<span>public void myMethod(int w, int y, int z) {
</span>int a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l;
<span>a = w * z;
</span>b = w * z + y;
c = w * -z;
d = w * --z + y++;
e = w * z-- + ++y<span> ;
</span>f = w + z * y;
g = w – y + z;
h = (w + y) * z;
i = y / w;
j = y / z;
k = w % y;
<span>l = y % w;
</span>System.out.println( "%d %d %d %d %d %d %d %d %d %d %d %d", a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k);
}
To use
myMethod(2, 7, 12);
The answer is 1024MB.
I am really not in a position to answer this question fully
since the lab is not provided but according to the research conducted online,
the answer is 1024MB. According to the book, based on the physical memory
installed on the PC, the current system shows 1.06GB which is equivalent to
1060MB. Thus, it is able to use all 1024MB.
The “Allow changes by more than
one user at the same time” option.
In a
group of users, it is very important to create a shared workbook so that
several people are able to update information and track changes in the workbook
at the same time. To do so, one should click on the review tab of the excel sheet and select
share workbook. On the editing tab of the share workbook dialog box, select the
Allow changes by more than one user at the same time check box. Go ahead and
click the advanced tab and select option you would want to use and then click
OK
Answer:Technology law scholars have recently started to consider the theories of affordance and technological mediation, imported from the fields of psychology, human-computer interaction (HCI), and science and technology studies (STS). These theories have been used both as a means of explaining how the law has developed, and more recently in attempts to cast the law per se as an affordance. This exploratory paper summarises the two theories, before considering these applications from a critical perspective, noting certain deficiencies with respect to potential normative application and definitional clarity, respectively. It then posits that in applying them in the legal context we should seek to retain the relational user-artefact structure around which they were originally conceived, with the law cast as the user of the artefact, from which it seeks certain features or outcomes. This approach is effective for three reasons. Firstly, it acknowledges the power imbalance between law and architecture, where the former is manifestly subject to the decisions, made by designers, which mediate and transform the substance of the legal norms they instantiate in technological artefacts. Secondly, from an analytical perspective, it can help avoid some of the conceptual and definitional problems evident in the nascent legal literature on affordance. Lastly, approaching designers on their own terms can foster better critical evaluation of their activities during the design process, potentially leading to more effective ‘compliance by design’ where the course of the law’s mediation by technological artefacts can be better anticipated and guided by legislators, regulators, and legal practitioners.
Keywords
Affordance, technological mediation, postphenomenology, legal theory, compliance by design, legal design
Explanation:
10:A program that assigns the sum 20,30,40
20: input 20,30,40
30:sum input
40: print total
End
