Amendments to the FTDA took effect on October 6, 2006. The Act still protects only famous marks. However, Congress amended the act so that it expressly provides protection against a use of a mark that is "likely" to cause dilution. The new statute thus eliminates the requirement of proving "actual dilution."新的法案不要求提供actual dilution的证据，因此变得容易

sirenfish

--

m1nt

At an orientation meeting, the travelers were told that a visa, a landing card, and evidence of inoculation against typhoid fever would be needed by each of them.

A.    a visa, a landing card, and evidence of inoculation against typhoid fever would be needed by each of them
B.    they would need a visa, a landing card, and evidence of their being inoculated against typhoid fever
C.    they would need evidence of being inoculated against typhoid fever and a visa and landing card
D.    they would each need a visa, a landing card, and evidence of inoculation against typhoid fever
E.    they would need visas, landing cards, and evidence of inoculation against typhoid fever for each of them.


亲，这个吧？

-- by 会员 m1nt (2011/11/15 1:29:18)

太猛了，这个都能找到，还有，我喜欢你的头像

-- by 会员 flyingnoodle (2011/11/15 1:51:46)

嘿嘿，谢谢亲，这题我正好有点印象

sirenfish

=v=

nineqiqi

LZ，关于拿到Need a visa, a landing card的语法题~~能帮我解释下C为神马不对吗~？谢谢啊~！~！~虽然我读着也有点别扭，但是毕竟A是被动，C是主动。如果没看到这个贴，要是我考试中遇到了，搞不好会选C。就错啦。。。

flyingnoodle

啊…又不一样啊，我知道我50怎么来的了…
原式=t^4/10^12
3^4=81，肯定不行了
5^4=625, 625/10^12=0.625*10^3/10^12=0.625/10^9
这样小数点和6之间有9个0
9^4是个4位数，那就8个0，所以III

-- by 会员 sirenfish (2011/11/15 1:58:06)

这个好像错了，题目是小数点和第一个非0数之间小于8，那之间最多7个0，所以t^4至少得5位数

sirenfish

^0^

sirenfish

^0^