| ²é¿´: 1293 | »Ø¸´: 10 | |||
| µ±Ç°Ö÷ÌâÒѾ´æµµ¡£ | |||
sima022225ÈÙÓþ°æÖ÷ (ÖªÃû×÷¼Ò)
µÇ½ֻΪÁì½ð±Ò
|
[½»Á÷]
¡¾Diary¡¿My English Learning Diary
|
||
|
This is the VOA Special English Education Report. [ Last edited by sima022225 on 2010-5-16 at 21:19 ] |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
±¾¿Æ211£¬293·ÖÇëÇóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
085400µç×ÓÐÅÏ¢319Çóµ÷¼Á£¨½ÓÊÜ¿çרҵµ÷¼Á£©
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
268Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ9È˻ظ´
һ־Ը˫·Ç085502£¬267·Ö£¬¹ýËļ¶Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸085404£¬×Ü·Ö291£¬Ëļ¶Òѹý£¬Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
297Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ12È˻ظ´
26µ÷¼Á 086003
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
265Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ20È˻ظ´
271·ÖÇóµ÷¼ÁѧУ
ÒѾÓÐ11È˻ظ´

tianyaren8078
ľ³æ (ÖøÃûдÊÖ)
- ESEPI: 7
- Ó¦Öú: 0 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ¹ó±ö: 0.494
- ½ð±Ò: 3823.2
- ºì»¨: 4
- ɳ·¢: 1
- Ìû×Ó: 1879
- ÔÚÏß: 176.1Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 615953
- ×¢²á: 2008-10-03
- ÐÔ±ð: MM
- רҵ: ¼Ì·¢ÐÔÉöÔ༲²¡
2Â¥2010-04-14 11:03:32
liconglin970410
ÈÙÓþ°æÖ÷ (ÎÄ̳¾«Ó¢)
±¿±¿ÍÃ
- Ó¦Öú: 0 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ¹ó±ö: 1.552
- ½ð±Ò: 6653.2
- É¢½ð: 1864
- ºì»¨: 22
- ɳ·¢: 16
- Ìû×Ó: 15565
- ÔÚÏß: 297.4Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 357669
- ×¢²á: 2007-04-27
- ÐÔ±ð: MM
- רҵ: ´ß»¯»¯Ñ§
- ¹ÜϽ: ´ß»¯
¡ï
Сľ³æ(½ð±Ò+0.2):ÇÀÁ˸öС°åµÊ£¬¸ø¸öºì°ü
Сľ³æ(½ð±Ò+0.2):ÇÀÁ˸öС°åµÊ£¬¸ø¸öºì°ü
| great,my english is poor ,i want to improve it |

3Â¥2010-04-14 12:20:28
liukezeng
ľ³æ (ÖøÃûдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 2 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 1707.5
- É¢½ð: 10
- Ìû×Ó: 2467
- ÔÚÏß: 80.7Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 584930
- ×¢²á: 2008-08-01
- רҵ: ´ß»¯»¯Ñ§
4Â¥2010-04-14 13:36:28
chenhao287
Òø³æ (³õÈëÎÄ̳)
- Ó¦Öú: 0 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 376.9
- É¢½ð: 21
- Ìû×Ó: 11
- ÔÚÏß: 9.6Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 837902
- ×¢²á: 2009-09-01
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: ÓлúºÏ³É
5Â¥2010-04-14 15:23:28
CathyChi
½ð³æ (СÓÐÃûÆø)
- Ó¦Öú: 0 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 74.2
- Ìû×Ó: 175
- ÔÚÏß: 65.8Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 864542
- ×¢²á: 2009-10-07
- ÐÔ±ð: MM
- רҵ: ÉúÎﻯ¹¤ÓëʳƷ»¯¹¤

6Â¥2010-04-14 16:16:33
ysm56789
ÈÙÓþ°æÖ÷ (ÖªÃû×÷¼Ò)
ÂæÍÕ
- ESEPI: 22
- Ó¦Öú: 416 (˶ʿ)
- ¹ó±ö: 3.503
- ½ð±Ò: 21031.5
- É¢½ð: 124
- ºì»¨: 41
- ɳ·¢: 7
- Ìû×Ó: 5778
- ÔÚÏß: 665.9Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 173752
- ×¢²á: 2006-01-21
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: Á÷Ðв¡Ñ§·½·¨ÓëÎÀÉúͳ¼Æ
- ¹ÜϽ: º£Íⲩºó

7Â¥2010-04-14 16:38:49
resonant
ľ³æ (ÕýʽдÊÖ)
¶À×ÔΪÕþ
- Ó¦Öú: 0 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ¹ó±ö: 0.063
- ½ð±Ò: 3859.3
- Ìû×Ó: 594
- ÔÚÏß: 44.5Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 113887
- ×¢²á: 2005-11-23
- רҵ: ¹âѧ
|
Charter school From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Charter schools are elementary or secondary schools in the United States that receive public money (and like other schools, may also receive private donations) but have been freed from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each school's charter.[1] Charter schools are opened and attended by choice.[2] While charter schools provide an alternative to other public schools, they are part of the public education system and are not allowed to charge tuition. Where enrollment in a charter school is over subscribed, admission is frequently allocated by lottery-based admissions. In a 2008 survey of charter schools, 59% of the schools reported that they had a waiting list, averaging 198 students.[3] Some charter schools provide a curriculum that specializes in a certain field ¡ª e.g., arts and mathematics. Others attempt to provide a better and more efficient general education than nearby public schools. Some charter schools are founded by teachers, parents, or activists who feel restricted by traditional public schools.[4] State-authorized charters (schools not chartered by local school districts) are often established by non-profit groups, universities, and some government entities.[5] Additionally, school districts sometimes permit corporations to open chains of for-profit charter schools. In the United States, though the percentage of students educated in charter schools varies by school district, only in the New Orleans Public Schools system are the majority of children educated within independent public charter schools.[6] From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school |

8Â¥2010-04-14 16:45:25
phyweiw
Ìú¸Ëľ³æ (ÖøÃûдÊÖ)
- ESEPI: 18
- Ó¦Öú: 3 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ¹ó±ö: 0.155
- ½ð±Ò: 5142
- É¢½ð: 130
- ºì»¨: 4
- ɳ·¢: 1
- Ìû×Ó: 1191
- ÔÚÏß: 151.1Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 459063
- ×¢²á: 2007-11-14
- רҵ: ½á¹¹ÌÕ´É
9Â¥2010-04-14 18:14:11
sima022225
ÈÙÓþ°æÖ÷ (ÖªÃû×÷¼Ò)
µÇ½ֻΪÁì½ð±Ò
- Ó¦Öú: 7 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ¹ó±ö: 2.084
- ½ð±Ò: 10909.5
- É¢½ð: 2430
- ºì»¨: 25
- ɳ·¢: 4
- Ìû×Ó: 6467
- ÔÚÏß: 1095.4Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 281313
- ×¢²á: 2006-09-23
- רҵ: »·¾³ÎÛȾ»¯Ñ§
- ¹ÜϽ: ÍâÓïѧϰ
|
SENEWS-2010-04-09 This is the VOA Special English Economics Report. Two rulings in the United States could change how information is controlled online and in our bodies. On Tuesday, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled that current laws limit government power over Internet traffic. The court rejected an order against America's biggest cable company. In two thousand seven, officials ordered Comcast to stop interfering with file-sharing programs used by its Internet customers. Comcast said big files slowed its network. All three judges agreed that the Federal Communications Commission had no legal basis to tell Comcast what to do. The F.C.C. supervises communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. But its power over Internet and wireless communications has long been questioned. Now, unless Congress changes the law, network providers can slow or block services of competitors. The decision comes just weeks after the F.C.C. announced its National Broadband Plan. The aim is faster, lower-cost connections for almost all Americans. The F.C.C. says the court "in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet." The agency could seek new powers to regulate Internet service and enforce net neutrality. That is the idea that all content on the Web should be treated equally. In a different case, a ruling last week in New York has renewed debate about who can "own" genetic information. Myriad Genetics received patents for methods to identify women with genes that create a high risk of breast cancer. Patents involving two genes made Myriad the only company able to offer the costly tests. But federal Judge Robert Sweet cancelled seven of twenty-three patents related to the genes. He said they violate the law against patents for products of nature. Yet companies and universities often claim human genes as intellectual property. An estimated twenty percent of human genes have been patented in the United States. Judge Sweet said the patent office thinks DNA should be treated like any other chemical compound. The idea is that its removal from the body and purification makes it into something different that can be patented. The judge said many consider this a "lawyer's trick" to avoid the ban on the direct patenting of DNA, but the result is the same. Cancer activists and researchers fought the patents. Myriad is appealing the ruling. And that's the VOA Special English Economics Report, written by Mario Ritter. I'm Steve Ember. |

10Â¥2010-04-15 10:35:36














»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥