1.What is the time complexity (represented in terms of Big Oh) for performing a push operation when a stack is implemented using an array? Furthermore, a pointer TOS is used to track the top of the stack, and a variable maxsize to track the maximum size of the stack.
2.What is the time complexity (represented in terms of Big Oh) for performing a dequeue operation when a queue is implemented using an array? Furthermore, to track the head and tail of the queue, there are two pointers i.e. front and rear.
pesticides, freeways, the loss of wilderness and the extinction of wildlife were brought to light. At that time, president Nixon wasn’t interested or concerned about environment issues but decided to seize an opportunity to attract new supporters and sent dozens of environment proposals to Congress, including the Clean Water Act of 1972 (Madel, R., 2012). After the act passed through Congress, due to the cost associated with it, Nixon vetoed it. On October 18, 1972 the Senate followed by the House overrode Nixon’s vetoed and the bill was passed (David A Keiser, Joseph S Shapiro., 2019). The Clean Water Act is administered by the Administer of the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in coordination with state governments. According to Sec. 104 (C) the Administrator conducted research on, and surveyed the results of other scientific studies on the harmful effects on health and even welfare of people due to pollutants. These studies, in order to avoid any duplicate results, had to be conducted in cooperation with and through the facilities of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. The strengths of this policy were that it was supported by Congress so strongly that they overruled President Nixon’s veto on it. Also the fact that it was aiming to improve and conserve waters for the protection and propagation of fish, aquatic life, and wildlife, recreational purposes, and the withdrawal of such waters for public water supply, agricultural, industrial and many other important beneficial purposes. The Clean Water Act states that the discharge of pollutant into navigable waters. The Supreme Court ruled that since the policy states “navigable waters”, this means the policy does not apply to waters you cannot sail a boat or ship down; such as ponds and seasonal creeks (The Economist, 2010). This limitation has an impact on the policy because it leaves a loophole for people to dump their pollutants into water that is non-navigable. Another flaw that is seen with this act is, dumping pollutants on land and then the pollutants runoff into waters, such as drinking water, and therefore contaminating the waters. With the wording of the policy, the biggest consequence has been the loophole the Supreme Court has found. Being able to dump water into small bodies of water, has decreased the success of the policy. This consequence is seen as negative because although the policy is effective by limiting the amount of pollutants dumped into the water, the non-navigable waters are being affected, which in turn, affects the environment around them. This unintended consequence can affect the population that surround the non-navigable waters, the pollutants may have chemicals and other harsh elements that may have negative impacts on the population. Runoffs from land dumping is another unforeseen consequence that is negative because people that are dumping in lands may not know the pollutants will end up in the waters and be bad water quality for the population.>GET ANSWER