47、涉密印制场所应当安装___、___、___等安防系统，实行___管理。监控机房应当安排人员值守。

48、资质单位___部门应当定期对视频监控信息进行回看检查，___部门应当对执行情况进行监督。

49、未经批准，不得擅自将具有录音、___、拍照、___、___功能的各类信息设备带入涉密印制场所。

50、资质单位应当定期对___落实情况、___落实情况等进行检查，及时发现和消除隐患。

1、印制任务完成后，应当将原件、清样、成品全部交付委托方，相关电子文档应该在委托方监督下按照符合国家保密要求的方式进行___。委托方要求印制单位留存电子文档继续使用的，应当将信息设备中的电子文档移存到光盘中，存放在保密箱[柜]或保密室。双方须办理留存保管手续，留存期限不得超过___日。

2、涉密信息打印、刻录等输出应当___、有效控制，并采取相应___。

3、涉密信息设备改作非涉密信息设备使用或淘汰处理时，应当将涉密信息___拆除。淘汰处理的涉密存储介质和涉密信息存储部件，应当按照涉密载体___有关规定执行。

4、印制完成尚未交付的涉密___，应当保存在符合安全保密条件的___或其他安全保密场所。

5、资质单位运送涉密载体成品，应当通过机要交通、机要通信、机要文件交换站等符合___要求的方式和渠道，不得通过普通邮政、快递或物流公司等___的方式和渠道传递。

6、涉密计算机及办公自动化设备应当拆除无线联网功能的___，禁止使用具有无线___或配备无线键盘、无线鼠标等无线外围设备。

7、资质单位应当建立视频监控的管理检查机制，___部门应当定期对视频监控信息进行回看检查，保密部门应当对执行情况进行监督。视频监控信息保存时间不少于___。

8、涉密印制业务应当建立管理台账，台账保存时间不少于___。

9、涉密印制场所应当明确允许进入的人员范围，其他人员进入，应当履行___手续，并由接待人员___陪同。

10、用于涉密载体印制的信息设备应当符合国家保密标准，有密级、编号、责任人标识，并建立___。

1、资质单位应当按照___，制定不同等级的入闱管理方案，实行分类管理。

2、入闱区分___和___，两区在入闱期间应当能进行有效隔离。

3、试卷印制场所入闱区内应当安装___系统，对入闱区内各类手机信号实施屏蔽，并能够在入闱期间___工作。

4、国家统一考试试卷印制入闱管理时间，自___起，至___止。

5、试卷印制应当建立___，记载内容包括涉密印制业务的委托印制证明、合同编号、委托单位、印制现场保密负责人、___、主要印制设备、印制时间、品种、密级、载体形式、数量、产品交付情况等。

6、入闱区外朝向门窗，应当采用___玻璃，锁闭并加装___。

7、入闱人员应当符合下列基本条件：身体健康，近期___直系亲属，无直系亲属参加___。

8、入闱区设置一部值班录音电话，___监管。入闱人员与外界通话，须有监印人员与保密管理人员___。录音记录保存时间不少于3个月。

9、入闱区内___和___等交接过程，须指定___人同时旁站监督。

10、入闱人员只能在___的工作、生活区域内活动，未经批准，___其他区域。

11、入闱人员携带的物品应当逐一进行___检查与___检查，经检查后的物品使用入闱区统一提供的箱、包存放。

12、入闱人员不得会客、通信，不得私自与___的安保人员、服务人员接触，因故必须外出的，应当经考试机构负责人与入闱监印人员同意，并有___名以上安全保卫人员全程随行。

13、安全保卫人员对入闱区外安全防控区进行24小时巡察，监管人员对入闱区内全天值班值守；安全保卫人员不得进入___，不得___；不得与印制人员私自接触。

1、涉密防伪材料的采购、入库、保管、领用、清退、销毁等环节，要建立严格的___和___，有关记录应当保存___年。

2、涉密防伪票据证书印制应当严格控制___知悉人员范围，对知悉人员范围应当有___。

3、存储涉密防伪技术信息的移动存储介质应当存放在密码文件柜中，实行___管理，每次使用均应作出___。

4、涉密防伪票据证书印制场所应当明确___的人员范围，其他人员进入，应当履行___手续，并由接待人员全程陪同。

5、涉密防伪技术、防伪方案原则上实行___管理。

6、处理涉密防伪技术信息的计算机应当按___管理，并严格遵守国家有关涉密计算机___的各项规定。

1、档案数字化加工过程应当严格控制档案实体及数字化加工成果的___，不得擅自___。

2、资质单位应当___负责档案数字化加工场所的安全保密工作，严格遵守___的安全保密要求。

3、档案数字化加工场所外应当___，供存放___。

4、资质单位应当建立与委托方的___机制，接受委托方对档案数字化加工业务___的监督和管理。

5、资质单位应当将档案数字化加工___的基本信息报___备案。

6、档案数字化加工应当实行___管理，制定落实各环节安全保密措施，明确岗位责任，确保全程___。

7、涉密档案实体、数字化加工成果应当保存在符合___条件的加工场所或设施设备中。

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?___

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?___