No, there isn't no electricity, sanitation, or water-supply systems because of course it is a mountain and people usually die trying to get to the tallest mountain in the world.
Hope I Helped You!!!
Answer:bureaucratic/Organizational: Pluralist
Explanation: The bureaucratic politics model and the organizational process model to explain what happened in October 1962 confrontation between the United States and the former Soviet Union. Even it being the main subject of significant criticism for close to four decades, the models are enduring elements of the foreign policy analysis lexicon. The bureaucratic politics model, has sprout and continues to attract much more attention than the organizational process model across a well known range of academic disciplines.
Answer:
YES
Explanation:
Because “At no previous time has American security been as seriously threatened from without as it is today,” Roosevelt admitted, but he still had hope for a future that would encompass the “four essential human freedoms”—including freedom from fear. And when Pearl Harbor was attacked at the end of that year, news reports from the time showed that Americans indeed responded with determination more than fear.
Nearly three quarters of a century later, a poll released in December found that Americans are more fearful of terrorism than at any point since Sept. 11, 2001. And while recent events like the attacks in ISIS-inspired attacks in Paris and the fatal shootings in San Bernardino, Calif. may have Americans particularly on edge, experts say that Roosevelt’s advice has gone unheeded for sometime. “My research starts in the 1980s and goes more or less till now, and there have been very high fear levels in the U.S. continuously,” says Barry Glassner, president of Lewis & Clark college and author of The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things.
Firm data on fear levels only go back so far, so it’s hard to isolate a turning point. Gallup polls on fear of terrorism only date to about the time of the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995. (At that point, 42% of respondents were very or somewhat worried about terrorism; the post-9/11 high mark for that question is 59% in October of 2001, eight percentage points above last month’s number.) Other questionnaires about fear of terrorism date back to the early 1980s, following the rise of global awareness of terrorism in the previous decade, as Carl Brown of Cornell University’s Roper Center public opinion archives points out. Academics who study fear use materials like letters and newspaper articles to fill in the gaps, and those documents can provide valuable clues.
Answer:
retrieval cues
Explanation:
Retrieval Cues: These are stimuli that help in memory retrieval. Retrieval cues help someone to access memories that are stored in long-term memory and helps in bringing them in conscious awareness. The recalling of memory becomes easier in the presence of retrieval cues.
Example of recall: Giving an answering to a question on a fill-in-the-blank test.
<span>ART BY THOMAS POROSTOCKY</span>PRO: RESEARCH ON GENE EDITING IN HUMANS MUST CONTINUE
By John Harris
<span>John Harris is professor emeritus in science ethics at University of Manchester, U.K., and the author of How to be Good, Oxford University Press 2016.</span>
In February of this year, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority in the United Kingdom approved a request by the Francis Crick Institute in London to modify human embryos using the new gene editing technique CRISPR-Cas9. This is the second time human embryos have been employed in such research, and the first time their use has been sanctioned by a national regulatory authority. The scientists at the Institute hope to cast light on early embryo development—work which may eventually lead to safer and more successful fertility treatments.
The embryos, provided by patients undergoing in vitro fertilization, will not be allowed to develop beyond seven days. But in theory—and eventually in practice—CRISPR could be used to modify disease-causing genes in embryos brought to term, removing the faulty script from the genetic code of that person’s future descendants as well. Proponents of such “human germline editing” argue that it could potentially decrease, or even eliminate, the incidence of many serious genetic diseases, reducing human suffering worldwide. Opponents say that modifying human embryos is dangerous and unnatural, and does not take into account the consent of future generations.
