中华人民共和国的法定货币是人民币。以人民币支付中华人民共和国境内外的一切公共的私人的债务，任何单位和个人不得拒收。

反假币信息系统中的假币造假方式分为伪造与变造两种。

“假币”印章上方为“假币”字样，下方为收缴单位名称。

中国人民银行分支机构和中国人民银行授权的鉴定机构鉴定货币真伪时，应当至少有两名鉴定人员同时参与。

光变油墨面额数字是用横竖线交叉和点线结和构成的花纹使一个完整的图案中隐藏着特定的图纹或数字。按照一定的角度观察，就能看到隐藏的图文或数字

五分按半额兑换的，兑付二分。

银行业机构应规范使用钞票处理设备，随保设备各项功能正常运行。

根据冠字号码查询结果判定为金融机构付出假币，有假币实物的，应由金融机构按照《中国人民银行假币收缴鉴定管理办法》进行处理，并予以半额赔付。

清分机可识别全部人民币变造币。

对假外币纸币和各种假硬币，应当面以统一格式的专用袋加封，封口处加盖“假币”字样戳记，并在专用袋上标明币种、券别、面额、张（枚）数、冠字号码、收缴人、复核人名章等细项。

根据冠字号码查询系统查询结果判定为付出假币的，如果假币已被其他银行业金融机构收缴或公安机关没收，付款行可不予赔付。

根据世界大多数国家对货币防伪技术的分类，货币防伪通常划分为公众防伪、专业防伪和特种防伪。

冠字号码查询系统模糊检索要求输入完整待查冠字号码后显示唯一冠字号码现钞。

国务院反假货币工作联席会议负责组织、协调全国的反假货币工作。

机械清分指通过自动化清分机具进行现金清分的处理过程。

假币持有人在假币收缴凭证上签字认可后，就不能再申请货币真伪鉴定。

假币资料或样张归还，应将实物与暂借卡片进行核对，无误后在暂借卡片上注明归还日期，并登记假币总分登记簿。

鉴定可疑人民币的真伪，需要综合考查各项防伪特征。

金融机构对交存的半额兑换的特殊残缺、污损人民币，应凑齐2张，归入相应的券别。

金融机构记录的冠字号码信息，必须隔天传输到冠字号码查询信息系统。

金融机构可按上报假币电子比对文件要求，自主开发数据报送系统。

目前市场上伪造的人民币主要是机制假人民币

手工清分是指银行柜面员工按照《不宜流通人民币挑剔标准》挑出残损币。

冠字号码查询应由本人申请查询，不得代理查询。

第五套人民币5角硬币色泽为金黄色，直径为20.5毫米，材质为铜芯镀铜合金，硬币外缘为间断丝齿，共有6个丝齿段，每个丝齿段有8个齿距相等的丝齿。

动态鉴别是指自动连续鉴别纸币真假的方式。

钞票有荧光反应的就是假钞。

存取款一体机未加冠字号码记录模块的，可以开启循环功能，加钞前记录冠字号码的参照取款机执行。

金融机构临柜人员在办理残缺、污损人民币纸币兑换业务时，应当面在兑换的残缺人民币票面上加盖带有本行行名的全额或半额戳记

根据《中国人民银行关于做好反假货币信息系统试运行工作的通知》（银发[2009]374号）文件要求，每季末，假币报送行必须向当地人民银行分支机构发送假币信息电子对比文件。

金融机构应制定预案，防止冠字号码数据信息丢失。建议金融机构与机具厂商签订协议，明确机具数据丢失情况下各方的职责和义务。

接线技术是指钞券在印制过程中，正、背面同一部位分别印有花纹或图案，迎光透视两面花纹或图案完全重合或互补，它是通过胶印一次印刷完成的，具有较强的防伪功能。

金融机构在办理残缺、污损人民币兑换业务时，无需向残缺、污损人民币持有人说明认定的兑换结果。

金融机构在办理特殊残缺、污损人民币兑换业务时，需要开袋确认人民银行的鉴定结果。

人民币纸币票面缺少面积在20平方毫米以上不宜流通

人民银行分支机构应指定专人负责假币接收业务，双人核对假币实物与《银行业机构现金整点中心发现假币解缴单》，打印《假币收缴凭证》（一式两联），印鉴加盖齐全。

为保证假币实物安全，查询人或查询代理人持假币实物申请查询的，应予以封存，并在纸币实物上加盖印章。

要识别真假人民币，首先要知道各种假币的特征。

银行业机构柜台如使用通过两次进钞分别完成鉴伪和清分操作的现金处理设备（业内称作“一口半清分机”），需严格采用两种模式进钞的操作流程。

银行业机构应规范使用钞票处理设备，确保设备各项功能正常运行保设备各项功能正常运行。

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 do Jones and Klenow think of the comparison between France and the U.S. in terms of real consumption per person?___

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 is an advantage of the Jones-Klenow method?___

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 can we infer from the passage about American people’s economic well-being?___

大学生的成才目标是___。

现代人才素质的灵魂是___。

___是人才素质的基础.

世界政治格局发展的必然趋势是___。

在全面发展的教育中德、智、体、美是缺一不可，统一存在的，其中处于主导地位的是___。

时代精神的内涵十分丰富，其中___居于核心地位。

民族精神是一个民族赖以生存和发展的精神支撑。中华民族在五千年的发展中所形成的伟大民族精神的核心是___。

下列名言反映中华民族是一个艰苦奋斗的民族的有___。

___是人才素质的基本内容

10。___是我们立党立国的根本指导思想

衡量大学生全面发展的一个重要标准是___

独立生活意识指___

___作为社会主义核心价值体系的精髓，解决的是应当具备什么样的精神状态和精神风貌的问题。

___是人才素质的综合体现.

人们对生活在其中的世界及人与世界的关系的总的看法和根本观点就是___

人生观的核心是___

人的本质属性是___

社会主义社会人生价值标准是___

回答人为什么活着___

表明人应当怎样对待生活___

判别什么样的人生才有意义___

下列人生态度中正确的是___

下列属于正确的人生目的的是___

___认为,金钱可以主宰一切.

___ 认为，社会和他人是达到个人目的的手段。

___认为，人生的全部内容就在于满足感官的需求与快乐。

马克思对于人的本质的论断确立与___

人与自然关系的实质是___

在社会交往和公共生活中公民应该遵守的道德准则是___

社会公德最基本的要求是___

通过其规定和实施，影响人们思想，培养和提高人们法律意识，引导人们依法行为的作用是法律的___

有序的公共生活是构建和谐社会的___

一行人在过路口时迎面遇到红灯，看到近处没有车辆便径直通过。他这样做是___

任何一个社会成员，无论具有何种身份、职业和地位，都必须在公共生活中遵守社会公德。这体现了社会公德具有的___特点。

影响公共生活、公共秩序、文明礼貌、清洁卫生以及其他影响社会生活的最主要行为规范是___

《公民道德建设实施纲要》明确指出，社会公德涵盖了___

为调整和规范人类社会生活三大领域，相应分别形成了___