Answer:
The correct answer would be option B, Judge's own personal feelings about the internet.
Explanation:
When a case comes to a court, it is the responsibility of a judge to see every aspect of the case and analyze it on the basis of given evidence or set rules or standards, or in the light of decisions made on the same case by other courts. But in this question, it is said that the case which was brought to the court was the first in its kind, it means no such type of case has been ever submitted in any court before. The freedom of speech on internet is a sensitive issue. So all aspects should be kept in mind while proceeding the case, and it would not be considered proper for the judge to bring his person feelings about the internet into the case. His personal feelings should be set aside and the case should be solved on the basis of evidences and solid views.
Answer:
point-of-sale systems
are critical for capturing sales data, and are usually linked to systems which manager a firm's inventory.
Answer:
<em>proportion of non-California household earning above 250,000: 1.03%</em>
Explanation:
being Californian's household: 0.12
and from their 0.033 earn above 250,000
that leaves:
0.12 x 0.033 = 0.00396 proportion to household in california which earn above 250,000 per year agsins the entire household population in the country.
Now, 0.013 are the total household above 250,000
we subtract Californian's rich household and get the households for the country:
0.013 - 0.00396 = 0.00904
now we divide this by the .88 household that don't live in california:
0.00904/0.88 = 0.010272727272
The proportion will be of <em>1.03%</em>
John could either keep looking for an apartment that he can afford 100% of, or he could look for a roommate and go 50/50 on the monthly rent.