Consider how much tech you touch in your lives—not just at home, but at school, work, shopping. In the United States, the e-waste volume amounts to about 42 pounds per person annually, and while e-waste is only about 2 percent of waste, it represents more than two-thirds of discarded toxic, heavy metals. This "effluent of the affluent" will only increase with the rise of living standards worldwide.
The quick answer would be to recycle this stuff. Not only does e-waste contain mainstream recyclable materials we're all familiar with, like plastics and aluminum, it also contains small bits of increasingly valuable metals such as silver, platinum, and copper. In fact, a ton of discarded smartphones contains more than 100 times the amount of gold than is found in a ton of ore. Done right, recycling produces far less CO2 emissions and other pollution than mining, and it's 13x cheaper to extract precious and rare earth metals from discarded electronics than it is to mine it from the earth.

Answer: a federal system was right for a new nation because it did not put one person in power but more than one in power to keep it from becoming one person making all the changes. Sorry if it didn’t make sense didn’t know how to word it.

Explanation:

Answer:

the most elaborate connection between different regions of the brain.

Answer:

Civil tax cases being disputed before the courts; Collection cases filed in courts; Criminal violations, other than those already filed in court or those involving criminal tax fraud.

Explanation:

The correct chronological order of the various phases of a criminal case would be:

a). arrest, trial, arraignment, appeal.

Thus, option a is the correct answer.

Learn more about 'Case' here:

brainly.com/question/8264226

The defense that may exist in this case is known as "misuse" or "contributory negligence."

This defense asserts that the plaintiff's own actions or failure to act, such as using the product in an unforeseeable or unreasonable manner, contributed to their injuries, and therefore the defendant should not be held fully responsible for the harm suffered by the plaintiff.

Under this defense, the defendant may argue that the plaintiff's misuse of the product was the cause of their injuries, rather than any defect in the product itself.

The defendant may also argue that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable precautions or use the product in a way that would have avoided the harm they suffered. If successful, the defense of misuse or contributory negligence may reduce or eliminate the defendant's liability for the plaintiff's injuries.

However, the specific rules and standards for applying this defense can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the circumstances of the case.

To know more about contributory negligence here:

https://brainly.com/question/29829781

#SPJ4

Answer:

itz a case...

Explanation:

Renowned forensic scientist Henry Lee said Thursday that the O.J. Simpson double-murder trial in 1995 not only revealed the racial chasm in America but the importance of strictly following established protocols in processing crime scenes.

“There were so many issues with the major crime scene in that case,” said Mr. Lee, who holds a doctorate and who testified for five days as a defense expert for Simpson. “This case set the landmarks for crime scene and laboratory handling of evidence.’

Mr. Lee’s comments came on the first day of the two-day inaugural conference “Pioneers of Forensic Science,” at which he is the first honoree. One of the world’s foremost criminalists, Mr. Lee has been involved in the Laci Peterson, JonBenet Ramsey, Caylee Anthony and Vince Foster cases, among many others.

Mr. Lee, Connecticut’s chief emeritus of scientific services, has served as that state’s commissioner of public safety, forensic science laboratory director and chief criminalist. He is the founder of the University of New Haven’s Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Science and is the namesake of its Henry C. Lee College of Criminal Justice and Forensic Sciences.

He spoke on a panel “People v. O.J. Simpson: An Interdisciplinary Retrospective on the Case that Brought Forensic Science to the World.”

Other panelists included F. Lee Bailey, a member of Simpson’s “Dream Team” of defense attorneys; Dr. Michael Baden, former chief medical examiner for New York City who also was a Simpson defense expert; and Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, Pittsburgh’s renowned forensic pathologist who was an expert commentator on the Simpson case on national television programs. He also is the namesake of Duquesne University’s Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law, the conference sponsor. University President Kenneth G. Gormley, who holds law degree, moderated the two-hour panel discussion.

A native of China, Mr. Lee said he had no idea who Mr. Simpson was when he was asked to be an expert for him at trial. He reconstructed the crime scene and examined every piece of evidence collected.

“I knew there was something wrong with the case by the physical evidence. There were lots of problems.”

He discovered that notes taken by Los Angeles Police Department criminalists at the scene were later substituted with other documents. “We found this out because the notes are stapled, but we found extra staple holes,” meaning they had been re-stapled.

Mr. Lee recounted his testimony about a crucial piece of the prosecution’s evidence—a bloodstain found on the walkway outside the Bundy Drive home where Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman were killed in June 1994.

DNA tests indicated O.J. Simpson was the likely source of the blood, but Mr. Lee testified he was suspicious because he discovered four small patches of blood on the paper packet wrapped around the Bundy evidence. That would indicate the blood swatches were wet and leaked onto the paper, yet LAPD technicians had testified that they left the swatches to dry overnight.

Asked by defense attorney Barry Scheck to account for the stains, Mr. Lee famously answered, “The only explanation I can give under these circumstances is, something’s wrong.”

As a scientist, Mr. Lee wouldn’t speculate either at the trial or at Thursday’s conference about how that could have occurred, but Mr. Bailey isn’t a scientist, so he wasn’t so circumspect. That evidence and the infamous glove and the bloody sock and anything else indicating Simpson’s guilt was planted, he said.

Answer:

True

Explanation:

alcohol is a depressant and marijuana is a stimulant

Answer: judicial branch

Explanation:

Answer:

I would say that Glen is responsible for all of the damages that are caused to Hank's land because the cows belong Glen and it is Glen's responsibility to fix things that are broken on his land so that way the animals don't escape. There fore I would say that Glen is responsible for the damages because he failed to keep his cows under control.  

Explanation:

Law enforcement officers speak to witnesses in order to C. gather evidence about a recent crime.

When investigating a crime, law enforcement officers often rely on witnesses to gather information and evidence related to the incident. Witnesses can provide firsthand accounts, observations, or relevant details about the crime or individuals involved.

By speaking to witnesses, officers aim to gather crucial information that can assist in understanding the sequence of events, identifying suspects, and building a comprehensive case. Civil trials typically involve legal disputes between private parties and are not within the direct purview of law enforcement.

Find out more on witnesses at https://brainly.com/question/2948653

#SPJ1

The presiding judge over the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder trial was Judge Lance Ito. He gained widespread attention and became a household name during this high-profile case. The trial was centered around the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson, O.J.'s ex-wife, and her friend Ronald Goldman. As the presiding judge, Ito was responsible for making crucial decisions related to the admissibility of evidence and overseeing the courtroom proceedings.

Judge Ito's decisions during the trial were closely scrutinized and often debated, given the intense media coverage and public interest in the case. He allowed cameras in the courtroom, which contributed to the trial's status as a media spectacle. One of the most memorable moments in the trial was the famous "glove demonstration," where O.J. Simpson attempted to put on the gloves found at the crime scene, ultimately resulting in the well-known phrase, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." The trial ended with O.J. Simpson being acquitted of the murder charges on October 3, 1995, a verdict that led to much debate and controversy. Judge Ito's role as the presiding judge in this case has left a lasting impact on the American legal system and public perception of high-profile trials.

to know about courtroom proceedings visit:

https://brainly.com/question/31865549

#SPJ11

Answer:

One criticism of separated powers is that it can also result in weak government, especially if the legislative and executive branches are controlled by different political parties.

Explanation:

Answer:

The criticisms of the doctrine of separation of powers are: Complete separation is not possible, Complete separation is not desirable, Impracticable in itself, and Separation of powers can lead to deadlocks and inefficiency.

Please give me brainliest -  you get 25% as well! I swear!

Answer:

The doctrine of identification was a principle used in old English law which stated that a person who gets injured while traveling due to another's negligence cannot claim damages if the driver of the conveyance is contributorily negligent.

Explanation:

i read about it

Answer:

28 percent

Explanation:

Accidents are caused by a variety of factors such as overspeeding, lack of concentration and mechanical faults. Alcohol impairs the driver in ways such as low concentration and blurry vision.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that alcohol was involved in approximately twenty eight percent of fatal crashes in the US in 2016. This was discovered by several blood alcohol concentration tests done on the drivers.

Answer:

Tuesday

Explanation:

After 1 month on the job, Tanner was fired for not learning the job fast enough. His employer can do this easily under an At-will employment agreement.

An at-will employment agreement is an agreement between an employee and employer in which either party can terminate the relationship at any time without providing any advance notice. Both parties have the option to sever the relationship for any reason or no reason at all. In an at-will relationship, the employer has the right to fire an employee for any cause or no cause at all.Therefore, in the given scenario, Tanner's employer can easily fire him under an At-will employment agreement because he did not learn the job fast enough in the given time period. The employer has the right to fire an employee in an at-will employment agreement at any time for any reason.

To know more about Employment agreement visit-

brainly.com/question/32178128

#SPJ11

Answer: False

Explanation:

An Appeals Court Judge is a Federal Judge which means they have to be nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. The requirements to be nominated however, are not very stringent.

A nominee for instance, does not even have to hold a law degree talk more of having been a practicing attorney. Although informal criteria exists, they do not revolve around an individual having been a practicing attorney so this statement is false.

Wrongful birth refers to a scenario whereby medical professionals do not adequately advise a parent about potential abnormalities in their unborn child during prenatal testing.

The parent may have decided against having the baby if they had known of the issues beforehand. Such parents can sue the healthcare provider for wrongful birth. There is no one right answer to whether a cause of action should be allowed in a wrongful birth. However, let's advocate against it.

It is not ethical to allow for wrongful birth lawsuits. Firstly, the responsibility of such lawsuits falls squarely on medical professionals. Medical professionals already carry an immense burden of dealing with human life. Doctors should not have to carry additional weight in cases where the issue was not caused by the medical personnel. As a result, wrongful birth cases may be detrimental to medical professionals' careers. Doctors may stop taking on high-risk cases to avoid potential litigation, resulting in the loss of innocent lives.Secondly, wrongful birth cases are a blatant disregard of human life. The child is a living and breathing individual that should not be subject to lawsuits. A child is a gift and a blessing regardless of their physical or mental condition. The laws surrounding wrongful birth should not devalue human life.Finally, wrongful birth lawsuits promote eugenics, which is a practice of selectively choosing traits in offspring. If wrongful birth lawsuits were to be allowed, it would lead to the promotion of aborting children with any perceived abnormality. It is ethically wrong to promote selective abortion based on perceived genetic defects.

In conclusion, wrongful birth lawsuits are not ethical. They promote selective abortions and disregard human life. Medical professionals are already under a great burden, and wrongful birth lawsuits would increase their workload and cause them unnecessary stress. A child's life is precious, and their physical or mental conditions do not determine their worth. Therefore, a cause of action for wrongful birth should not be allowed.

To know more about ethical visit:

brainly.com/question/30590798

#SPJ11

In the case of Garden City Boxing Club, Inc. v. Luis Dominguez, the parties involved in the dispute are the Garden City Boxing Club (GCB) as the plaintiff and Luis Dominguez as the defendant.

The facts associated with the case are as follows: Luis Dominguez owned Antenas Enterprises, which installed a satellite account at Mundelein Burrito restaurant.

Antenas mistakenly listed Mundelein Burrito as a residence instead of a commercial location. The Garden City Boxing Club held exclusive satellite licensing rights for a live broadcast of a boxing match between Oscar De La Hoya and Fernando Vargas. According to the contract, a commercial establishment could show the boxing match if it was authorized by GCB and paid the appropriate fee based on the maximum fire code occupancy of the establishment.
Mundelein Burrito, although classified as a residence, showed the boxing event to its patrons without paying the proper fee for a commercial establishment. As a result, GCB filed a lawsuit against Luis Dominguez, the sole proprietor of Antenas Enterprises, to collect the lost fees from the boxing match.
The legal issue in question is whether Dominguez, as a sole proprietor, should be held personally liable for the actions of Antenas Enterprises.
In this case, Dominguez should be held personally liable for Antenas Enterprises' actions. Under the principle of "piercing the corporate veil," a court may disregard the legal entity of a corporation or business entity and hold the individual owner personally liable if it is proven that the individual has not properly maintained the separation between their personal and business affairs.
In this case, Dominguez, as the sole proprietor of Antenas Enterprises, failed to correctly classify Mundelein Burrito as a commercial establishment, leading to the improper showing of the boxing match without paying the required fee. By neglecting to follow the contract terms and incorrectly representing the establishment, Dominguez can be held personally liable for the lost fees.
The appropriate rule of law that supports this decision is the principle of piercing the corporate veil, which allows the court to hold the individual owner personally liable for the actions of the business entity when they have not maintained proper separation between personal and business affairs.
While it is essential to consider other perspectives, in this case, the judgment would be in favor of GCB. By failing to classify Mundelein Burrito correctly, Dominguez breached the contract terms, resulting in financial loss for GCB. Dominguez's responsibility as the sole proprietor includes ensuring the correct classification of establishments and complying with contractual obligations.
In summary, based on the facts and legal principles involved, Dominguez should be held personally liable for Antenas Enterprises' actions. The principle of piercing the corporate veil supports this decision, as Dominguez failed to maintain the separation between personal and business affairs, leading to the improper showing of the boxing match without the required fee.

To know more about contractual visit:

https://brainly.com/question/27899951

#SPJ11

The government imposes a sales tax on hot dogs. The tax would be paid entirely by hot dog sellers if the supply is perfectly elastic. This statement is correct, let us learn about the factors affecting the demand and supply.

Supply is defined as the total amount of a product or service that is available for a specific price, while demand is defined as the willingness and ability of consumers to purchase a product or service at a specific price. According to the law of demand, the quantity of a product or service demanded by consumers decreases as the price of the product or service rises. On the other hand, according to the law of supply, the quantity of a product or service supplied by producers increases as the price of the product or service increases. The demand and supply of a product or service can be influenced by various factors, including taxes, subsidies, input costs, technological advancements, and consumer preferences.

The imposition of a sales tax on hot dogs would raise the cost of production and supply for hot dog sellers, and the effect would be that sellers would shift the burden of the tax onto the consumers by raising the price of the hot dogs. As a result of the price increase, demand for hot dogs will decrease as consumers would look for substitute products. In case the supply of hot dogs is perfectly elastic, then the sellers will be forced to absorb the entire cost of the tax because any increase in the price would lead to a complete loss of sales. Thus, the tax would be paid entirely by the hot dog sellers in such a situation.

To learn more about Government :

https://brainly.com/question/30775846

#SPJ11

Answer:

thomas

Explanation:

just did test

Thomas is a victim of identity theft because his credit card information was stolen and maxed out at a jewelry store.

Identity theft happens when someone commits fraud or another crime using another person's personal information—such as their name, identification number, or credit card number—without that person's consent. In 1964, the phrase "identity theft" was first used. Since that time, both the U.K. and the U.S. have statutory definitions of identity theft that include the theft of personally identifiable information.

Identity theft purposefully utilizes someone else's identity as a technique to acquire financial advantages or obtain credit and other benefits, and potentially to create other person's disadvantages or loss. When someone's identity is stolen, bad things can happen to them, especially if they are wrongly accused of being the offender.

Therefore, Thomas is an victim of identity theft.

To learn more about identity theft, click here:

https://brainly.com/question/29898436

#SPJ7

The Judge was likely concerned with the release of the records because they could make certain people look bad, or could be used to manipulate people for personal gain, rather than solely for the pursuit of justice.

The sensitive nature of the documents could create privacy issues for those involved, and some documents may contain false information or be leaked without the permission of all parties involved. Furthermore, many documents may contain information regarding protected classes, which could create potential legal issues.

Lastly, the release of the records would be a departure from precedent, as some documents in public files may not have been meant to be widely distributed. Therefore, the Judge was likely hesitant with the release of the records due to these ethical considerations.

To know more about Judge , click here:

https://brainly.com/question/16726610

#SPJ4

The tone in the passage is a pessimistic and sad one.

This refers to the mood implied by an author's word choice and the way that the text can make a reader feel.

The tone is pessimistic and sad because the author feels justice wasn't served as can be seen in 'your fate is likely to be determined by twelve people who are not even smart enough to get out of jury duty'.

Read more about Tone here https://brainly.com/question/22345646

Answer:

These changes in the money supply influence individuals and organizations in a mixture of ways.The length of the cash supply can increase or decrease the expense of acquiring or the speed of the premium.Therefore, creating it is unanalyzable or harder for organizations and people to receive cash. Hence, it gets impacted the individual as well as any business organization.

Explanation:

Hope this helps:)....if not then sorry for wasting your time and may God bless you:)

Answer:

The changes in the money supply are directly affecting the individual and the organizations or businesses in different ways.

Explanation:

A taxpayer is not required to make estimated tax payments if he or she meets any of the following requirements except one of the options given below:A. Owes less than $1,000 in tax for 2020B. Owes more than $1,000 in tax for 2020C. The withholding and refundable credits are at least 90% of the 2020 tax liabilityD.

The withholding and refundable credits are at least 100% of the 2019 tax liability.Estimated tax payments are paid to the IRS to avoid penalties and interest. The IRS recommends taxpayers to make quarterly estimated tax payments if their income is not subject to withholding or if the amount of tax withheld is not sufficient.

Taxpayers must pay the estimated tax to the IRS in equal installments to avoid penalties.A taxpayer is not required to make estimated tax payments if he or she owes less than $1,000 in tax for the current year. For example, if a taxpayer owes $800 in tax for the current year, he/she is not required to make estimated tax payments.

To know more about taxpayer visit:-

https://brainly.com/question/30158939

#SPJ11

The federal government relies most heavily on Income tax. The correct option is option A.

2. All the statements are true when it comes to when a beekeeper's bees pollinate the crops of the farmer next door. Option C is the correct option.

3. The type of tax explained is regressive tax. The correct option is option A.

4. The United States most closely resembles a mixed economic system. The correct option is B.

5. The category in which the government spend the most is healthcare. Option C is the correct option.

6. The option which is not considered as public good provided by the government is healthcare. Option E is the correct option.

7. The contracts do all of the listed options. The correct option is option C.

8. The government is NOT likely to address a positive externality using law. The correct option is option E.

9. Pollution is not a public goods provided by the government. The correct option is option D.

10. The fishes in the ocean are rival and nonexcludable. The correct option is option B.

Income tax is a kind of tax that is imposed on people or organizations based on their earnings or income. It is often imposed by the government and is used to pay for public programs and services. The amount of income tax payable is typically calculated by applying a tax rate to the taxpayer's taxable income. Depending on the income threshold and tax regulations of the particular nation or jurisdiction, the tax rate may change. Regularly throughout the year, income tax is normally paid by withholding from paychecks or projected tax payments.

Learn more about Income Tax here

https://brainly.com/question/30157668

#SPJ4

The court found that the death penalty was being applied arbitrarily and discriminatorily, resulting in an excessive number of death sentences.

The Furman decision effectively halted all executions in the United States, and many states responded by re-evaluating their death penalty statutes. In 1976, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty in Gregg v. Georgia, which allowed states to reinstate the death penalty under revised statutes that addressed the concerns raised in Furman. As a result, many states revised their death penalty laws to make the application of the penalty more consistent and less arbitrary.

Today, the death penalty is still in effect in 27 states, but there is ongoing debate and litigation over its constitutionality and fairness. The effects of the Furman decision can still be seen in the continued efforts to ensure that the death penalty is applied fairly and consistently.
Read more about constitutionality here:https://brainly.com/question/14918421
#SPJ11