In which year Barak Obama got Nobel Peace Prize? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. In which year Barak Obama got Nobel Peace Prize?

Answer: 2009

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->In which year Barak Obama got Nobel Peace Prize?....

QA->The Confucius Peace Prize which was created in 2010 by an organization in the People"s Republic of China as a move to counter the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to?....

QA->Who was defeated by Barak Obama in the2012 presidential election?....

QA->Which Year Mandela got Nobel Prize for Peace?....

QA->IN WHICH YEAR UNICEF HAS GOT THE NOBEL PRIZE FOR PEACE....

MCQ-> Instructions: In the following passage there are blanks, each of which has been numbered. These numbers are printed below the passage and against each, five words are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately. Find out the appropriate word in each case.President Barack Obama’s recent statement of his Afghanistan policy has again (1
) the intractable situation the United States has (2) since it led the invasion of the country in 2001
. In his State of the Union address to the Congress on January 28, Mr. Obama said the mission there would be (3) by the end of the year, and that thereafter the U.S. and its allies would (4) a “unified Afghanistan”, as it took responsibility for itself. With the agreement of the Afghan government, a “small force” could (5) to train and (6) Afghan forces and carry out counterterrorism operations against any AI – Qaeda (7).Washington has (8) 60,000 of its troops from Afghanistan since Mr. Obama took office in 2009, but 36,500 remain, with 1
9,000 from other countries in the NATO – ISAF coalition. Western plans are for a residual force of 8,000 to 1
2,000, two – thirds of them American, but sections of the U.S. military have (9) a U.S. strength of 1
0,000 with 5,000 from the rest of the coalition. Mr. Obama is discussing the (1
0) with senior officers.1
...

MCQ-> Answer question based on the following information:On a certain day six passengers from Chennai, Bangalore, Kochi, Kolkata, Mumbai, and Hyderabad boarded the New Delhi bound Rajdhani Express from TataNagar. The following facts are known about these six passengers:1.The persons from Kochi and Chennai are less than 36 years of age. Person Z, the youngest among all is a doctor.2.The oldest person is from Kolkata and his/her profession is same as that of the person who got down at Mughal Sarai. 3.The person from Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad and Mumbai got down at four different stations. The eldest among these four got down at Koderma and the youngest at Kanpur. The person who got down at New Delhi is older than the person who got down at Mughal Sarai. 4. The engineer from Bangalore is older than the engineer from Chennai.5. While arranging the teachers in increasing order of age it was observed that the middle person is as old as the engineer from Chennai.6.Person Y who got down at Mughal Sarai is less than 34 year old.7.The teacher from Kochi is four year older than the 31 year old doctor who is not from Mumbai.8.In the past, three of the travellers have served in the Indian Army.Which of the following options is true?
...

MCQ-> The second plan to have to examine is that of giving to each person what she deserves. Many people, especially those who are comfortably off, think this is what happens at present: that the industrious and sober and thrifty are never in want, and that poverty is due to idleness, improvidence, drinking, betting, dishonesty, and bad character generally. They can point to the fact that a labour whose character is bad finds it more difficult to get employment than one whose character is good; that a farmer or country gentleman who gambles and bets heavily, and mortgages his land to live wastefully and extravagantly, is soon reduced to poverty; and that a man of business who is lazy and does not attend to it becomes bankrupt. But this proves nothing that you cannot eat your cake and have it too; it does not prove that your share of the cake was a fair one. It shows that certain vices make us rich. People who are hard, grasping, selfish, cruel, and always ready to take advantage of their neighbours, become very rich if they are clever enough not to overreach themselves. On the other hand, people who are generous, public spirited, friendly, and not always thinking of the main chance, stay poor when they are born poor unless they have extraordinary talents. Also as things are today, some are born poor and others are born with silver spoons in their mouths: that is to say, they are divided into rich and poor before they are old enough to have any character at all. The notion that our present system distributes wealth according to merit, even roughly, may be dismissed at once as ridiculous. Everyone can see that it generally has the contrary effect; it makes a few idle people very rich, and a great many hardworking people very poor.On this, intelligent Lady, your first thought may be that if wealth is not distributed according to merit, it ought to be; and that we should at once set to work to alter our laws so that in future the good people shall be rich in proportion to their goodness and the bad people poor in proportion to their badness. There are several objections to this; but the very first one settles the question for good and all. It is, that the proposal is impossible and impractical. How are you going to measure anyone's merit in money? Choose any pair of human beings you like, male or female, and see whether you can decide how much each of them should have on her or his merits. If you live in the country, take the village blacksmith and the village clergyman, or the village washerwoman and the village schoolmistress, to begin with. At present, the clergyman often gets less pay than the blacksmith; it is only in some villages he gets more. But never mind what they get at present: you are trying whether you can set up a new order of things in which each will get what he deserves. You need not fix a sum of money for them: all you have to do is to settle the proportion between them. Is the blacksmith to have as much as the clergyman? Or twice as much as the clergyman? Or half as much as the clergyman? Or how much more or less? It is no use saying that one ought to have more the other less; you must be prepared to say exactly how much more or less in calculable proportion.Well, think it out. The clergyman has had a college education; but that is not any merit on his part: he owns it to his father; so you cannot allow him anything for that. But through it he is able to read the New Testament in Greek; so that he can do something the blacksmith cannot do. On the other hand, the blacksmith can make a horse-shoe, which the parson cannot. How many verses of the Greek Testament are worth one horse-shoe? You have only to ask the silly question to see that nobody can answer it.Since measuring their merits is no use, why not try to measure their faults? Suppose the blacksmith swears a good deal, and gets drunk occasionally! Everybody in the village knows this; but the parson has to keep his faults to himself. His wife knows them; but she will not tell you what they are if she knows that you intend to cut off some of his pay for them. You know that as he is only a mortal human being, he must have some faults; but you cannot find them out. However, suppose he has some faults he is a snob; that he cares more for sport and fashionable society than for religion! Does that make him as bad as the blacksmith, or twice as bad, or twice and quarter as bad, or only half as bad? In other words, if the blacksmith is to have a shilling, is the parson to have six pence, or five pence and one-third, or two shillings? Clearly these are fools' questions: the moment they bring us down from moral generalities to business particulars it becomes plain to every sensible person that no relation can be established between human qualities, good or bad, and sums of money, large or small.It may seem scandalous that a prize-fighter, for hitting another prize-fighter so hard at Wembley that he fell down and could not rise within ten seconds, received the same sum that was paid to the Archbishop of Canterbury for acting as Primate of the Church of England for nine months; but none of those who cry out against the scandal can express any better in money the difference between the two. Not one of the persons who think that the prize-fighter should get less than the Archbishop can say how much less. What the prize- fighter got for his six or seven months' boxing would pay a judge's salary for two years; and we all agree that nothing could be more ridiculous, and that any system of distributing wealth which leads to such absurdities must be wrong. But to suppose that it could be changed by any possible calculation that an ounce of archbishop of three ounces of judge is worth a pound of prize-fighter would be sillier still. You can find out how many candles are worth a pound of butter in the market on any particular day; but when you try to estimate the worth of human souls the utmost you can say is that they are all of equal value before the throne of God:And that will not help you in the least to settle how much money they should have. You must simply give it up, and admit that distributing money according to merit is beyond mortal measurement and judgement.Which of the following is not a vice attributed to the poor by the rich?
...

MCQ->McDonald’s ran a campaign in which it gave game cards to its customers. These game cards made it possible for customers to win hamburgers, French fries, soft drinks, and other fast-food items, as well as cash prizes. Each card had 10 covered spots that could be uncovered by rubbing them with a coin. Beneath three of these spots were “No Prize” signs. Beneath the other seven spots were names of the prizes, two of which were identical. For, example, one card might have two pictures of a hamburger, one picture of a coke, one of French fries, one of a milk shake, one of a $5, one of $1000, and three “No Prize” signs. For this card the customer could win a hamburger. To win on any card, the customer had to uncover the two matching spots (which showed the potential prize for that card)before uncovering a “No Prize”; any card with a “No Prize” uncovered was automatically void. Assuming that the two matches and the three “No Prize” signs were arranged randomly on the cards, what is the probability of a customer winning?...

MCQ-> Study the given pie-charts carefully to answer the question that follows Break-up of numbers of employees working in different department of an organisation, the number of males and the number of employees who Recently Got promoted in Each Department Break-up of the employees working in different departments:Total number of employees=3,600Employees working in different departments

Break-up of Number of Males in Each Department Total number of males in the Organisation = 2,040 Break-up of Number of Males Working in Each Department

Break-up of Number of employees who recently Got Promoted in each Department Total number of Employees who got promoted = 1,200 Number of Employees who recently Got Promoted from Each Department

If half of the number of employees who got promoted from the IT department were males what was the approximate percentage of males who got promoted from the IT department ?
...