Answer:
The entire territory of the Royal Niger Company came into the hands of the British government. On 1 January 1900, the British Empire created the Southern Nigeria Protectorate and the Northern Nigeria Protectorate. ... On 27 October 1958 Britain agreed that Nigeria would become an independent state on 1 October 1960.
Explanation:
Your borrowing status indicates that <span>The loan borrowing status indicates your federal student loan
When requesting a federal student loan, a borrowing status is needed in order to determine how much money you actually need in order to pursue a certain degree in college</span>
<span>The High Court has interpreted concepts like the First Amendment in ways that have covered both parts of social interaction. The Court has found that individual liberty to express oneself freely, worship without coercion, and to gather without recompense is to be protected, but the common good is to be promoted by also placing limits on just how far these strictures can be stretched before they become a danger to overall community well-being, such as when groups are gathering or people have made statements that are known to be inciting danger to others.</span>
Answer:
Explanation:
Anytime an amendment was passed after the constitution was ratified by the states, would be a constitutional interest. Giving women the vote was both, but in my mind it was more of a constitutional issue. America prided her self on democratic rights. Yet it took women 144 years to get the vote. That was opposed by men who thought women were scatterbrained and flibbertigibbets (that's actually a word and it was used, among others not so delicate).
Constitutional additions also include 13 14 and 15 which have to do with African Americans. I think this was also a constitutional interest, but it had many national ones as well. Labor was one of them. Payment was another.
The behaviour described above could be motivated by the so-called altruistic punishment.
The ultimatum game is a two-player game, in which the first player plays the role of the offeror while the second is the respondent. The first one is endowed with a certain amount of money (for example, 100 $) and has to make an offer about how to split it between the two of them. If the respondent accepts the offer, each player would receive the amount of money that had been proposed by the offeror. If the respondent does not accept, both will earn 0.
A respondent will accept any offer that maximizes his utility. If utility meant exactly the same as money earnings, the respondent would accept any offer in which he receives at least 1 $, as he would be left better off than before (when he had 0$). But this is not true, as in many cases the respondent would choose to punish the other player by refusing his offer so that both earn 0$, if he considers the other has done an unfair distribution. This behaviour is known as the altruistic punishment, as although the offeror is punished, he learns a lesson from it.
If the offeror had expected that possibility he would go for more egalitarian distributions, so that he makes sure the respondent does not punish him and both manage to earn some money. This is why in the end many proposers offer half of the money in the game.
