99.资产处置机构待相关交易完结之日起，满___天且没有未处理完毕和投诉维权的，经平台审核通过，封锁相关账号及密码，返还入驻保证金至机构指定账号中。

100.员工会员因退休或其他原因，已离开工作岗位，经统一认证平台封锁其柜员号后，由员工所在市县行社于___内封锁其员工会员权限。

101.会员提供的线索信息应通过合法途径取得，提供的信息应在后续采取的司法措施中具有___。

102.日用品、纺织品等低值大众化消费品可以采用___方式进行处置。

103.在认定变现损失责任时，应注意分清___、___、___办理、抵债物保管以及抵债资产处置等不同阶段的责任，应避免将变现损失一律认定为处置阶段的责任。

102.呆账核销：“___”进行审批，“___”执行___复核交易，核销来源账号为会计内部户___。

103.已核销贷款归还：先手工试算出已核销贷款利息，通过“核心系统”___交易调整该笔贷款的利息，用___交易进行归还。

104.___是指根据法律规定及时主张权利，确保不良贷款诉讼时效、保证及抵___押担保期间、申请执行期限、资产查封与续封期限等方面的法律效力。

1.资产重组的定义是什么？

2.资产竞价交易平台成交的三个规则是什么？

3.市县行社依法合规开展不良贷款处置工作，要做到哪四个严禁？

4.请说出成交不卖的三种特殊情形？

5.不良贷款调查内容包括哪些？

6.请指出不低于8种不良贷款清收处置方式？

7.请写出资产竞价交易平台成交三规则？

8.呆账核销遵循的原则是什么？

9.请至少说出5种核销呆账外部证据？

10.请至少说出5种核销呆账内部证据？

11.农信社系统贷款不能核销的六种情形内容是什么？

12.不良贷款管理应遵循的原则是什么？

13.资产管理委员会的工作职责有哪些？

14.不良贷款日常管理工作包括哪几方面？

15.资产保全工作要围绕哪几项工作进行？

呆账认定标准：

下列不属于网络操作系统的安全性的是＿＿。

允许在一台主机上同时连接多台客户端，同时为多个客户端提供服务的计算机的操作系统是＿＿。

防火墙应具有强大的审计功能和自动日志分析功能是因为？

ip access-group {number} in这句话表示（ ）

TAG VLAN是由下面的哪一个标准规定的（ ）

PING 命令使用了哪种ICMP？

以下关于Smurf 攻击的描述，那句话是错误的（ ）

许多黑客攻击都是利用软件实现中的缓冲区溢出的漏洞，对于这一威胁，最可靠的解决方案是什么？

划分VLAN主要解决什么问题？

TCP/IP协议的4层概念模型是？

有一类IDS系统将所观察到的活动同认为正常的活动进行比较并识别重要的偏差来发现入侵事件，这种机制称作：（ ）

以下哪一项不属于入侵监测系统的功能？

哪一类防火墙具有根据传输信息的内容（比如关键字、文件类型）来控制访问连接的能力？

以下哪项不是IDS可以解决的问题：（ ）

张三将微信个人头像换成微信群中某好友头像，并将昵称改为该好友的昵称，然后向该好友的其他好友发送一些欺骗信息。该攻击行为属于以下哪类攻击？

DDos攻击的主要目的是：（ ）

“机不可失，时不再来”指的是___

是 ___

在客观规律面前，人的主观能动性表现在___

事物的联系和运动之间的关系___

唯物辩证法的总特征是___

___

“割下来的手就不再是人手”这句话体现了___

唯物辩证法认为发展的实质是___

区分新事物和旧事物的标志在于看它们___

质量互变规律揭示了___

质和事物的存在是___

在实际工作中，要注意掌握分寸，防止“过”或“不及”，其关键在于___

区分量变和质变的根本标志是看___

量变的复杂性是指___

量变中的阶段性部分质变表现了___

量变中的局部性部分质变是___

揭示事物发展的趋势和道路的规律是___

“肯定和否定相互渗透，在一定意义上，肯定就是否定。”这是一种___

事物的否定方面是指___

作为辩证的否定的“扬弃”是___

辩证的否定是事物发展的环节,因为辩证的否定___

否定之否定规律___

事物发展的周期性体现了___

直线论的错误在于只看到___

循环论的错误在于___

对立统一规律揭示了___

唯物辩证法的实质和核心是___

辩证法所说的矛盾是指___

矛盾的基本属性是___

依据是___

矛盾问题的精髓是___

题的方法都是___

“任何个别（无论怎样）都是一般”。这句话的正确含义是___

在唯物辩证法看来，水果同苹果、梨、香蕉、桔子等的关系是___

“是就是是，不是就是不是，除此之外都是鬼话。”这是一种___

真象和假象的区别在于___

有的哲学家说，在大风扬起的尘土中，每一粒尘土的运动状况都是纯粹必然的。这是种___

“或然率”是指___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author think of the 2015 report by the Census Bureau?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author say about the Jones-Klenow method?___