Hmmm... sounds like bystander effect, I think.
Answer:
New York Times V. United States 1971
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Times.
The government used the reasoning of national security by preventing The New York Times from printing the documents.
The main result of the case was that the government couldn't say that there was a danger to the United States if they couldn't prove it.
Explanation:
Answer:
Carnegie and Rockefeller both believed that the person who has a lot should give out to those who have less, and not stingy with the money. The rich man who is not sharing his wealth is the disgraced man.
Explanation:
<u>Carnegie has once stated, “He who dies rich, dies disgraced." This means that the one that has so much money that he can’t spend until his death so that he dies clutching on that money should be ashamed</u><u>. </u>Carnegie wanted to share his wealth and did not think it is fair that he has so much while some people have nothing. His moral obligation dictated him to share his money and let other people benefit from it.
<u>Rockefeller followed his example and decided to spend the fortune helping others as well. </u>Both industrials felt it is the only ethical thing to do if someone is as rich as they are.
<u>These feelings had also to do with their religious learnings and the faith that a good, honest religious man should always share with others who have less. </u>
Answer:
the answer is d: Ethnocentrism
Explanation:
Answer:
It's because of Nepal's topology.
Explanation:
Around 75% of Nepal is covered by mountains. In terms of transportation, They're considered as the most rugged and difficult terrain to pass through in the world.
This make the use of air transport becomes really integral to reach some areas of Nepal. People usually use road transport to a certain point (usually the big cities) and continue their journey to other parts of the country using small airplane.
