The question is extremely vague. “Ancient” covers a large period of time that had varied technologies. “Communication” is also a very vague term. That being said, I will attempt to give an answer.
I am assuming that you are asking about human communication. One of the things that distinguishes humans from animals is speech. Probably the most ancient means of communication was speech. Hand gestures, body language, and facial expressions are also a means of communication. Dance and music were also very ancient means of communication.
Messengers with verbal messages, signal fires, totems, banners, cave art, etc. were ancient means of communication that predate history.
Proto alphabets and pictographs were used as early as 60,000 years ago. Such script was found on egg shells dating back that far and found in southwestern Africa.
Genuine writing began as early as 5,000 years BC with the Vinca script (although this is disputed). It is undisputed that cuneiform script was in use in what is now Iraq about 3,000 BC. This early writing was typically impressed on clay tablets and allowed to dry. Small tablets could be transported between distant locations. Some script was also present on pottery. Rudimentary codes were used for distant communication with signal fires. Drums could be heard at great distances and were also used to communicate. Once paper was invented, things really took off, literally. Messenger pigeons were used as early as 1150 in Baghdad and also later by Genghis Khan. This ancient means of aerial communication was still in wide use in World War I.
More common were couriers on horseback that would take written messages quickly between people at distances. In ancient Persia (Iran) they had messengers, called angros that would carry messages in stations that had a day's ride distance along the royal road. The riders were exclusively in the service of government. A message could be transported from Susa (south western Iran) to Sardis (western Turkey), a distance of 1,677 miles in just seven days. The same journey took ninety days on foot. This type of system was later used by the Romans. Messages were also transported by boats and ships.
Even ancient communication could be relatively fast.
Answer:
<em>The</em><em> </em><em>reason</em><em> </em><em>is</em><em> </em><em>cause</em><em> </em><em>it</em><em> </em><em>which</em><em> </em><em>be</em><em> </em><em>snowing</em><em> </em><em>heavily</em><em> </em><em>there</em><em> </em><em>and</em><em> </em><em>cone</em><em> </em><em>shape</em><em> </em><em>helps</em><em> </em><em>in</em><em> </em><em>sliding</em><em> </em><em>the</em><em> </em><em>snow</em><em> </em><em>off</em><em> </em><em>the</em><em> </em><em>tree</em>
Answer: learned
Explanation:
Culture incorporates the set of values, ideas, and attitudes that are learned and shared among the members of a group
Answer:
Yes, Quebec should be a country.
Canada is a federation, meaning that its citizens have to pay taxes for both the federal (canadian) government and the provincial (quebec) government. This split makes it harder for the people of Quebec to strategically invest in its own industries. For example, Quebec has long ago nationalized hydroelectricity making the state a leader in green energy. When Quebecers decided to do so, the canadian government refused to invest even a single dollar in the project. Quebec’s prime minister at that time had to go see the americans to ask for a sufficient loan. What a shame it was to the canadian government going against such a nice project! Fast forward to now, Nova Scotia government (another province located next to Quebec being part of the canadian confederation) has the project to built all the infrastructure to export hydroelectricity to the US… and guess what? Canadian Government is totally in favor of the idea and willing to fund the project with fresh capital, part of that capital coming from taxes paid by Quebecers. So Quebec taxes will help fund a competitor since Quebec is already exporting a lot of energy to their US partners while it had absolutely no help when they built their own hydroelectricity project.
This example is just one of the many examples that Quebecers have had to endure over the past decades. When the financial crisis happened in 08-09, Ontario’s auto industry have been bailed out for more than $10 Billion from the Canadian Government (again, part of this money - roughly 20% - came from Quebec’s taxes paid to the federal government). At that same time, Quebec was struggling with its paper/pulp industry and the federal government injected less than 100M$ in the industry to help it. Now Bombardier, one of the great engeneering business of Quebec is struggling, and guess what? Quebec has to inject all of the money to help them since canadian government won't do a single thing.
A lot of the people in Quebec stand against the building of pipelines that would allow dirty oil sands to cross the eastern part of the country for international exportation. Canadians want Quebec to accept the pipeline since it would help the western part of the country to export/sell its dirty oil internationally. As a province, Quebec doesn’t have any legal capacity to oppose to such project while this goes a lot against their willingness. If Quebec was a country, it could oppose to such thing and participate to a greater extend to a cleaner planet. Quebecers have all the capacity and knowledge to invest massively in clean energy and stop using oil for transport over a short timeframe. The only things that is keeping them away is the fact that it does not have control over all its revenues while the federal government have a totally different gameplan.
Being a country would allow Quebecers to gain 100% control over their taxes and would leave them with more money to do good things for the whole planet. We would be leaders in clean energy instead of subsidizing the dirty oilsands in the western part of the country. Our army would be one of peace keeping and territory protection and our peace keeping message would be heard amongst UN and UNESCO. We would be a much better leader amongst nations willing the reduce greenhouse gas instead of financing oil sands. Our engineering firms like Hydro-Quebec would be venturing project like electrification of transport.
Not only Quebec should be a country but people all around the world should support them in their quest for the building of a great new country.
The correct answer is B.
<u>Therefore the appropiate null and alternative hypothesis are the following:</u>
. H 0 : p 1 = p 2
H 1 : p 1 ≠ p 2
The aim of the test would be to conclude whether H0 should be rejected or not at a 10% significance level.
<u>In this case a billateral significance test needs to be conducted,</u> as such a test consists on testing the equality of the test value with a given value. In this case the H0 would be rejected if the test value is significanly different, both in the case that it is superior or inferior.
On the contrary, an unilateral significance test would have been conducted if aiming to check whether a value is superior or equal to the test value (left unilateral) or inferior or equal to this value (right unilateral).
Then, the result of the test is the one stated: rejecting H0 at the 10% significance level.
