Answer:
Option (d) outfile.write();
Explanation:
As the object created for the class BufferedWriter is outfile, outfile.write is the correct syntax for writing in a text file. Here, write is the method used for writing into a text file. The data present is written in the textfile. Here, the text file is opened before writing the text into the file. Option (d) is correct.
Option (a) outfile.newLine(); is used to separate the lines. This is used to break the existing lines into smaller lines. This can also be used to start a new line. Here, newLine() is the method.So, option (a) is not suitable.
Option (b) outfile.existLine(); This is not a valid syntax as there is no method called existLine() in the class BufferedWriter. So, this is a wrong option.
Option (c) Write(outfile); This is not a valid syntax for writing in a text file. This is a wrong option.
Answer:
Tbh i dont even know
Explanation:
I had who i wanted to become president but i don't even know anymore
Answer:
- Local fisherman recover the body of Major Martin off the coast of Spain
.
- Spanish officials pass off the information in the briefcase to German agents.
- Major Martin's name appears on a casualty list in a British newspaper.
- Germany prepares for an imminent attack on the island of Sardinia.
Explanation:
This above is the order in which Operation Mincemeat was executed in WW2 to deceive the Germans into believing that the Allies were going to invade the Balkans directly instead of Sicily which was their actual target.
The plan involved a fictitious Major Martin who had secret documents about the Allied invasion of the Balkans. After the body was released from a British submarine, it washed up in Spain where it was found by local fishermen.
Spanish officials then passed the information in the briefcase Major Martin had to German intelligence. To further reinforce the ruse, the British published Major Martin's name in a casualty list.
The Germans were thoroughly convinced and switched forces from Sicily for the defence of the Balkans and the island of Sicily.
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
