The answer to you question is c
Answer:
(1) Shut down the router
(2) Change or update the operating system to a preferred one. E.g windows
(3) Open Windows Network Diagnostics to check for system status.
Explanation:
Answer:
The correct answer is: True.
Explanation:
<u>Moral imperatives can be understood as strong principles that lead a person through life to act in ways he/she considers morally right. </u>
<u>Moral imperatives are not utilitarian; this means that the person does not act in favor of the consequences that will result from acting in a particular way, but rather because acting in such a way, it's the right thing to do.</u>
<u>The concept of moral imperative was described by Immanuel Kant, and they were part of the broader concept of categorical imperatives.</u>
In conclusion, to the statement: <u>A moral imperative</u> prescribes an action, not for the sake of some result, but simply because that action is our moral duty, the correct answer is: True.
Answer:
Requires a difficult set of negotiations: different income levels and set of priorities.
Explanation:
To bring nations of the world to act together in addressing environmental issues that spill over national borders requires difficult set of negotiations between the countries: different income levels and set of priorities.
For example high income countries are the primary producers of greenhouse gases, they might sign agreement with low income countries to reduce their greenhouse effect because most low income countries are still battling of improving food production, healthcare system, and many more so they are not particular about technologies to cause pollution and greenhouse effects. The high income countries can pay low income countries not to produce greenhouse gases which is not their priorities at the moments. Their major priories is the provision of basic necessities of life
She has a claim based on discrimination by association.
This term refers to the fact that a person is discriminated against based on their association with another person. In this case, Marla was fired because she was associated with a black and a biracial person, not because of her own actions, personality, or skin color. This is illegal as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids it.
