为顶层表单添加菜单时，如果在表单的Init事件代码中加入了命令do my.mpr with this，"aaa"，则在表单的Destroy事件代码为清除菜单而加入的命令应该是（）。

A:destroy menu my.mpr extended B:release menu my.mpr extended C:release menu aaa extended D:destroy menu aaa extended

When two of the world’s richest and mightiest men pledge to destroy an enemy, it is time to pay attention. Bill Gates, the former boss of Microsoft who now devotes all his time to his charitable foundation, travelled this week to New York, the city run by Michael Bloomberg, to join his fellow billionaire’s campaign to stamp out smoking.
Have the two potentates met their match Despite decades of work by health campaigners, more than one billion people still smoke today. Smoking kills up to half of those who fail to quit puffing, reducing their lives by an average of 10 to 15 years. The World Health Organisation (WHO) says more than 5 million people a year die early from the effects (direct or indirect) of tobacco. That exceeds the combined toll of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
Despite that dismal situation, there are three reasons to give the latest pair of campaigners a slim chance of success: money, methods and motivation. Messrs Gates and Bloomberg vowed to spend a combined total of $ 500 million on discouraging the weed. Since Mr. Bloomberg’s charity had already announced an award of $125 million earlier, the new money pledged this week totalled a "mere" $ 375 million: $ 250 million from the mayor, and a fresh $ 125 million from the software magnate’s philanthropic outfit.
How will this cash be spent In quite innovative ways, and that is a second reason for optimism. Hitherto, most anti-smoking funds have been channelled through a few large bureaucracies. But Mr. Bloomberg’s charity wants to let a thousand flowers bloom: in other words, to lend a hand to many initiatives, both public and private, to see what works. There will be a competitive grant scheme for poor countries where the tobacco habit is spreading.
The very fact that two giants are teaming up is a landmark in American philanthropy- comparable to Warren Buffett’s decision, two years ago, to put his fortune at the disposal of Mr. Gates’ foundation. As part of their joint commitment, Mr. Gates is giving some of his $ 125 million directly to Mr. Bloomberg’s charity; the rest will go to carefully monitored projects in India, China and other places where the number of smokers is rising relentlessly.
Then there is motivation. There are other big players in this cause, and that should induce every new entrant to try bringing something fresh to the party. Earlier this year the WHO started a campaign against tobacco known as MPower. One of its selling points was that in contrast with many other projects, it had a fairly clear idea about what was needed. WHO experts have listed a series of tactics, ranging from aggressive public education to a rise in tobacco taxes, that deliver results. (Even if high taxes lead to some smuggling and diversion, studies done in Brazil, for example, show that fiscal measures do curb consumption. ) The World Bank, which funded that research, is also thought to be ready to join the anti-smoking scrum after years of paying little attention.
A crowded field, indeed. But having an extra $ 500 million from two hard-driven billionaires surely won’t hurt.
What does "stamp out" in the first paragraph probably mean

A:Crush severely. B:Mark significantly. C:Destroy completely. D:Wipe heavily.

Text 2

A:Crush severely. B:Mark significantly. C:Destroy completely. D:Wipe heavily.

When two of the world’s richest and mightiest men pledge to destroy an enemy, it is time to pay attention. Bill Gates, the former boss of Microsoft who now devotes all his time to his charitable foundation, travelled this week to New York, the city run by Michael Bloomberg, to join his fellow billionaire’s campaign to stamp out smoking.
Have the two potentates met their match Despite decades of work by health campaigners, more than one billion people still smoke today. Smoking kills up to half of those who fail to quit puffing, reducing their lives by an average of 10 to 15 years. The World Health Organisation (WHO) says more than 5 million people a year die early from the effects (direct or indirect) of tobacco. That exceeds the combined toll of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
Despite that dismal situation, there are three reasons to give the latest pair of campaigners a slim chance of success: money, methods and motivation. Messrs Gates and Bloomberg vowed to spend a combined total of $ 500 million on discouraging the weed. Since Mr. Bloomberg’s charity had already announced an award of $125 million earlier, the new money pledged this week totalled a "mere" $ 375 million: $ 250 million from the mayor, and a fresh $ 125 million from the software magnate’s philanthropic outfit.
How will this cash be spent In quite innovative ways, and that is a second reason for optimism. Hitherto, most anti-smoking funds have been channelled through a few large bureaucracies. But Mr. Bloomberg’s charity wants to let a thousand flowers bloom: in other words, to lend a hand to many initiatives, both public and private, to see what works. There will be a competitive grant scheme for poor countries where the tobacco habit is spreading.
The very fact that two giants are teaming up is a landmark in American philanthropy- comparable to Warren Buffett’s decision, two years ago, to put his fortune at the disposal of Mr. Gates’ foundation. As part of their joint commitment, Mr. Gates is giving some of his $ 125 million directly to Mr. Bloomberg’s charity; the rest will go to carefully monitored projects in India, China and other places where the number of smokers is rising relentlessly.
Then there is motivation. There are other big players in this cause, and that should induce every new entrant to try bringing something fresh to the party. Earlier this year the WHO started a campaign against tobacco known as MPower. One of its selling points was that in contrast with many other projects, it had a fairly clear idea about what was needed. WHO experts have listed a series of tactics, ranging from aggressive public education to a rise in tobacco taxes, that deliver results. (Even if high taxes lead to some smuggling and diversion, studies done in Brazil, for example, show that fiscal measures do curb consumption. ) The World Bank, which funded that research, is also thought to be ready to join the anti-smoking scrum after years of paying little attention.
A crowded field, indeed. But having an extra $ 500 million from two hard-driven billionaires surely won’t hurt.

A:Crush severely B:Mark significantly C:Destroy completely D:Wipe heavily

Everything (could destroy) if he (hadn’t called) the (firemen) when the fire (broke out).（　）

A:could destroy B:hadn’t called C:firemen D:broke out

Every autumns farmers （　） the soil to destroy the weeds.

A:turn down B:turn over C:turn up D:turn on

B
Unless we spend money spotting and preventing asteroids now, one might crash into Earth and destroy life as we know, say some scientists.
Asteroids are different forms of the meteoroids that race across the night sky. Most orbits the sun far from Earth and don’t threaten us. But there are also thousands of asteroids whose orbits put them on a violent coming course together with Earth.
Buy $ 50 million worth of new telescopes right now. Then spend $10 mil]ion a year for the next 25 years to locate most of the space rocks. By the time we spot a fatal one, the scientists say, we’ll have a way to change its course.
Some scientists favor pushing asteroids off course with nuclear weapons. But the cost wouldn’t be cheap.
Is it worth it Two things experts consider when judging any risk are: 1) How likely the event is; and 2) How bad the consequences if the event occurs. Experts think asteroids big enough to destroy lots of life might strike Earth once every 500,000 years. Sounds pretty rare but if one did fall it would be the end of the world. "If we don’t take care of these big asteroids, they’ll take care of us. "Says one scientist. "Its that simple."
The cure, though, might be worse than the disease, Do we really want fleets of nuclear weapons silting around on Earth "The world has less to fear from doomsday rocks than from a great nuclear fleet set against them. "Said a New York Times article.

A:asteroids racing across the night sky are likely to hit Earth in the near future B:workable solutions still have to be found to prevent a violent coming course of aster olds with the earth C:the worry about asteroids can be left to future generations since it is unlikely to happen in our lifetime D:while pushing asteroids off course nuclear weapons would destroy the world

They have the (capability) to destroy the enemy in a fewdays.

A:possibility B:necessity C:ability D:probability