An idiot would tell you that robots would take over the world. I honestly believe we as humans have the ability to make sure we don't go that far.
People, especially most Americans, have a borderline fetish for leisure. If it makes things easy, buy it, buy it, buy it now. Likely, more advancements will be made to make sure people won't have to leave their home via conventional ways to go to work. Basically, we get even more lazy than we already are, all things considered. Not to mention new innovations for war.
Some good can come from this, however. We require an alternative to fossil fuels, so green energy will be a must in the future. Advancements in medicine will thrive, after everyone discovers that there really are cures for almost anything (there's just no money for the doctors in curing the disease, only treating it). A cleaner Earth, a better planet, a better ecosystem.
John Smith and Thomas Dale had similar leadership styles because they both made strict rules. Both leaders could be considered tyrants. They both had a no nonsense approach, which made them good leaders for the Jamestown situation because the colony's survival was at stake. These are not necessarily qualities we look for today, because their styles were not democratic. -ally :)
The case must first be heard at the lowest level of court. Most states have a court system that exists in the same area as a federal magistrate court or federal district court. The case must be decided by the lower court and appealed to a higher court. In the federal system this is the circuit court. Once all the lower courts have been exhausted, the lawyers may apply to be heard by the <span>Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will determine which cases it will hear.
</span>
Answer:A principle where every person shall beheld accountable to international human right laws, publicly declared laws, equally enforced laws, and independently adjudicated laws. No one is above these laws.
Explanation:
The answer to this question is <span>when two variables are correlated, we cannot be sure what is causing the correlation.
For example, let's there is a study that found an increase in consumption in tofu lead to an increase in breast cancer.
Even if it's true that those two really correlated (let's just assume it), we wouldn't be able to know why it is correlated without further researches.</span>
