Is it appropriate to send an electronic version of a thank you after an interview or should you always send a thank you through the mail?
Yes, it can be appropriate given specific circumstances. I always factor in a few key circumstances: 1. How were the potential employers contacting you? Was it primarily through email or was it over the phone? If it was primarily through email, then it may be appropriate to email a thank you. 2. What are the company's values? Is conservation a value of theirs? If so, then it may be appropriate to make sure you follow their value by sending your thank you electronically. 3. How many people did you see? Did you only see a HR Manager or did you meet with teams of people? If you met with multiple teams throughout a day-long interview, it may be difficult to get thank yous to each individual, it may be appropriate to send one electronic thank you to whoever coordinated your interview and ask them to send it on. 4. What is the expected hiring turnaround/timeline? If the company is moving quickly then you will want to also be quick with your thank you and send it electronically because sending a thank you through the mail may take too long and their decision is already complete.
X + 10 = 15 What is X?
X + 10 = 15 -10 -10 *Subtract 10 from both sides of the equal sign, it keeps the equation equally balanced. X = 5 *This is the final answer, but don't forget to do a double check but putting your answer in the original equation. 5 + 10 = 15 15 = 15
What does it mean to have a "checks and balances" system in the US Government structure?
There are three branches of the US Government: Judicial, Legislative, and Executive. Each of these branches are given its powers through the US Constitution. In order to prevent any one of the three branches from having too much power, the drafters of the Constitution, included each of the branches' powers. Essentially, the Constitution says what each branch can do and if the Constitution does not give the branch the power to do something, then they cannot do it. For example, the Judicial Branch, or the US Supreme Court cannot enact new legislature or write new federal laws. This is not a power they are given in the Constitution. The "checks and balances" system is what the drafters of the Constitution had as a vision of the US Government to prevent any of them from becoming tyrannical. There are multiple examples of this system, but let's look specifically at how a law is created. The Legislative Branch is the branch that is given the power to create a law. The Executive Branch is able take a law passed by the Legislative Branch and either sign it into enactment or to veto it. This provides the first "check and balance", a law needs both branches' approvals before it can become a law or if the Executive Branch feels that it isn't a law that is in the best interests of the country, they are able to veto it. The next "check and balance" would be that the Legislative Branch is able to overturn an Executive Branches' veto. This allows for the elected congressmen to essentially overrule the Executive Branch, but only if enough of them disagree with the Executive Branches' veto. The last and major "check and balance" is that once a law is enacted, it can be challenged on constitutional grounds in the US Supreme Court. This gives the Judicial Branch the power to rule whether the law is constitutional or unconstitutional. If they rule that it is unconstitutional then the law is rendered null and void. This is only one example of the "checks and balances" system as much of the appointments and impeachment processes are also good examples of this system.