Answer:
The following explains the outcome and significance of the District of Columbia v. Heller case,
The Supreme Court decided in favor of Heller, that the Second Amendment allows law-abiding U.S. citizens to own and carry handguns in the district.
Explanation: In the 2008 landmark Supreme Court Case The District of Columbia v. Heller, it was found that the Second Amendment allows LAW ABIDING citizens to own and carry handguns in the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). This case found the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 as unconstitutional. The Act of 1975 called for handguns used for home and self defense to be unloaded, disassembled, and/or locked.
Answer: The fact that their brain activity revealed that they recognized the sounds they had heard while asleep indicates that the infants learned the sounds they had heard while asleep.
Brain activity revealed that they recognized the sound while asleep and also the only time the sound was played was when they were nappin. Obviously, the sound was learned while asleep.
When the New Netherlands sent Henry Hudson on an exploration trip, he claimed rich farmland along the Hudson River.
Answer? 1) Yes, it is a bit ironic. If a company has an Ethics program that's comprehensive enough, executives should not have to be caught in business criminal activities.
2.) First let's talk about Ethics programs. These are basically programs that embody the business philosophies of a company such that every stakeholder understand how business is run in the company. It basically defines to employees, staff, investors, vendors and customers the rules of Business Ethics as defined by the firm, from the maximum amount of tips to collect from customers to how intimate employees get with clients so that there's no confusion. Now, all this is to clarify but the question here is how effective was the program if criminal activity was discovered? It's simple. The most comprehensive Ethics programs can't control human circumstantial behaviour. As clear as rules may be, they are always still broken. And this is because, with humans, there an infinite number of things to put into consideration, most of which won't always follow rules. One may be 100% compliant with said rules but find themselves weak to give in at some point for any possible reason the person deemed more important than upholding the companies ethics. In other words, these rules are held by the people it binds and the delivery will always be subjective. Whenever it is deemed unfavorable to uphold, it most likely will be dropped.
Therefore, it might have been the most effective and comprehensive Ethics program in the world but only as effective as the executives demmed it subjectively.
