How so? For a 3 year manned mission, you'll need a decent living volume, possibly (if we're dreaming big) with some sort of centrifugal spinning mechanism for faking gravity, including all sorts of basic amenities (space toilet, food pouch heater, whatever). That'll be heavy. Meantime, the astronauts can be ferried into orbit in something no bigger than a Dragon capsule- internal space no bigger than a small family car.
Are you implying that scientific equipment and basic amenities couldn't survive high Gs? You'd be surprised what engineering can do that biology can't.
You have my sympathy. UK here- 30 MB down ("fair use" unlimited) for £20 a month + £15 line rental ($50 ish total). And I get that too, according to Speedtest.net. Upload is poorer (advertised 5 MB, more like 3 MB), but that's not overly limiting for domestic use.
A manned mission to Mars might consist of: 1) Fuel for breaking out of Earth Orbit 2) A living environment 3) Life support & 3 years worth of supplies 4) Scientific equipment 5) Fuel for the return trip 6) A few squishy humans
All of items 1-5 could be sent up by "slingatron", with the humans ferried up in a small capsule (a standard SpaceX Dragon capsule would do) to dock and transfer over in orbit.
Tax is charged as a percent of the price charged. So if you say to someone "you buy Windows, and I'll install and configure it for you for $60", you'll need to add $3.75 to your tax bill ($60 x 0.0625). if you say to someone "you buy Windows, and I'll install and configure it for you for free", you'll need to add $0 to your tax bill ($0 x 0.0625).
I'm not seeing what the problem is. If you're a business charging people for something, you pay the sales tax as part of the cost of doing business. If you're not a business and not charging people for things, you can carry on as usual. Same as any other walk of life.
Yep, I was really hoping to see it follow an obstacle course with a sequence of different challenges for it to traverse (that's what "Parkour robot" conjures up in my mind, anyway). My hopes were raised when they started the clip of it following the rubber trackway, but all that led to was a millimetre-deep puddle of water.
Seems cool and all, but I'd suggest that programming a legged robot to fling itself over gaps is probably the least of the challenges of making an all-terrain robot. Programming it to identify obstacles with a small camera and identify the best way of crossing it would be the tricky part.
Most countries will not extradite someone if there's a chance of them getting tortured or executed. Even if the prospect is very unlikely, defendant lawyers will be able use it to block an extradition. A signed letter from a head of state/justice from a country prevents this from being used as a defence.
All that is required is certainty that the person won't be tortured. That should not need a special letter each and every time- there should be a letter saying that we promise to never torture anyone ever, which can be used in any circumstance.
EU countries have that- no EU country has ever been asked to sign a letter promising not to torture someone, because it is understood that extant Human Rights legislation already covers that with gusto.
The GP is expressing sadness because the US really should be in that category. The Constitution is supposed to promise exactly that. However, it is widely understood around the world that modern America partakes in what the rest of the world defines as torture- whether it be waterboarding, or the bizarre naked-solitary-confinement that Manning has had to endure. It is, therefore, a very sad thing that despite what the US Constitution says, there is no automatic guarantee that a prisoner of the United States will not be tortured. The President now needs to "Scout's Honour" promise it on a case-by-case basis.
(And don't get me started on the death penalty. But that's a well trodden flamefest that I don't think we need to restart here and now...)
Just purely out of interest, who did you vote for? Which third party candidate rang your particular bell?
And if you didn't vote because "all politicians are corrupt", you're as much a part of the problem as anyone else. More so, even; at least politicians will pay half an iota of attention to people who's votes they need- non-voters they can safely ignore forever.
Please do accept my apologies- it wasn't really a comment intended to be at you (the commenter) specifically. Just the general (and pervasive) "Mohammed was a paedophile" thing, which continuously winds me up.
"Extremism" says it all. Presumably they mean "Islamists" at the moment. But there's nothing illegal about Islamism- personally I think it's a horrible political ideology, but banning peoples' political parties because they don't seem very nice to people in other political parties seems very, very wrong.
How long before we had the Communists and the Fascists to the list of "extremists"? What about the Anarcho-Syndicalists, and the Libertarians? Separatist Nationalists? Hard-line Socialists? Parties-to-the-Right-of-the-Tories and parties-to-the-Left-of-Labour? Usually I hate "slippery slope" arguments, but yeah- slippery slope...
Indeed, young marriages were common in Medieval Europe far later than Mohammed's time. Mohammed died in 632 AD. Take this list of marriages from some random website:
Bianca of Savoy, Duchess of Milan was married aged 13yo (1350), and aged 14yo when she gave birth to her eldest son, Giangaleazzo (1351). Theodora Comnena was aged 13yo when she was married King Baldwin III of Jerusalem (1158). Agnes of France was 12yo when, widowed, she was married to Andronicus Comnenus, Byzantine Emperor (1182). St Elizabeth of Portugal was aged 12yo when she was married to King Denis of Portugal and gave birth to three children shortly thereafter. Caterina Sforza was betrothed aged 9yo, married aged 14yo, and gave birth aged 15yo. Lucrezia Borgia was married to her first husband aged 13yo and bore a son within a few years. Beatrice d'Este was betrothed aged 5yo and married aged 15yo.
And that's us "civilised Christian folk". Racism is a subtle creature...
The numbers speak for themselves. The number of American troops during the Normandy beach landings = 63,000, British =60,000. The casualty figures are similarly even.
As you say, Hollywood revisionism is to blame for a lot of the misconceptions about the American role in the war. It was a big role, but far from a one-nation-show.
Share price is not just about how much a company is worth right now, today; it is about how much a company is going to be worth in the near future. Since nobody has a time machine or crystal ball, the "future" bit is entirely down to what people think based on all sorts of intangible things.
So to reiterate the BP point. BP had assets worth $X. But they had also been in a major public scandal that was going to cost them money. How much money? $X/10? $X+1? And what of their future prospects- would they ever be allowed near another risky oil or gas field in the United States ever again? It might be that all the clean-up costs, law suits and fines added together are greater than all of their assets combined; which would make them bankrupt. Nobody really thought that, but plenty of people wondered exactly how much damage would be done, and what that mean the company would be worth the same time next year...
I'm sure it's fine, but it's proprietary (closed source), from some Chinese company. I don't mean to play the "everything from China is evil spyware" card (because I genuinely don't believe they're much worse than anyone else), but that'll be enough to put many people off.
I've seen exactly one, exactly once, and it was in the hands of a Microsoft consultant that we've got working with us at the moment. That is to say, he brought it to work with him exactly one time, out of the 60 or 70 days I've seen him now. He has 3 colleagues on site, who have never had one with them.
They all are using Windows 8 (obviously); they're just limiting themselves to real laptops on which it is possible to do actual things and whatnot.
The question, I suppose (for we gawkers, not for the courts- as you say, beyond reasonable doubt etc.) is whether Zimmerman's narrative seems plausible. Martin was a teenager, out on his own, with no history of violence or criminal record, who appears to have simply been walking home from the shops with some sweets. Zimmerman claims that Martin leapt on him unprovoked, "sucker punched" him, and brutally assaulted him by smashing his head against the kerb (something which could very easily have been murder). We are also told he made a grab for a gun which we are told was lawfully concealed when he launched his ambush. Whilst being pinned down and having his head repeatedly smashed against concrete, Zimmerman managed to unholster his concealed weapon and fire it.
The alternative narrative seems more seductive. Zimmerman was a man who had armed himself (legally, but that's beside the point) and had taken himself out "on patrol"- he went out looking for criminals. He saw someone who he managed to convince himself was a trouble maker, and called the police. He decided to help the police do their job, by following the person and brandishing a gun. Martin, spooked at being followed by a stranger with a gun, reacted in reasonable self defence- tackling Zimmerman, hitting out at him, and trying to disarm him. During this scuffle, Zimmerman fired his gun.
I suppose where I am struggling with this one is by trying to extrapolate the consequences to other cases. Let's try the "dark alley" test. Two men separately enter a dark alley with no witnesses. Neither have a criminal record. One of them is armed. The unarmed man is shot dead. The Prosecution argues that this is murder. The defendant says "he started it- it was self defence". Can there be a conviction? Or to put it another way, is it ever possible to reach a conviction for murder/assault in a case with no independent witnesses, or is every case of "he said, she said" an automatic acquittal? By consequence, if I want to murder someone and get away with it, do I simply need to do it when no-one is watching?
I use Startpage on some of my machines as the default, but it's not as good at Google. Plenty of searches that provide fruitful results in Google return nil results in Startpage.
I've never used DDG in anger; I should probably give it a go.
Could you fill me in? I've not been following it very closely (UK based, not big news over hear), and I'm finding the verdict a little confusing. Not least based on the content of TFA and the BBC news story.
Here's my understanding of events, based on just today's articles. Zimmerman leaves his house armed with a gun, and curb crawls around his neighbourhood "on patrol". A teenage boy with no criminal record or history of violence walks through the neighbourhood after visiting the local shops to buy some food (the "bag of Skittles"). There is a small possibility that he has been involved in vandalism or petty theft at school, but nothing had ever come of it. Zimmerman calls 911 to report a "suspicious person"; the operator tells him to leave it well alone. Zimmerman gets out of his car and follows Martin on foot, who is still walking in the direction of his house, and then some violence ensues. The Prosecution claim that Zimmerman confronted Martin with his gun, Martin may possibly have reacted in self defence, and in the fracas Zimmerman pulled the trigger killing him. The Defence claims that Martin turned and made an unprovoked violent assault on Zimmerman, "smashing his head into the concrete ground", and "grabbing for the gun". The articles report that Zimmerman did not have serious injuries, and Martin's DNA was not on the gun. Also, grabbing for an attacker's gun seems like a plausible reaction to being confronted by an armed gunman.
I'm a firm believer in the jury system, and I genuinely believe that they would only have made their decision if the evidence took them there. But I'm just not understanding it from the news articles. I presume this is a failure of the news articles, not of the jury system.
So I'm genuinely asking (I'm not emotionally involved in this, and I'm not trolling)- can someone talk me through it?
Needing to buy a better printer somewhat detracts from the Chromebook's "low price" appeal. Having to add £100 to the cost of a £350 purchase is no small thing.
Here's a clue. Chickens are roughly 50% male and 50% female. Some chickens are kept through adulthood for eggs, others are killed on maturity for meat. Only the females can lay eggs.
Which gender of chicken do you think you're most likely to be eating in any given bite?
I used to work in a role where I was responsible for reconcile the finances of a bank branch every day. Basically, we relied on the computer to tally everything up correctly. If the computer reported a discrepancy, I'd spend the next hour with a print out, pencil and calculator going through every transaction line by line until I found the exact key press where the discrepancy originated (not always easy if there were multiple and overlapping discrepancies). 99% of the time (and because our banking software was pretty rock solid) it was human error, such as someone accidentally withdrawing some virtual money from the virtual till as part of a transfer, but accidentally leaving it in virtual limbo. You'd correct it and do some tedious audit paperwork.
Long story short, it was always possible to do the day's finances manually when you needed to. I would hope, for her sake, that the Post Office employee from TFA was trying her best to manually reconcile her issues, and not just leaving it to anonymous call centre staff.
If "just following orders" is not a valid defence for war crimes, I don't see why it should be a defence for civil crimes, or minor crimes. If you do something wrong (legally or morally), you are responsible. In the case of the NSA, it's not even like they were being forced to do it (as a conscripted soldier might)- they could have gotten another job at any time.
It's a bit weird dating the UK from 1707. That's the date when England, Scotland & Wales were united. So why not 1801, when the Ireland was united into the mix? Why not 1922, when the southern 4/5 of Ireland became independent? And can we apply the same rules to, say, every time the US added a State? Was the United States created in 1959 when Hawaii ascended? Or 1946, when the Philippine Commonwealth gained its independence?
It's a fool's game, anyway. Trying to define "when is a country a country" is ahistorical navel gazing. Nationalism as a concept only really dates from the 18th century; before that, countries were an awful lot more...fluid.
You consider it the same country even after the Normans trounced you, completely changed the government and aristocracy, and even started to change the language almost beyond recognition. Yeah, right.
Trounced ME? What have I got to do with two sets of my ancestors having a barney 1000 years ago? Are you confusing world history with a football match, where we're all wearing a specific colour of scarf?
Modern English is Anglo Saxon + Norman (give or take some Latin, Welsh and Legal French). Linguistically, I'm every bit as Norman as I am Anglo Saxon. Genetically, who the hell knows- for all I know I'm descended from immigrant stock from a couple of generations ago. I've never actually checked...
Slashdot Mirror
How so? For a 3 year manned mission, you'll need a decent living volume, possibly (if we're dreaming big) with some sort of centrifugal spinning mechanism for faking gravity, including all sorts of basic amenities (space toilet, food pouch heater, whatever). That'll be heavy. Meantime, the astronauts can be ferried into orbit in something no bigger than a Dragon capsule- internal space no bigger than a small family car.
Are you implying that scientific equipment and basic amenities couldn't survive high Gs? You'd be surprised what engineering can do that biology can't.
You have my sympathy. UK here- 30 MB down ("fair use" unlimited) for £20 a month + £15 line rental ($50 ish total). And I get that too, according to Speedtest.net. Upload is poorer (advertised 5 MB, more like 3 MB), but that's not overly limiting for domestic use.
Still useful for manned missions, though.
A manned mission to Mars might consist of:
1) Fuel for breaking out of Earth Orbit
2) A living environment
3) Life support & 3 years worth of supplies
4) Scientific equipment
5) Fuel for the return trip
6) A few squishy humans
All of items 1-5 could be sent up by "slingatron", with the humans ferried up in a small capsule (a standard SpaceX Dragon capsule would do) to dock and transfer over in orbit.
Tax is charged as a percent of the price charged. So if you say to someone "you buy Windows, and I'll install and configure it for you for $60", you'll need to add $3.75 to your tax bill ($60 x 0.0625). if you say to someone "you buy Windows, and I'll install and configure it for you for free", you'll need to add $0 to your tax bill ($0 x 0.0625).
I'm not seeing what the problem is. If you're a business charging people for something, you pay the sales tax as part of the cost of doing business. If you're not a business and not charging people for things, you can carry on as usual. Same as any other walk of life.
Yep, I was really hoping to see it follow an obstacle course with a sequence of different challenges for it to traverse (that's what "Parkour robot" conjures up in my mind, anyway). My hopes were raised when they started the clip of it following the rubber trackway, but all that led to was a millimetre-deep puddle of water.
Seems cool and all, but I'd suggest that programming a legged robot to fling itself over gaps is probably the least of the challenges of making an all-terrain robot. Programming it to identify obstacles with a small camera and identify the best way of crossing it would be the tricky part.
Most countries will not extradite someone if there's a chance of them getting tortured or executed. Even if the prospect is very unlikely, defendant lawyers will be able use it to block an extradition. A signed letter from a head of state/justice from a country prevents this from being used as a defence.
All that is required is certainty that the person won't be tortured. That should not need a special letter each and every time- there should be a letter saying that we promise to never torture anyone ever, which can be used in any circumstance.
EU countries have that- no EU country has ever been asked to sign a letter promising not to torture someone, because it is understood that extant Human Rights legislation already covers that with gusto.
The GP is expressing sadness because the US really should be in that category. The Constitution is supposed to promise exactly that. However, it is widely understood around the world that modern America partakes in what the rest of the world defines as torture- whether it be waterboarding, or the bizarre naked-solitary-confinement that Manning has had to endure. It is, therefore, a very sad thing that despite what the US Constitution says, there is no automatic guarantee that a prisoner of the United States will not be tortured. The President now needs to "Scout's Honour" promise it on a case-by-case basis.
(And don't get me started on the death penalty. But that's a well trodden flamefest that I don't think we need to restart here and now...)
Just purely out of interest, who did you vote for? Which third party candidate rang your particular bell?
And if you didn't vote because "all politicians are corrupt", you're as much a part of the problem as anyone else. More so, even; at least politicians will pay half an iota of attention to people who's votes they need- non-voters they can safely ignore forever.
Please do accept my apologies- it wasn't really a comment intended to be at you (the commenter) specifically. Just the general (and pervasive) "Mohammed was a paedophile" thing, which continuously winds me up.
"Extremism" says it all. Presumably they mean "Islamists" at the moment. But there's nothing illegal about Islamism- personally I think it's a horrible political ideology, but banning peoples' political parties because they don't seem very nice to people in other political parties seems very, very wrong.
How long before we had the Communists and the Fascists to the list of "extremists"? What about the Anarcho-Syndicalists, and the Libertarians? Separatist Nationalists? Hard-line Socialists? Parties-to-the-Right-of-the-Tories and parties-to-the-Left-of-Labour? Usually I hate "slippery slope" arguments, but yeah- slippery slope...
Indeed, young marriages were common in Medieval Europe far later than Mohammed's time. Mohammed died in 632 AD. Take this list of marriages from some random website:
Bianca of Savoy, Duchess of Milan was married aged 13yo (1350), and aged 14yo when she gave birth to her eldest son, Giangaleazzo (1351).
Theodora Comnena was aged 13yo when she was married King Baldwin III of Jerusalem (1158).
Agnes of France was 12yo when, widowed, she was married to Andronicus Comnenus, Byzantine Emperor (1182).
St Elizabeth of Portugal was aged 12yo when she was married to King Denis of Portugal and gave birth to three children shortly thereafter.
Caterina Sforza was betrothed aged 9yo, married aged 14yo, and gave birth aged 15yo.
Lucrezia Borgia was married to her first husband aged 13yo and bore a son within a few years.
Beatrice d'Este was betrothed aged 5yo and married aged 15yo.
And that's us "civilised Christian folk". Racism is a subtle creature...
The numbers speak for themselves. The number of American troops during the Normandy beach landings = 63,000, British =60,000. The casualty figures are similarly even.
As you say, Hollywood revisionism is to blame for a lot of the misconceptions about the American role in the war. It was a big role, but far from a one-nation-show.
Share price is not just about how much a company is worth right now, today; it is about how much a company is going to be worth in the near future. Since nobody has a time machine or crystal ball, the "future" bit is entirely down to what people think based on all sorts of intangible things.
So to reiterate the BP point. BP had assets worth $X. But they had also been in a major public scandal that was going to cost them money. How much money? $X/10? $X+1? And what of their future prospects- would they ever be allowed near another risky oil or gas field in the United States ever again? It might be that all the clean-up costs, law suits and fines added together are greater than all of their assets combined; which would make them bankrupt. Nobody really thought that, but plenty of people wondered exactly how much damage would be done, and what that mean the company would be worth the same time next year...
I'm sure it's fine, but it's proprietary (closed source), from some Chinese company. I don't mean to play the "everything from China is evil spyware" card (because I genuinely don't believe they're much worse than anyone else), but that'll be enough to put many people off.
I've seen exactly one, exactly once, and it was in the hands of a Microsoft consultant that we've got working with us at the moment. That is to say, he brought it to work with him exactly one time, out of the 60 or 70 days I've seen him now. He has 3 colleagues on site, who have never had one with them.
They all are using Windows 8 (obviously); they're just limiting themselves to real laptops on which it is possible to do actual things and whatnot.
It is a murky one, without doubt.
The question, I suppose (for we gawkers, not for the courts- as you say, beyond reasonable doubt etc.) is whether Zimmerman's narrative seems plausible. Martin was a teenager, out on his own, with no history of violence or criminal record, who appears to have simply been walking home from the shops with some sweets. Zimmerman claims that Martin leapt on him unprovoked, "sucker punched" him, and brutally assaulted him by smashing his head against the kerb (something which could very easily have been murder). We are also told he made a grab for a gun which we are told was lawfully concealed when he launched his ambush. Whilst being pinned down and having his head repeatedly smashed against concrete, Zimmerman managed to unholster his concealed weapon and fire it.
The alternative narrative seems more seductive. Zimmerman was a man who had armed himself (legally, but that's beside the point) and had taken himself out "on patrol"- he went out looking for criminals. He saw someone who he managed to convince himself was a trouble maker, and called the police. He decided to help the police do their job, by following the person and brandishing a gun. Martin, spooked at being followed by a stranger with a gun, reacted in reasonable self defence- tackling Zimmerman, hitting out at him, and trying to disarm him. During this scuffle, Zimmerman fired his gun.
I suppose where I am struggling with this one is by trying to extrapolate the consequences to other cases. Let's try the "dark alley" test. Two men separately enter a dark alley with no witnesses. Neither have a criminal record. One of them is armed. The unarmed man is shot dead. The Prosecution argues that this is murder. The defendant says "he started it- it was self defence". Can there be a conviction? Or to put it another way, is it ever possible to reach a conviction for murder/assault in a case with no independent witnesses, or is every case of "he said, she said" an automatic acquittal? By consequence, if I want to murder someone and get away with it, do I simply need to do it when no-one is watching?
I use Startpage on some of my machines as the default, but it's not as good at Google. Plenty of searches that provide fruitful results in Google return nil results in Startpage.
I've never used DDG in anger; I should probably give it a go.
Could you fill me in? I've not been following it very closely (UK based, not big news over hear), and I'm finding the verdict a little confusing. Not least based on the content of TFA and the BBC news story.
Here's my understanding of events, based on just today's articles. Zimmerman leaves his house armed with a gun, and curb crawls around his neighbourhood "on patrol". A teenage boy with no criminal record or history of violence walks through the neighbourhood after visiting the local shops to buy some food (the "bag of Skittles"). There is a small possibility that he has been involved in vandalism or petty theft at school, but nothing had ever come of it. Zimmerman calls 911 to report a "suspicious person"; the operator tells him to leave it well alone. Zimmerman gets out of his car and follows Martin on foot, who is still walking in the direction of his house, and then some violence ensues. The Prosecution claim that Zimmerman confronted Martin with his gun, Martin may possibly have reacted in self defence, and in the fracas Zimmerman pulled the trigger killing him. The Defence claims that Martin turned and made an unprovoked violent assault on Zimmerman, "smashing his head into the concrete ground", and "grabbing for the gun". The articles report that Zimmerman did not have serious injuries, and Martin's DNA was not on the gun. Also, grabbing for an attacker's gun seems like a plausible reaction to being confronted by an armed gunman.
I'm a firm believer in the jury system, and I genuinely believe that they would only have made their decision if the evidence took them there. But I'm just not understanding it from the news articles. I presume this is a failure of the news articles, not of the jury system.
So I'm genuinely asking (I'm not emotionally involved in this, and I'm not trolling)- can someone talk me through it?
Needing to buy a better printer somewhat detracts from the Chromebook's "low price" appeal. Having to add £100 to the cost of a £350 purchase is no small thing.
Well yeah, but adding "zero" to a total doesn't generally have much impact on the results.
Here's a clue. Chickens are roughly 50% male and 50% female. Some chickens are kept through adulthood for eggs, others are killed on maturity for meat. Only the females can lay eggs.
Which gender of chicken do you think you're most likely to be eating in any given bite?
Obviously YMMV, anecdote time, but...
I used to work in a role where I was responsible for reconcile the finances of a bank branch every day. Basically, we relied on the computer to tally everything up correctly. If the computer reported a discrepancy, I'd spend the next hour with a print out, pencil and calculator going through every transaction line by line until I found the exact key press where the discrepancy originated (not always easy if there were multiple and overlapping discrepancies). 99% of the time (and because our banking software was pretty rock solid) it was human error, such as someone accidentally withdrawing some virtual money from the virtual till as part of a transfer, but accidentally leaving it in virtual limbo. You'd correct it and do some tedious audit paperwork.
Long story short, it was always possible to do the day's finances manually when you needed to. I would hope, for her sake, that the Post Office employee from TFA was trying her best to manually reconcile her issues, and not just leaving it to anonymous call centre staff.
If "just following orders" is not a valid defence for war crimes, I don't see why it should be a defence for civil crimes, or minor crimes. If you do something wrong (legally or morally), you are responsible. In the case of the NSA, it's not even like they were being forced to do it (as a conscripted soldier might)- they could have gotten another job at any time.
As an EU citizen, I'm outraged by it. And my duly elected representatives are representing my outrage correctly and doing something about it.
What are your duly elected representatives doing for you right now? And if the answer is not a satisfactory one, what are you doing about it?
It's a bit weird dating the UK from 1707. That's the date when England, Scotland & Wales were united. So why not 1801, when the Ireland was united into the mix? Why not 1922, when the southern 4/5 of Ireland became independent? And can we apply the same rules to, say, every time the US added a State? Was the United States created in 1959 when Hawaii ascended? Or 1946, when the Philippine Commonwealth gained its independence?
It's a fool's game, anyway. Trying to define "when is a country a country" is ahistorical navel gazing. Nationalism as a concept only really dates from the 18th century; before that, countries were an awful lot more...fluid.
You consider it the same country even after the Normans trounced you, completely changed the government and aristocracy, and even started to change the language almost beyond recognition. Yeah, right.
Trounced ME? What have I got to do with two sets of my ancestors having a barney 1000 years ago? Are you confusing world history with a football match, where we're all wearing a specific colour of scarf?
Modern English is Anglo Saxon + Norman (give or take some Latin, Welsh and Legal French). Linguistically, I'm every bit as Norman as I am Anglo Saxon. Genetically, who the hell knows- for all I know I'm descended from immigrant stock from a couple of generations ago. I've never actually checked...