博学、广博是什么意思？
全部答案（共1个回答）
习。 2.学识渊博。 分词解释:博 : 博bó多,广,大:广博。渊博。博学(学问广博)。博览。博爱。博物。知道得多
意思是，常识广博，知识渊博，要追求专一和精深。做学问处理好博与精的关系，俗话说，百门通不如一门精。
要看你喜欢什么样的休闲娱乐。先要去体验一下茶馆文化可以去宽窄巷子和锦里，喜欢喝酒把妹的话可以去九眼桥和少陵路，喜欢看看文化就去金沙博物馆、武侯祠、青羊宫，喜欢清...
硅guī（台湾、香港称矽xī）是一种化学元素，它的化学符号是Si，旧称矽。原子序数14，相对原子质量28.09，有无定形硅和晶体硅两种同素异形体，属于元素周期表...
答: 作文做生意的妈妈怎么写
答: 因为他们会认为父母都是对的，就照着去学，所以父母必须要以身作则。
答: 这个就是科学的里程碑啊
答: ”有人做过一项调查，调查的内容很简单，只有一句话：“你喜欢学习吗？
根本就没有正式的国际驾照，如果到国外开车，正式的程序：
1、到公证处办理驾照的公证书，可以要求英文或者法文译本（看看到哪个国家而定）；
2、拿公证书到外交部的领事司指定的地点办理“领事认证”，可以登录外交部网站查询，北京有4、5家代办的，在外交部南街的京华豪园2楼或者中旅都可以。
3、认证后在公证书上面贴一个大标志；
4、有的国家还要到大使馆或者领事馆盖章一下。
偶前几天刚刚办过。
目前我们的生活水平必竟非同以往．吃得好休息得好，能量消耗慢，食欲比较旺盛，活动又少，不知不觉脂肪堆积开始胖啦。　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　减肥诀窍：一．注意调整生活习惯，二。科学合理饮食结构，三。坚持不懈适量运动。
　　　具体说来：不要暴饮暴食。宜细嚼慢咽。忌辛辣油腻，清淡为好。多喝水，多吃脆平果青香焦，芹菜，冬瓜，黄瓜，罗卜，番茄，既助减肥，又益养颜，两全其美！
有减肥史或顽固型症状则需经药物治疗．
如有其他问题，请发电子邮件:jiaoaozihao53@ .或新浪QQ: 1
规模以上工业企业是指全部国有企业(在工商局的登记注册类型为"110"的企业)和当年产品销售收入500万元以上(含)的非国有工业企业。
T(true)代表正确 F(false)代表错误
时，婴儿不仅注意大人说话的方式，也会注意到大人发出的每个音节。他将听到元音和辅音，并开始注意它们结合成音节、词汇或句子的方式。开始用母语的许多节律和特征咿呀学语，尽管听起来像胡言乱语，但如果你仔细听，你会发现他会升高和降低声音，好像在发言或者询问一些问题。
这个阶段是宝宝最爱交际的时候，他已经学会以伸手、拉人或发音等方式主动与人交往，当他需要妈妈抱时，不仅会发出声音，而且能有伸开双臂的姿势；当你真的抱起他时，他会高兴地大叫。
这一阶段他可以明白一个重要的概念——因果关系。在他踢床垫时，可能会感到婴儿床在摇晃，或者在他打击或摇动铃铛时，会认识到可以发出声音。一旦他知道自己弄出这些有趣的东西，他将继续尝试其他东西，观察出现的结果。
在最初的几个月他认为世界，仅仅由他所看见的物体构成，当你离开房间时他认为你消失了，当你回来时对他来说你是一个全新的人。同样，当你将玩具藏在衣服下面或者盒子内时，他认为就永远消失了，不会费心去找它。但大约到这个时候，他开始认识到这个世界比他想象得更加持久，在每天早上祝贺他的是同一个人，地板上的玩具熊和昨天夜里在床上陪伴他的是同一个，你藏起来的东西实际上没有真正消失。通过捉迷藏的游戏，或者观察他周围的人来来往往，孩子在未来几个月的时间内继续学习物质永恒原则。
15至20个月宝宝开始学会“坐”“吃”等单词句，18至24个月，会说“吃饭”“拍球”等双词句，而到了宝宝2至3岁，他(她)开始会说一些较为完整的句子。方法在这一阶段，不管宝宝说了几个字，请您帮助他把这句话补充完整，大声告诉他“宝宝要吃饭了是吗”“哦，宝宝请妈妈坐下呀”，给宝宝作“示范”。爸爸妈妈还可以为宝宝买一些图片指给他看，或者为他读读故事书，在这个过程中，将颜色、数字等一些单词之外的信息一起传递给他，告诉宝宝“白色的飞机在蓝色的天空上”“一个小朋友穿了红色的衣服”，这对丰富他语言表达能力有好处。特别提醒虽然宝宝开口有早有晚，但是，若发现宝宝2周岁了还不开口说话，还是先带宝宝去医院做一下检查为好。若一切正常，这就是提醒您应该引起重视，多花精力跟宝宝说说话了!
第一，活动过度。在母亲怀孕时胎动就多，从小睡得少，几乎不睡。在摇篮里手脚乱动、爱哭，总用手指触摸、摆弄身边的东西。上学后不能静坐，上课时坐立不安，不停地扭动身子，喜欢奔跑、爬高而且不知道危险，不能自控5分钟。
第二，注意力不集中。注意停留在一种事物上时间极短，很容易被外界声响、人走动等无关刺激所分散，上课貌似听讲，其实脑子里想的是别的事，学习有始无终，对任何刺激都不加思考，容易出现危险行为和发生意外事故。
第三，学习困难。有认知障碍，例如图形的辨认和临摹困难，对抽象、概括的事物理解较差，偏向具体的表面事物的理解。
第四，情绪不稳定。冲动、任性，做事不加思考，容易出现危险行为和发生意外事故。
第五，行为问题。有的儿童出现说谎话、逃学、盗窃、攻击行为等。
有以下护理方法：
A.用干净纱布彻底清洁大腿根部及阴茎部的皮肤褶皱，由里往外顺着擦拭。当清洁到睾丸下面时，用手指轻轻将睾丸往上托住。
B.用干净纱布清洁婴儿睾丸各处，包括阴茎下面，因为那里有尿渍或大便。有必要的话，可以用手指轻轻拿着他的阴茎，但小心不要拉扯阴茎皮肤。
C.清洁他的阴茎，顺着离开他身体的方向擦拭：不要把包皮往上推，去清洁包皮下面，只是清洁阴茎本身。在男宝宝半岁前都不必刻意清洗包皮，因为男宝宝大约4岁左右包皮才和阴茎完全长在一起，过早地翻动柔嫩的包皮会伤害宝宝的生殖器。
D.举起婴儿双腿，清洁他的肛门及屁股，你的一只手指放在他两踝中间。他大腿根背面也要清洗。
训练抓握能力。一般的奶瓶没有把手，所以爸妈想要训练他的抓握能力，可以在喂奶时，帮助小宝宝把手放到奶瓶上，但是要注意奶瓶温度适中，以免烫伤宝宝。套上把手。如果没有充足的时间，也可以买那种有把手的奶瓶，帮助宝宝将手扣在把手上训练抓握，让他自己慢慢学着适应。小心！躺着喝奶危害多。学会自己拿奶瓶喝奶后，注意千万不要让宝宝躺着喝奶，因为这样可是隐藏着很大的危机哦！呛奶。医院里最常见宝宝呛奶的意外，刘护士长认为妈妈不能因为宝宝自己能拿奶瓶，就不在一旁照顾了。记住，宝宝现在还没有意识到危险的能力。
中耳炎。躺着喝奶除了会有呛奶的危险，还容易造成中耳炎。因为宝宝的耳咽管和口腔相通，耳道也比较短，所以当奶水呛到喉咙时，很容易感染，引发中耳炎。奶瓶性龋齿。因为现在的生活条件提高，宝宝发育得比较早，很多宝宝五六个月就开始长牙了。躺着喝奶，宝宝容易睡着，再加上妈妈没有定时给宝宝清洁牙齿，很容易造成奶瓶性龋齿。
呵呵 我个人实在 成都假日租车 还是不俗
您要不网上查一下
谢谢 看能无法帮上您的忙
纸箱生产现场质量控制按检验的目的可分为，控制检验，接收检验，质量机构检验鉴定。纸箱企业在确保纸箱产品质量的前提下，可因地制宜地设置质量检验机构及配备质量检验人员。工序检验一般有以下几种形式，首件检验，首件检验是纸箱产品制造过程中的一种预防性检验，适用于大量的类型。首件检验应由操作者自行检验，并交由专职检验员认可。
先抵达云水谣 再去”四菜一汤“ 比较顺路 。云水谣也有土楼
知名的和贵楼和怀远楼都是很有特色的 。
这个品牌的售后服务在那么多品牌来说是做的很不错的了，客户满意度较高的一个品牌。值得选择。
音乐人琴行比较好，也比较有名！
正在加载...
Copyright &
Corporation, All Rights Reserved
确定举报此问题
举报原因(必选)：
广告或垃圾信息
激进时政或意识形态话题
不雅词句或人身攻击
侵犯他人隐私
其它违法和不良信息
报告，这不是个问题
报告原因(必选)：
这不是个问题
这个问题分类似乎错了
这个不是我熟悉的地区塔吊接触器上标签KHB是什么意思_百度知道
塔吊接触器上标签KHB是什么意思
我有更好的答案
接触器线圈坏的可能性较大，或者是触点接触不良，也有可能是启动按钮断线或损坏。
为您推荐：
其他类似问题
换一换
回答问题，赢新手礼包
个人、企业类
违法有害信息,请在下方选择后提交
色情、暴力
我们会通过消息、邮箱等方式尽快将举报结果通知您。Please consider subscribing to LWNSubscriptions are the lifeblood of LWN.net.
If you appreciate this
content and would like to see more of it, your subscription will
help to ensure that LWN continues to thrive.
Please visit
to join up and keep LWN on
June 26, 2006
This article was contributed by Valerie Henson
[Editors note: this is the second in the Kernel Hacker's Bookshelf
series by Valerie H if you missed it, the first article is over here.]
Computer programs have bugs.
As programmers, we know that this is
inevitable, given the trade-off in time and money against creating a
perfect system.
Systems with nearly-zero bug counts exist (e.g., the
Shuttle software, only 17 bugs in 420,000 lines of code over the last
11 releases) but they require vast amounts of work to achieve this
level of correctness, work that is completely unjustifiable for most
programs (such as desktop operating systems).
But we're programmers,
it's our job to replace time and money with smart ideas.
What would happen if when a program had a memory error - and it
detected that error, ignored it, and drove happily on, oblivious to
the failure?
You would expect that this would result in horrible
errors and obscure crashes.
But what if it worked - or even made
things better?
For example, failing to check the size of a memory
copy operation can result in a buffer overflow attack.
Could we do
something clever that would both paper over the memory error and keep
the application running, more or less on track?
A Solution
Martin Rinard and a few of his colleagues got to wondering about this
question and decided to test it - and found that the answer was yes,
you can automatically handle memory bugs in a better, safer way than
either ignoring the bug or terminating the program.
I first heard of
their technique, Failure-Oblivious
Computing, at their talk at OSDI 2004.
if there was a "Most Laughs per Minute" award,
Martin Rinard would have won it.
The explanation of how failure-oblivious computing is implemented
might seem utterly crazy, but stick with me.
Remember, the amazing
thing about failure-oblivious computing is that when you implement it,
it works! (At least for quite a few useful applications.) The basic
idea is to detect memory errors - out-of-bound reads, out-of-bound
writes - and instead of killing the program, handle otherwise fatal
errors by turning them into relatively benign bugs.
Detecting the
memory errors requires a "safe-C compiler" - a C compiler that adds
run-time memory access checks.
Safe-C compilers (and languages that always check memory accesses)
have been around for a long time.
When they detect a memory error,
the process gets a segmentation fault, and usually exits shortly
thereafter.
In failure-oblivious computing, the application never
even knows the memory error happened.
In the case of an out-of-bounds
write, the write is silently thrown away and execution continues.
Handling out-of-bounds reads is slightly harder.
In this case, a
made-up value is manufactured and returned.
How do you pick which value to return?
Two observations lie behind
the answer.
First, 0 and 1 are the most common values in computation.
Second, sometimes the program is looking for a particular value before
returning, such as searching for a particular ASCII character in a
string, or iterating through a loop 100 times.
The result is a series
of return values that looks something like this:
0, 1, 2, 0, 1, 3, 0, 1, 4,...
So you throw away invalid writes, and make up stuff to return for
invalid reads.
Crazy, right?
But crazy like a fox.
Why does it work?
Failure-oblivious computing is targeted at a particular class of
applications, ones with short error-propagation distances - in other
words, applications that have relatively short execution paths which
return without affecting much global state.
This includes a rather
useful class of applications, such as web servers, mail servers, and
mail readers.
It does not include applications like scientific
modeling software, in which one wrong value can fatally corrupt the
final answer.
Software programs which handle incoming requests and
return to a waiting state, or have many independent threads of
execution are good candidates for failure-oblivious computing.
Another reason failure-oblivious computing works is because memory
errors are transformed into input errors.
Since the programs have to
deal with invalid or malicious input already, often the result is an
anticipated error, one the program knows how to deal with cleanly.
For example, a buffer overflow attack on Sendmail uses a malformed,
too-long, illegal email address to overwrite some other part of the
program's memory.
This technique silently discards the writes that go
beyond the buffer, and Sendmail continues on to check the validity of
the input - whether or not it's a correctly formed email address.
Answer: No, so throw it away and go on to the next request.
point, Sendmail is back in known territory and the error has stopped
propagating.
A limitation of this technique is the cost of memory bounds checking.
Applications that need to access memory frequently will probably not be
good candidates for this technique.
However, applications that are
limited by I/O time, or only need to complete before the human user
notices a delay, won't be much impacted by the cost.
Indeed, humans
can't detect delays below about 100 milliseconds - an eternity in
computational time.
Failure-oblivious computing in practice
Rinard and his co-authors evaluated failure-oblivious computing with
versions of several commonly used open source applications with known
buffer overflow attacks: Sendmail, Pine, Apache, and Midnight
Commander.
They ran three versions of each program: an unaltered
version, one using just safe-C compilation, and one transformed into a
failure-oblivious program.
In each case, the failure-oblivious
version performed acceptably (sometimes better), did not create any
new bugs, and did not suffer any security breaches.
One example was the Pine mail reader.
It had a bug in processing the
"From" field for display in the message index.
It needed to add a '\'
character in front of certain characters, but allocated a too-small
buffer to copy it into.
Some "From" fields could overflow the buffer
and cause the program to segfault and die.
The safe-C version of the
program dies as well, because all it can do is detect the buffer
The failure-oblivious version threw away the writes beyond
the end of the buffer, and then went on to behave exactly correctly!
The length of the "From" field displayed in the index is shorter than
the length of the buffer, so the fact that it was truncated too early
is unobservable.
When the user reads a particular message, a
different code path correctly displays the "From" field.
Now an email
message that would cause Pine to die every time it was started could
be correctly displayed and handled.
The performance of failure-oblivious Pine was 1.3 to 8 times slower
times on certain tasks, but the total elapsed time to respond to user
input was still in the low milliseconds range.
For interactive use,
the slowdown is acceptable.
In the case of the Apache server bug, the
performance of the failure-oblivious server was actually better than
either of the other two versions.
The higher performance was due to
the fact that the bug would kill an Apache thread each time it was
encountered, incurring the overhead of creating a replacement thread.
The failure-oblivious version did not have the overhead of constantly
killing and restarting threads and could server requests much faster.
Especially exciting is the use of failure-oblivious computing for
widely used network servers, such as Apache and Sendmail.
has in-depth examinations of how buffer overflow bugs are prevented
and indeed ignored by the failure-oblivious versions of these and
other programs.
What failure-oblivious computing means for Linux
Linux has a huge variety of techniques for improving system security
in the face of bugs.
SELinux, various stack protection schemes,
capabilities - all these techniques help cut down but don't eliminate
security problems.
Failure-oblivious computing would fill one niche,
and in some cases will be the best solution due to the ability to
continue running after a normally-fatal memory error.
Wouldn't it be
nice if, when everyone else is suffering from some brand-new zero-day
attack, your system is not only secure but still up and running?
More importantly, this paper teaches the value of experimentation with
obviously crazy ideas.
Even after seeing the talk and reading the
paper and talking to the author, I still find it a little
mind-boggling that failure-oblivious computing works.
Even more fun
is understanding why it works - a good reason to read the full paper
I am certain that computers (and computer science) will
continue to surprise us for many years to come.
[Do you have a favorite textbook or systems paper?
Of course you do.
Send your suggestions to:
val dot henson at gmail dot com
is a Linux kernel
developer working for Intel.
Her interests include file systems,
networking, women in computing, and walking up and down large
mountains.
She is always looking for good systems programmers, so
send her some email and introduce yourself.]
( to post comments)
Copyright & 2006, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds收藏到： &
(提示：顶到域名世界首页，分享给更多网友)&&
欢迎您就本域名知识点留言评论!
您的姓名：
* 可选项，留空即为匿名发表
评论内容：
剩余字数：& * 按 Ctrl + Enter 直接发送.
域名世界提醒您:评论只需提交一次,请耐心等候,审核后方可显示.
精彩域名知识
域名世界推荐