The task of the general design stage in structured life circle method is, to build what kind of software system structure?A．program structureB．general structureC．module structureD．function structure
The task of the general design stage in structured life circle method is, to build what kind of software system structure?
A．program structure
B．general structure
C．module structure
D．function structure
相关考题：
Which of the following constitute Juran's "quality trilogy":A . planning, inspection, control.B . planning, improvement, control.C . planning, organization, control.D . product, price, customer.E . design, build, deliver.
123 Which of the following constitute Juran's "quality trilogy":A. planning, inspection, control.B. planning, improvement, control.C. planning, organization, control.D. product, price, customer.E. design, build, deliver.
5 Which of the following constitute Juran's "quality trilogy":A. planning, inspection, control.B. planning, improvement, control.C. planning, organization, control.D. product, price, customer.E. design, build, deliver.
A passenger plane is able to carry a fixed weight, including passengers and fuel.Which wing design would be best for such a plane?A.Design 1B.Design 2C.Design 3D.Design 4
Whichofthefollowingisthecorrectcollectionofbuildevents?() A.Pre-Build，Post-Link，andPre-LinkB.Pre-Build，Post-Build，andPost-LinkC.Pre-Build，Pre-Link，andPost-BuildD.Post-Link，Pre-Link，andPost-Build
To become wealthier,a country needs strong growth in productivity-the output of goods or services from given inputs of labor and capital.For most people,In theory at least,higher productivity means the expectation of rising wages and abundant job opportunities Productivity growth in most of the worlds rich countries has been dismal since around 2004.Espe-cially vexing is the sluggish pace of what economists call total factor productivity--the part hat accounts for the contributions of innovation and technology.In a time of facebook smartphones,self-driving cars,and computers that can beat a person at just about any board game,how can the key economic measure of technological progress be so pathetic?Economists have tagged this the productivity paradox Some argue that because today's technologies are not nearly as impressive as we think.The leading proponent of that view,Northwestern University economist Robert Gordon,contends that compared with breakthroughs like indoor plumbing and the electric motor,today's advances are small and of limited economic benefit.Others think productivity is in fact increasing but we simply don't know how to measure things like the value delivered by Google and Facebook,particularly when many of the benefits are‘free.Both views probably misconstrue what is actually going on.It's likely that many new technologies are used to simply replace workers and not to create new tasks and occupations.What's more,the technologies that could have the most impact are not widely used Driverless vehicles,for instance,are still not on most roads.Robots are rather dumb and remain rare outside manufacturing.And AI is mysterious for most companies.What's happening now may be a replay of the late 80s,says Erik Brynjolfsson,another MIT economist.Breakthroughs in machine learning and image recognition are"eye-popping";the delay in implementing them only reflects how much change that will entail."It means swapping in AI and thinking your business,and it might mean whole new business models he says.In this view,AI is what economic historians consider a"general-purpose technology.These are inventions like the steam engine,electricity,and the internal-combustion engine.Eventually they transformed how we lived and worked.Illustrating the potential of AI as a general-purpose technology,Scott Stern of MITs Sloan School of Management describes it as a"method for a new method of invention But he also warns against expecting such a change to show up in macroeconomic measurements anytime soon."If I tell you we're having an innovation explosion,check back with me in 2050 and I'll show you the impacts,Scott Stern says.General-purpose technologies,he adds,"take a lifetime to reorganize aroundBy quoting Scott Stern's words in the last paragraph,the author also aims toA.encourage people to develop innovation and technologyB.emphasize the importance of innovation and technologyC.warn people the consequences of technology advanceD.remind people of the potential effects of AI taking a long time
To become wealthier,a country needs strong growth in productivity-the output of goods or services from given inputs of labor and capital.For most people,In theory at least,higher productivity means the expectation of rising wages and abundant job opportunities Productivity growth in most of the worlds rich countries has been dismal since around 2004.Espe-cially vexing is the sluggish pace of what economists call total factor productivity--the part hat accounts for the contributions of innovation and technology.In a time of facebook smartphones,self-driving cars,and computers that can beat a person at just about any board game,how can the key economic measure of technological progress be so pathetic?Economists have tagged this the productivity paradox Some argue that because today's technologies are not nearly as impressive as we think.The leading proponent of that view,Northwestern University economist Robert Gordon,contends that compared with breakthroughs like indoor plumbing and the electric motor,today's advances are small and of limited economic benefit.Others think productivity is in fact increasing but we simply don't know how to measure things like the value delivered by Google and Facebook,particularly when many of the benefits are‘free.Both views probably misconstrue what is actually going on.It's likely that many new technologies are used to simply replace workers and not to create new tasks and occupations.What's more,the technologies that could have the most impact are not widely used Driverless vehicles,for instance,are still not on most roads.Robots are rather dumb and remain rare outside manufacturing.And AI is mysterious for most companies.What's happening now may be a replay of the late 80s,says Erik Brynjolfsson,another MIT economist.Breakthroughs in machine learning and image recognition are"eye-popping";the delay in implementing them only reflects how much change that will entail."It means swapping in AI and thinking your business,and it might mean whole new business models he says.In this view,AI is what economic historians consider a"general-purpose technology.These are inventions like the steam engine,electricity,and the internal-combustion engine.Eventually they transformed how we lived and worked.Illustrating the potential of AI as a general-purpose technology,Scott Stern of MITs Sloan School of Management describes it as a"method for a new method of invention But he also warns against expecting such a change to show up in macroeconomic measurements anytime soon."If I tell you we're having an innovation explosion,check back with me in 2050 and I'll show you the impacts,Scott Stern says.General-purpose technologies,he adds,"take a lifetime to reorganize aroundAccording to the experts in Paragraph 3,the new technology hasA.surpassed the old one extremelyB.been widely applied in our daily lifeC.virtual values that are hard to measureD.created more occupations for people
To become wealthier,a country needs strong growth in productivity-the output of goods or services from given inputs of labor and capital.For most people,In theory at least,higher productivity means the expectation of rising wages and abundant job opportunities Productivity growth in most of the worlds rich countries has been dismal since around 2004.Espe-cially vexing is the sluggish pace of what economists call total factor productivity--the part hat accounts for the contributions of innovation and technology.In a time of facebook smartphones,self-driving cars,and computers that can beat a person at just about any board game,how can the key economic measure of technological progress be so pathetic?Economists have tagged this the productivity paradox Some argue that because today's technologies are not nearly as impressive as we think.The leading proponent of that view,Northwestern University economist Robert Gordon,contends that compared with breakthroughs like indoor plumbing and the electric motor,today's advances are small and of limited economic benefit.Others think productivity is in fact increasing but we simply don't know how to measure things like the value delivered by Google and Facebook,particularly when many of the benefits are‘free.Both views probably misconstrue what is actually going on.It's likely that many new technologies are used to simply replace workers and not to create new tasks and occupations.What's more,the technologies that could have the most impact are not widely used Driverless vehicles,for instance,are still not on most roads.Robots are rather dumb and remain rare outside manufacturing.And AI is mysterious for most companies.What's happening now may be a replay of the late 80s,says Erik Brynjolfsson,another MIT economist.Breakthroughs in machine learning and image recognition are"eye-popping";the delay in implementing them only reflects how much change that will entail."It means swapping in AI and thinking your business,and it might mean whole new business models he says.In this view,AI is what economic historians consider a"general-purpose technology.These are inventions like the steam engine,electricity,and the internal-combustion engine.Eventually they transformed how we lived and worked.Illustrating the potential of AI as a general-purpose technology,Scott Stern of MITs Sloan School of Management describes it as a"method for a new method of invention But he also warns against expecting such a change to show up in macroeconomic measurements anytime soon."If I tell you we're having an innovation explosion,check back with me in 2050 and I'll show you the impacts,Scott Stern says.General-purpose technologies,he adds,"take a lifetime to reorganize aroundAccording to Paragraph 1,productivity refers toA.the criteria to measure a powerful countryB.the impetus for people to work harderC.the capacity to produce goods and servicesD.the prerequisite for innovation and high-tech
To become wealthier,a country needs strong growth in productivity-the output of goods or services from given inputs of labor and capital.For most people,In theory at least,higher productivity means the expectation of rising wages and abundant job opportunities Productivity growth in most of the worlds rich countries has been dismal since around 2004.Espe-cially vexing is the sluggish pace of what economists call total factor productivity--the part hat accounts for the contributions of innovation and technology.In a time of facebook smartphones,self-driving cars,and computers that can beat a person at just about any board game,how can the key economic measure of technological progress be so pathetic?Economists have tagged this the productivity paradox Some argue that because today's technologies are not nearly as impressive as we think.The leading proponent of that view,Northwestern University economist Robert Gordon,contends that compared with breakthroughs like indoor plumbing and the electric motor,today's advances are small and of limited economic benefit.Others think productivity is in fact increasing but we simply don't know how to measure things like the value delivered by Google and Facebook,particularly when many of the benefits are‘free.Both views probably misconstrue what is actually going on.It's likely that many new technologies are used to simply replace workers and not to create new tasks and occupations.What's more,the technologies that could have the most impact are not widely used Driverless vehicles,for instance,are still not on most roads.Robots are rather dumb and remain rare outside manufacturing.And AI is mysterious for most companies.What's happening now may be a replay of the late 80s,says Erik Brynjolfsson,another MIT economist.Breakthroughs in machine learning and image recognition are"eye-popping";the delay in implementing them only reflects how much change that will entail."It means swapping in AI and thinking your business,and it might mean whole new business models he says.In this view,AI is what economic historians consider a"general-purpose technology.These are inventions like the steam engine,electricity,and the internal-combustion engine.Eventually they transformed how we lived and worked.Illustrating the potential of AI as a general-purpose technology,Scott Stern of MITs Sloan School of Management describes it as a"method for a new method of invention But he also warns against expecting such a change to show up in macroeconomic measurements anytime soon."If I tell you we're having an innovation explosion,check back with me in 2050 and I'll show you the impacts,Scott Stern says.General-purpose technologies,he adds,"take a lifetime to reorganize aroundAccording to Paragraph 2,which of the following is true about"productivity paradox"?A.Technology and innovation have greatly promoted the productivityB.The productivity grows slowly while innovation and technology flourish.C.The productivity growth has brought more economic returnsD.The innovation and technology caused the decline of the productivity
酚醛树脂按照反应分为三个阶段，不属于的是A．甲阶（A-stage）B．乙阶（B-stage）C．丙阶（C-stage）D．D 丁阶（D-stage）