According to my sources (e.g. the german version of Wikipedia), the first sources of an indoeuropean language date much later, between 3000 and 2500 BC.
Look at the time frames! The article talks about the genetic influences until 7000 years ago, while the spread of the indo-european tribes started about 5000 years ago. So we are talking about populations in different times eras. And then it's quite sure that the spread of the Indo-Europeans was not so much a complete elimination of the old Europeans but rather an assimilation. The Indo-Europeans came with new social structures and technologies, intermixing with the local population and assimilated them into their indo-european clans and tribes. Thus the local languages died out, but the genetic traits were preserved in their descendants.
Farmers are more productive, given a certain amount of land, as they exclusively breed those plants and animals they are actually using, and throw everything else out. Hunterer and gatherers need much more vast lands to get the same amount of food. (As an example: The territory of the indigenous Yamomami in South America is comparable to Austria and Switzerland in size, but only about 25,000 persons live there, compared with the several millions living in Austria or Switzerland.)
First: Romanians are not Croats. While the Croats live in Croatia, a mainly catholic country with a slavic speaking population, the Romanians live in Romania, a mainly orthodox country with a roman language (and with considerable hungarian and german minorities). Romania doesn't even border to Croatia, they are separated by the Serbian Vojvodina.
Supposedly, the popularity of the cravat soared after a parade of a Croatian cavalry regiment in France in 1663. The Croatian cavalry was part of the Wallenstein troups which quite successfully fought in the Thirty Years war, and where the Croatian tie was part of the uniform, as you can see here. Ties were in fact part of many military coats, partly to protect the neck, partly to have a flexible way to close the shirt around the next. The croatian tie gained popularity especially because of the special tie knot.
Ok, I'll bite. The necktie is also called cravat in Englisch, cravate in French, krawaat in Dutch and Krawatte German. This is derived from "Croat" or "hrvat" (as the croatic word for Croat). See Wiktionary: cravat.
It's even more complicated. Ireland has experienced one wave of viking and two waves of english settlers. The vikings settled around Dublin in the 9th and 10th century, until they were beaten by Brian Buro in the Battle of Clontarf. Then after the normannic conquest of England, the Normans set also out to conquer Ireland in the 11th and 12th century, and the King of England became Lord of Ireland, and normannic and english earls were ruling Ireland. But with time, the english control of Ireland lapsed, as the Kings of England were occupied with their territories in France and the battles in the Hundred Years War. The english earls became more and more irish, started to wear irish clothes, intermarried with irish aristocrats and even started to talk Irish Gaelic.
But after the loss of the Hundred Years War and all their continental territory, the english kings started to look into Ireland, especially Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. They managed to revive english rule in Ireland, and they started to send settlers from England, Wales and Scotland to Ireland. Those were the New English, compared with the Old English who came 400 years earlier. Most North Irish Protestants are the descendants of those settlers.
Suits are uncomfortable to wear, you can't ride with a bicycle to work wearing a suit, they are expensive to clean and the tie feels like it is strangulating me.
(On the other hand, the tie was invented by croatian military riders as a replacement for buttons to close the shirt. To use a tie with a buttonned shirt is quite contrary to its original use case.)
Actually, it makes it right. Right enough to be legally enforceable. You can go rabulistic about monopoly if you want, but that doesn't change the fact, that the legal term "monopoly" was found to fit Microsoft's business.
About any non-ruling party has more emphasis on citizen's rights than the ruling ones. Sometimes they differ in who they count as citizens (or humans). They have the big advantage of not having to compromise between conflicts of interest in actual decisions when one's rights are limited by other persons's rights, thus "individual rights" is a nice and unchallenged battle cry. If the party has some local influence (e.g. majority in a city council or similar), the party also calls for more decisions on a local level. And of course any non ruling party is in favor of changed rules to make it more difficult for the ruling parties to stay in power.
So nothing to see here. Just your average opposition party's positions.
An NDA would run afoul the aforementioned law, because it explicitely states:
This bill would prohibit a contract or proposed contract for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services from including a provision waiving the consumer’s right to make any statement regarding the seller or lessor or its employees or agents, or concerning the goods or services.
I don't think you get the real problem. It's not about the export of data (which is not at issue here), it's disclosing private data to a third party. This doesn't mean export - even if the third party in question appeared in Ireland in front of the data center, this still would be illegal.
The physical location of the data matters because of European Data Protection laws. Microsoft would run afoul of the laws of Ireland if they gave data stored on servers in Ireland to a third party without the actual owner of the data agreeing or a court order by an Irish court. The government lawyers obviously tried to argue that they don't need an Irish court, and the U.S. judge at first bought the argument. And now it seems as if the U.S. court might have changed its mind but want this to be sorted out by the higher court.
The textbooks are out there. There are the IPCC reports. There is basic physics. You actually can create a greenhouse and measure the effect yourself. Go to the next department store, buy four planks and a sheet of acryl and put them in the garden as a small greenhouse. You also can go through old textbooks and look up the number for carbondioxide in the atmosphere. And you can graph the values in a time line, and you will see that they nearly linearily increase from 270 ppm around 1900 to 400 ppm today.
I for instance have an old book about the planets (author: L. Ksanformaliti, if anyone is interested) from 1984. This was long before any politically heated discussion about climate change. It was full of data on the atmospheres of the planets and of the local greenhouse effects, and how dependend the actual greenhouse effect is from the actual levels of the different gases like Methane and Carbondioxide, and that the Earth has a considerably high greenhouse effect, which increases the average surface temperature by 15 Kelvin compared to a Black Body. And it had references to other planets, and how the high levels of Carbondioxide in the Venus's atmosphere amount to a greenhouse effect of more than 400 Kelvin, and how the very low levels on Mars cause a very small greenhouse effect.
So when the debate came after the Kyoto protocol, I was always wondering how the deniers could be so ignorant of long known facts, as if they heard it for the first time, and how they could consider it made up and falsificated and whatever the accusations were. And I knew that this was primarily a political debate of not having to face the consequences of their own doings, and one way was to call the scientists who were just publishing the collected facts of their field fat and lazy and government paid shills. And then I saw that the discussion was mainly an U.S.-only debate cooked up by paid shills and astroturfers, and I knew everything was well.
Do you see pockmarks on the earths surface which result from baseball impacts at 100 kph? Even if you do, wind or the next rain wash them away very fast. And the energy of the cosmic particles was said to be comparable to a baseball at about 60 mph, thus you won't expect any more impact.
You know that Gnome is actually a result of The GIMP and not vice versa? Gnome builds on GTK, which stands for GIMP Toolkit (and not Gnome Toolkit). Gnome is basicly a standalone version of GIMPs UI widgets.
No, since 1973 copyrights don't have to be applied for. It is sufficient that the Work of Art was created, and that the level of creativeness was high enough. And yes, in theory you could leak some Work of Art of you and then sue the people who distribute it. But the problem is: Your Work of Art has to be appealling enough for people to actually wanting to copy and to distribute it.
Slashdot Mirror
According to my sources (e.g. the german version of Wikipedia), the first sources of an indoeuropean language date much later, between 3000 and 2500 BC.
Look at the time frames! The article talks about the genetic influences until 7000 years ago, while the spread of the indo-european tribes started about 5000 years ago. So we are talking about populations in different times eras. And then it's quite sure that the spread of the Indo-Europeans was not so much a complete elimination of the old Europeans but rather an assimilation. The Indo-Europeans came with new social structures and technologies, intermixing with the local population and assimilated them into their indo-european clans and tribes. Thus the local languages died out, but the genetic traits were preserved in their descendants.
Farmers are more productive, given a certain amount of land, as they exclusively breed those plants and animals they are actually using, and throw everything else out. Hunterer and gatherers need much more vast lands to get the same amount of food. (As an example: The territory of the indigenous Yamomami in South America is comparable to Austria and Switzerland in size, but only about 25,000 persons live there, compared with the several millions living in Austria or Switzerland.)
Supposedly, the popularity of the cravat soared after a parade of a Croatian cavalry regiment in France in 1663. The Croatian cavalry was part of the Wallenstein troups which quite successfully fought in the Thirty Years war, and where the Croatian tie was part of the uniform, as you can see here. Ties were in fact part of many military coats, partly to protect the neck, partly to have a flexible way to close the shirt around the next. The croatian tie gained popularity especially because of the special tie knot.
Supposed to be surprising is that there is a third component, people from the Northeast, who are directly related to Native Americans.
Luckily, most US-Americans are in one way or another descendants of the Euros, thus they fall in the same categories.
Ok, I'll bite. The necktie is also called cravat in Englisch, cravate in French, krawaat in Dutch and Krawatte German. This is derived from "Croat" or "hrvat" (as the croatic word for Croat). See Wiktionary: cravat.
But after the loss of the Hundred Years War and all their continental territory, the english kings started to look into Ireland, especially Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. They managed to revive english rule in Ireland, and they started to send settlers from England, Wales and Scotland to Ireland. Those were the New English, compared with the Old English who came 400 years earlier. Most North Irish Protestants are the descendants of those settlers.
Umm yes. Ptolemy called the greater of both islands "megale Britannia", and the smaller one "mekra Britannia" (e.g. Great Britain and Small Britain).
(On the other hand, the tie was invented by croatian military riders as a replacement for buttons to close the shirt. To use a tie with a buttonned shirt is quite contrary to its original use case.)
It's not about my attitude, it's about the above poster being platantly wrong.
Actually, it makes it right. Right enough to be legally enforceable. You can go rabulistic about monopoly if you want, but that doesn't change the fact, that the legal term "monopoly" was found to fit Microsoft's business.
So I demand my data back from Google then, if it's of no value to them.
Actually he was quoting a thesis from the ancient Greeks about the reasons why we have a brain.
So nothing to see here. Just your average opposition party's positions.
This bill would prohibit a contract or proposed contract for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services from including a provision waiving the consumer’s right to make any statement regarding the seller or lessor or its employees or agents, or concerning the goods or services.
In this case, the disclosure takes place in Ireland, as the data is actually stored there. And that's sufficient here to fall under irish legislation.
I don't think you get the real problem. It's not about the export of data (which is not at issue here), it's disclosing private data to a third party. This doesn't mean export - even if the third party in question appeared in Ireland in front of the data center, this still would be illegal.
The physical location of the data matters because of European Data Protection laws. Microsoft would run afoul of the laws of Ireland if they gave data stored on servers in Ireland to a third party without the actual owner of the data agreeing or a court order by an Irish court. The government lawyers obviously tried to argue that they don't need an Irish court, and the U.S. judge at first bought the argument. And now it seems as if the U.S. court might have changed its mind but want this to be sorted out by the higher court.
It is sufficient to collide one hash to compromise the certificate. With two hashes offered, you cut the strength of each hash effectively in half.
I for instance have an old book about the planets (author: L. Ksanformaliti, if anyone is interested) from 1984. This was long before any politically heated discussion about climate change. It was full of data on the atmospheres of the planets and of the local greenhouse effects, and how dependend the actual greenhouse effect is from the actual levels of the different gases like Methane and Carbondioxide, and that the Earth has a considerably high greenhouse effect, which increases the average surface temperature by 15 Kelvin compared to a Black Body. And it had references to other planets, and how the high levels of Carbondioxide in the Venus's atmosphere amount to a greenhouse effect of more than 400 Kelvin, and how the very low levels on Mars cause a very small greenhouse effect.
So when the debate came after the Kyoto protocol, I was always wondering how the deniers could be so ignorant of long known facts, as if they heard it for the first time, and how they could consider it made up and falsificated and whatever the accusations were. And I knew that this was primarily a political debate of not having to face the consequences of their own doings, and one way was to call the scientists who were just publishing the collected facts of their field fat and lazy and government paid shills. And then I saw that the discussion was mainly an U.S.-only debate cooked up by paid shills and astroturfers, and I knew everything was well.
Do you see pockmarks on the earths surface which result from baseball impacts at 100 kph? Even if you do, wind or the next rain wash them away very fast. And the energy of the cosmic particles was said to be comparable to a baseball at about 60 mph, thus you won't expect any more impact.
You know that Gnome is actually a result of The GIMP and not vice versa? Gnome builds on GTK, which stands for GIMP Toolkit (and not Gnome Toolkit). Gnome is basicly a standalone version of GIMPs UI widgets.
No, since 1973 copyrights don't have to be applied for. It is sufficient that the Work of Art was created, and that the level of creativeness was high enough. And yes, in theory you could leak some Work of Art of you and then sue the people who distribute it. But the problem is: Your Work of Art has to be appealling enough for people to actually wanting to copy and to distribute it.
Why should it be illegal, and who should get the blame if it happens anyway?