No, it's the opposite. Tribe was pretty much a big family. Neanderthals were reproducing mostly inside the tribe. Homo sapiens were reproducing with neighbouring tribes more often than Neanderthals. They had less incest and more varied genes. But this means that people had a lot of family in neighbouring tribe (like uncles and cousins) so they were less likely to fight them. That's the theory.
What do you mean? Australian aboriginal tribes didn't form after development of agriculture. They existed in the same for until colonisation. Just because agriculture was invented doesn't mean it influenced every culture in the world.
No, one of the theories is actually that early homo sapiens groups were mostly closely related and interbred often. That's what have them advantage over other species. We can see evidence of that in the DNA. Men fighting men came later, probably with first settlements and dependence on local resources.
Interesting. What deductions do you have the government doesn't know abut? Where I pay taxes they know how many kids do I have, they how much do I make and how much money do I save for retirement. What deductions do you have in US the government doesn't track?
Sure, maybe it will be 5 years. I'm definitely not going to rewrite my awesome wm config just because Wayland is hip now. I will have to get some really nice features out of that.
Yep, it doesn't look like a jackpot win. Jackpots are separate events that would have distinct screen. I don't believe she took a selfie with generic screen and not the jackpot screen so probably there was no jackpot screen.
En when you play you agree to terms and conditions saying that glitches don't count.
How does it work then? As I understand it depriving body of calories causes it to be more efficient with the calories it gets. What I'm missing? Maybe what you are still missing is that this effect will change depending on amount of calories we're talking about? I doubt there are studies measuring the effect of 100 calories deficit because it would be negligible. Of course if we get into real diet/moderate exercise the effects will change. Is this why you think the effect is different overall?
Yeah, I guess your right. Big companies like to throw money at online ad campaigns even when there's proof it doesn't do anything. Looks like IBM simply had some cash to burn and X looked like a nice furnace.
Ok, I guess it's possible they simply had to much money in the marketing division and were throwing money at X just to prop up the value of IBM brand, not to actually sell products. IBM's brand has been loosing value fast in the recent years so maybe they are just desperate? Of course this will have no impact at their revenue. Not showing ads on X will just save them money.
Jesus, why can't people just expose their drives to cosmic radiation and have it switch the bits in the file? So much time wasted writing useless editors.
That still really stupid. I you want to take ticket to court and then don't show up the court should just rule against to automatically and charge you the administrative costs. Those should be taken from your account. This is how it works in Europe.
Yeah, so what IBM products specifically did you buy? If they are buying ads it's to sell products. What products are they selling that X users will buy? What IBM products did you buy?
No, it's the opposite. Tribe was pretty much a big family. Neanderthals were reproducing mostly inside the tribe. Homo sapiens were reproducing with neighbouring tribes more often than Neanderthals. They had less incest and more varied genes. But this means that people had a lot of family in neighbouring tribe (like uncles and cousins) so they were less likely to fight them. That's the theory.