A producer <span>forms the base of food webs</span>.
Answer:
Plasma monitors are power hungry devices 2 - 3 times more than a CRT monitor making this technology unfit for use in portable devices like laptop computers where batteries are used as the power source. Plasma monitors are extremely susceptible to screen burn.
Explanation: pls mark my answer as brainlist
Answer:
cout << setprecision(2)<< fixed << number;
Explanation:
The above statement returns 12.35 as output
Though, the statement can be split to multiple statements; but the question requires the use of a cout statement.
The statement starts by setting precision to 2 using setprecision(2)
This is immediately followed by the fixed manipulator;
The essence of the fixed manipulator is to ensure that the number returns 2 digits after the decimal point;
Using only setprecision(2) in the cout statement will on return the 2 digits (12) before the decimal point.
The fixed manipulator is then followed by the variable to be printed.
See code snippet below
<em>#include <iostream> </em>
<em>#include <iomanip>
</em>
<em>using namespace std; </em>
<em>int main() </em>
<em>{ </em>
<em> // Initializing the double value</em>
<em> double number = 12.3456; </em>
<em> //Print result</em>
<em> cout << setprecision(2)<< fixed << number; </em>
<em> return 0; </em>
<em>} </em>
<em />
Answer:
Option(a) is the correct answer to the given fill in the blank of #2
Explanation:
The values[indexOfMin] returns the minimum element in the particular array As in the given question we have to implement the selection sorting .In the selection sorting we have choose the element and compare them others minimum index that's why we have choose the values[indexOfMin] function.
- The index of min is not the correct function So we have not used in the given fill in the blanks that's why option(b) is incorrect .
- The values[startIndex] represent the starting index only that is not suitable for the given question that's why it is incorrect option.
The distinction between "computer architecture" and "computer organization" has become very fuzzy, if no completely confused or unusable. Computer architecture was essentially a contract with software stating unambiguously what the hardware does. The architecture was essentially a set of statements of the form "If you execute this instruction (or get an interrupt, etc.), then that is what happens. Computer organization, then, was a usually high-level description of the logic, memory, etc, used to implement that contract: These registers, those data paths, this connection to memory, etc.
Programs written to run on a particular computer architecture should always run correctly on that architecture no matter what computer organization (implementation) is used.
For example, both Intel and AMD processors have the same X86 architecture, but how the two companies implement that architecture (their computer organizations) is usually very different. The same programs run correctly on both, because the architecture is the same, but they may run at different speeds, because the organizations are different. Likewise, the many companies implementing MIPS, or ARM, or other processors are providing the same architecture - the same programs run correctly on all of them - but have very different high - level organizations inside them.
