Answer:
a)
, b)
,
,
, c)
,
,
, 
Explanation:
a) The total number of users that can be accomodated in the system is:


b) The length of the side of each cell is:


Minimum time for traversing a cell is:



The maximum time for traversing a cell is:


The approximate time is giving by the average of minimum and maximum times:


c) The total number of users that can be accomodated in the system is:


The length of each side of the cell is:


Minimum time for traversing a cell is:



The maximum time for traversing a cell is:


The approximate time is giving by the average of minimum and maximum times:


Answer:
Never anchor from the stern as this can cause the boat to swamp.
Explanation:
Brainliest pls
Answer:
d. All of the above would require an EIS.
Explanation:
A document prepared with the aim of describing the impacts of suggested operations on the environment is an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). There was a mistake. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is therefore a report describing the environmental effects resulting from a current action. All of the activities above would have an effect on the environment and therefore must fill an EIS
Answer:
A famous example of concurrent engineering is the development of the Boeing 777 commercial aircraft. The aircraft was designed and built by geographically distributed companies that worked entirely on a common product database of C A TIA without building physical mock-ups but with digital product definitions.
Answer:
Artefacts can influence our actions in several ways. They can be instruments, enabling and facilitating actions, where their presence affects the number and quality of the options for action available to us. They can also influence our actions in a morally more salient way, where their presence changes the likelihood that we will actually perform certain actions. Both kinds of influences are closely related, yet accounts of how they work have been developed largely independently, within different conceptual frameworks and for different purposes. In this paper I account for both kinds of influences within a single framework. Specifically, I develop a descriptive account of how the presence of artefacts affects what we actually do, which is based on a framework commonly used for normative investigations into how the presence of artefacts affects what we can do. This account describes the influence of artefacts on what we actually do in terms of the way facts about those artefacts alter our reasons for action. In developing this account, I will build on Dancy’s (2000a) account of practical reasoning. I will compare my account with two alternatives, those of Latour and Verbeek, and show how my account suggests a specification of their respective key concepts of prescription and invitation. Furthermore, I argue that my account helps us in analysing why the presence of artefacts sometimes fails to influence our actions, contrary to designer expectations or intentions.
When it comes to affecting human actions, it seems artefacts can play two roles. In their first role they can enable or facilitate human actions. Here, the presence of artefacts changes the number and quality of the options for action available to us.Footnote1 For example, their presence makes it possible for us to do things that we would not otherwise be able to do, and thereby adopt new goals, or helps us to do things we would otherwise be able to do, but in more time, with greater effort, etc
Explanation:
Technological artifacts are in general characterized narrowly as material objects made by (human) agents as means to achieve practical ends. ... Unintended by-products of making (e.g. sawdust) or of experiments (e.g. false positives in medical diagnostic tests) are not artifacts for Hilpinen.