Answer:
A central processing unit (CPU), also called a central processor, main processor or just processor, is the electronic circuitry that executes instructions comprising a computer program. The CPU performs basic arithmetic, logic, controlling, and input/output (I/O) operations specified by the instructions in the program.
One of the limitation of the social media marketing is the risk of negative comments that can hamper the marketing strategy and certainly hamper the sales.
<h3>What is marketing?</h3>
Marketing can be defined as the advertising of the services or products into the market for making the end user aware about the product. There are various marketing tricks that can help in increasing the sales of the products or services.
Learn more about marketing, here:
brainly.com/question/13414268
#SPJ1
Answer:
B. installApplication(‘A’, 1);
Explanation:
Given
The above code segment
Required
The correct call to installApplication
The function installApplication is declared as void, meaning that it is not expected to return anything.
Also, it receives a character and an integer argument.
So, the call to this function must include a character and an integer argument, in that order.
Option D is incorrect because both arguments are integer
Option C is incorrect because it passes no argument to the function.
Option A is incorrect because it receives an integer value from the function (and the function is not meant not to have a return value).
Option B is correct
Answer:
The answer is cross-site scripting(XSS)attack.
Explanation:
Hope this helps!
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
