变压器空载试验中，额定空载损耗p0及空载电流i0的计算值和变压器额定电压un与试验施加电压u0比值(un/u0)之间的关系，在下述各项描述中，（　）项最准确(其中，u0的取值范围在0.1～1.05倍un之间)

A:p0、i0与(un/u0)成正比 B:p0与(un/u0)成正比i0与(un/u0)成正比 C:p0与(un/u0)n成比例i0与(un/u0)m成比例，而n=1.9～2.0m=1～2 D:当(un/u0)=1.0时，p0及i0的计算值等于试验测得值

韵母iou、uei、uen跟辅音声母相拼时写成iu、ui、un，标调应（）

A:标在前面i或u上 B:标在后面i、u、n上 C:都标在u上 D:iu标在u上，ui标在i上，un标在u上

《智能变电站合并单元测试规范》规定，模拟量输入的合并单元校验基本误差时选取校验点原则是：当MU用于电压互感器时，电流校验点取（）、100%Un、110%Un、115%Un

A:70%Un B:80%Un C:85%Un D:90%Un

来自电压互感器二次侧的4根开关场引入线（UA,UB,UC,UN)和电压互感器三次侧的2根开关场引入线（开口三角UL,UN）中的两个电缆芯UN（　）。

A:在开关场并接后，合成一根引自控制室接地 B:必须分别引至控制室，并在控制室接地 C:三次侧UN在开关场接地后引入控制室N600，二次侧的UN单独引入控制室N600并接地

来自电压互感器二次侧的4根开关场引入线（Ua、Ub、Uc、UN）和电压互感器三次侧的2根开关场引入线（开口三角的UL、UN）中的两个零相电缆芯UN制室N600并接地（）。

A:在开关场并接后，合成一根引至控制室接地 B:必须分别引至控制室，并在控制室接地 C:三次侧的UN在开关场接地后引入控制室N600，二次侧的UN单独引入控制室N600并接地。

按照《人间传染的病原微生物名录》，高致病性禽流感病毒培养物运输对应的包装分类和UN编号为（）

A:A类，UN2814 B:A类，UN2900 C:B类，UN3373 D:以上都可以 E:以上都不对

变压器空载试验中，额定空载损耗P0及空载电流I0的计算值和变压器额定电压UN与试验施加电压U0比值(UN/U0)之间的关系，在下述各项描述中，( )项最准确(其中，U0的取值范围在0.1～1.05倍UN之间)。

A:P0、I0与(UN/U0)成正比; B:P0与(UN/U0)成正比;I0与(UN/U0)成正比; C:P0与(UN/U0)n成比例;I0与(UN/U0)m成比例，而n=1.9～2.0;m=1～2; D:当(UN/U0)=1.0时，P0及I0的计算值等于试验测得值。

The United States is the United Nations’ biggest deadbeat. Conservatives in Congress, led by Senator Jessie Helms, stopped Washington from paying its dues until the UN reduced its assessment and made other changes. Now, thanks to the hard work of Richard Holbrooke, America’s UN representative, and his staff, the UN has agreed to trim the U. S. share of financial burdens for the UN general budget and for peacekeeping. Mr. Helms, who has praised the deal, should release the dues he has been holding hostage— $582 million of the $1.3 billion the UN says it is owed.
The new formula would reduce the U. S. contribution to the general UN budget to 22% from the current level of 25%—a symbolic difference of only $34 million a year. Washington, which has been paying just over 30% of the peacekeeping budget, would now pay 27%—a difference of $80 million to $120 million a year—and that percentage will drop further. While poor countries would not pay more, the dues of other wealthy nations would rise under the new system.
The agreement would probably not have been reached without the intervention of the media magnate Ted Turner, who is already contributing $1 billion to UN programs over 10 years. Mr. Turner gave $34 million to cover the one-year gap during which other nations prepare to raise their contributions. His offer should embarrass Congress, which forced diplomats to waste their influence at the UN in months of negotiations to save a sum that is modest by federal budget standards.
U. S. debts reduced the UN’s ability to reimburse nations that contributed peacekeepers to UN missions worldwide. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Jordan and other poor countries essentially made up for the absence of U. S. financial support. Since Washington benefits from peacekeepers, who damp down conflicts without U. S. troops, it should not be discouraging nations from sending them.
Washington’s natural allies at the UN were concerned that the U. S. wanted influence without meeting its treaty obligations. Some of them withheld support for U. S. proposals. Mr. Helms should also end his hold on an additional $244 million in back dues, whose release he has conditioned on a reduction in U. S. dues for specialized UN agencies such as Unicef and the UN refugee organization. These agencies need full support. A switch by Mr. Helms would help the incoming Bush administration, which would reap the benefits of the restoration of America’s full influence at the United Nations.
Senator Jessie Helms stopped the U. S. government from paying its dues to the UN because he wants ______.

A:other countries to pay as much as the U. S. B:Washington to make assessments and changes C:the UN’s general budget to be trimmed D:the U. S. to share a smaller part of the burden

Text 4
Some things are doomed to remain imperfect, the United Nations among them. De spite noble aspirations, the organization that more than any other embodies the collective will and wisdom of an imperfect world was created, in the words of one former secretary general, not to take humanity to heaven, but to save it from hell. Is it failing in that task
Alarmed at the bitter dispute over the war in Iraq, and at growing threats -- from the devastation of AIDS and the danger of failing states to the prospect of terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction -- that the UN ’ s founding powers hadn’ t even had night mares about, last year Kofi Annan, the current secretary-general, asked a group of eminent folk to put on their thinking caps. Their report on how the UN might in future better contribute to international peace and security--mobilising its own and the world’ s re sources to prevent crises where possible and to deal with them more resolutely and effectively where necessary--is due for delivery in two weeks’ time. Yet the thoughtful debate such proposals deserve risks getting lost in the poisonous war of words between UN-baiters and UN-boosters, and in the fisticuffs over what governments seem to care about most: who will get any extra seats that may be up for grabs on the Security Council.
The might-is-always-righter brigade, who brush aside the UN as irrelevant in today’ s world, are small in number but can seem troublingly influential. They are also dangerously shortsighted. Like other big powers, and plenty of smaller ones, America fosters the UN when it needs it, and sometimes circumvents it when it doesn’ t. But wiser heads recognize that being the world’s most powerful country and top gun has its problems. With global interests and global reach, America is most often called on to right the world’ s wrongs. It should have been interest in a rules-based system which keeps that burden to a minimum and finds ways for others, including the UN, to share it. What is more, as Chi na, India, Japan and others put on economic and military muscle, having agreed rules for all to play by as much as possible makes strategic sense too.
Yet the not-without-UN-approval school can be equally off the mark. For the system of international rules, treaties and laws is still a hodge-podge. Some, like the UN charter itself, are deemed universal, though they may at time be hotly disputed and sometimes ignored. Others, such as the prohibitions against proliferation of nuclear, chemical or bio logical weapons, are accepted by many, but not all. Some disputes can be settled in court--boundary disputes by the International Court of Justice, for example, accusations of war crimes or genocide by the International Criminal Court--but only where governments give the nod. For the rest, the UN Security Council is where most serious disputes end up.
And there trouble can start. The council is not the moral conscience of the world. It is a collection of states pursuing divergent interests, albeit -- one hopes--with a sense of responsibility. Where it can agree, consensus lends legitimacy to action. But should action always stop where consensus ends
There was nothing high-minded about Russia’ s refusal to countenance intervention in Kosovo in 1999 to end the Serb army’ s ethnic cleansing there; it was simply protecting a friend. Might, concluded NATO governments in acting without council approval, is not always wrong. Over Iraq, it is debatable what did more damage: America’ s failure to win support from the council before going to war anyway, or the hypocrisy that had allowed Iraq to flout all previous council resolutions with impunity.

A:UN is in an unprepared predicament. B:noble aspirations take humanity to heaven. C:UN is in an unprecedented dilemma. D:former secretary-general saves human from hell.

A former head of UN is quoted in

A:foretelling the fragility of an imperfect world. B:restraining the noble aspirations of heaven. C:depicting the aim of establishing UN. D:pursuing the collective will and wisdom of humanity.