Sign Presentation for Administrative Easy

I would not advise you to use Google Analytics in general. I understand that you are attracted to a big name, and free. But this does not mean that you do not have to pay at all. Google Analytics does not provide precise measurement, can be unhelpful if site traffic is not substantial, must be configured specifically to a user’s liking, might have a negative impact on site performance, and could even present privacy concerns to users who want their web present to be entirely anonymous.GA needs to track a statistically signNow sample of visits and users in order for the data to accurately reflect the true user behavior; otherwise, it will give the site administrator a false sense of the user interaction. Also, GA provides the user a massive amount of information. The volume of information is so great that it is virtually impossible for any administrator to review every piece of data that it collects. Users of GA should methodically identify their key performance indicators and tune their dashboards to show only the data that provides value.There are so many nuances and complexities. With the same success, you can use MixPanel. MixPanel offers good funnel reports and cohort analyses. But this tool can’t measure and analyze traffic to your site. MixPanel also supports measuring funnels, but I found it’s numbers were way off from what other tools recorded and, more importantly, the actual counts in my database. In fact, I would advise you to use paid services, since they are more accurate indicators. For example, KISSmetrics, it is rocks at funnels.If you need to know how many visitors go from your landing page to pricing to sign up and how many drop out at each stage, it’s easy. They provide the most detailed data about users logged on to the site. However, the cost of the program is directly dependent upon the activity on the site, so, eventually. You might be asked to pay a bit more than you might expect. Personally from myself, I can advise Threat and Engagement Analytics (TEA) by ShopingCartElite. The main figures presented for websites in real-time social indicators, heat maps, visits, subsequent pages and traffic sources. They will notify you about the basic indicators: the income and downloads, connection time, screen views per session and number of sessions and others.Disclosure: I wrote this post and I reviewed this company in my answer.

rubs hands togetherBecause, in short, they hadn’t invented accountants yet.This, while it might seem unlikely, is a very good question. The obvious answer, which the other three answers have given more pithily than I can ever hope to be capable of doing, is that there is no evidence of those records. Our earliest examples of writing come from the Sumerians in Mesopotamia in roughly 3500 BC, as covered here.An early cuneiform tablet, from somewhere around 3000 BC.Before that, there’s no evidence of written language. Cuneiform, the Mesopotamian writing system, is the first script we can point to and say, “Yes, that’s definitely a written language.” There are a few potential (though extremely, absolutely, very not at all likely) contenders, e.g. the Vinča symbols, but, even if they did represent a language, those only date to maybe a couple millennia earlier. Again, there’s no records on the scale presented here.But there’s another question, a fun question, below that. Sure, it’s unlikely that there ever were lost written languages - but is it impossible that there were? Could - not was, but could - there have been a written language, invented 100 000 years ago, that was lost to time?It’s not immediately unthinkable. Some writing systems, like Brahmi in India and Phoenician in, well, Phoenicia were originally written on bark or leaves or papyrus, which decay quickly, so we have few records of early Brahmi or Phoenician writing. Maybe our hypothetical lost writing system was written on bark or leaves or animal hide or some other quickly-compostable material, hence why we’ve got no records of it. Come to think of it, the idea of a lost, ancient, etc. writing system isImpossible. I’ll stop the suspense there. It’s not possible. There could not have been a writing system from before 4000-5000 BC at most, and most likely none before Mesopotamian cuneiform in 3500 BC. Why this is the case is an excellent question; to answer it, I’m going to talk about wheels.The wheel is the archetypal simple invention. It’s a ubiquitous round thing that moves stuff: how hard could it be to come up with it? Any group of people who hasn’t come up with it must be stupid or backwards or uncivilized or some variant thereof, right? Except it’s a harder than that. There’s more to inventing the wheel than inventing, um, the wheel.Invent the wheel. Great. In fact, invent three more.Now what? You’ve got four wheels, sure - what are you going to do with them? A modern person would say transportation, but that isn’t obvious. Most early wheels were instead used for pottery, as pottery wheels.Stumble upon the idea of using them for transportation.Alright, sure. How do you plan to go about doing this? In order to invent the cart, you first have to have invented the box, and, again, that isn’t an obvious invention.Invent the box. You’ve got your cart now!Nail the wheels to the side of the cart and you’re - oh, hey, uh…It turns out that if you nail a wheel to the side of a cart, all the cart has now is a circular piece of wood with a hole in the middle nailed to it. In order for the wheels to turn, you have to connect them.Invent the axle. Invent another one, if you’d like.Connect the wheels to the axles.Nail them to the bottom of the cart and you - no, not again…It turns out that if you have stationary wheels, you can move your cart in exactly one direction, excepting some pushing and pulling. It’s finicky. You can either limit your cart to two wheels or else you have to come up with a way to make the front wheels turn.Either limit your cart to two wheels or come up with a way to make the front wheels turn.Congratulations! You’ve got a functioning cart! It’s complete with box, wheels, axle(s), and optional wheel-turny-bit! Now all you’ve got to do is…oh, well, now, um, you see…You’ve got to make the cart move. Without a way to make the cart move, it’s useless. You could pull it yourself (time-consuming and tiring), or buy a slave (expensive, and also time-consuming and tiring for the slave). Or you could get an animal to pull it. That sounds like a great idea: get a horse or ox, then…uh…about that horse…You need to have domesticated animals. If you’re in a civilization that happens to have animals that are a.) domesticated, b.) large, c.) willing to pull things, and d.) of a body structure that can support pulling heavy things over long distances, great! If your animal is missing any of those elements, though, you’re not going to be using your wheeled cart much. But let’s say you do have that horse.Just strap the horse to the cart andYou have to invent a way of attaching the horse to the cart. This, like everything else so far, is harder than it sounds. A bad harness can come undone or break, be horribly inefficient, and/or harm the animal it’s attached to.Invent a good harness.And with that, you dedicated wheel-inventor, you have a box on wheels that can turn which is itself full of stuff and also attached well to your pack animal of choice. Your cart is ready. There are no more problems with your cart.Set off on your journey and…well, this might be the biggest problem of them all.You need a flat, cleared surface. Your cart can’t go through the bush or the rain forest. Basically, if you’re not on a perfectly flat, clear plain, you need roads. If you haven’t got roads, you can’t drive your cart very far.Invent roads.There you are. Finally. The wheel will be improved from then on, with things like spokes and rubber and motors, but that’s all you need for a primitive wagon sort of vehicle. (Edit: This is not entirely true; see Alan Dillman’s comment here.)If you’re an observant person, you may have noticed that there are an awful lot of steps to inventing a proper wheeled vehicle. To us, we with the wheels, the wheel appears obvious. But it’s only obvious because we’ve had it for so long. Without box, axle, pack animal, or roads, the wheel has no purpose, no necessity to produce it, and thus no invention, or at least no large-scale implementation.Wheel usage, then, is independent of technological advancement. The Mayans, Aztecs, and Incas, who were advanced and civilized by any standard, never made much use of the wheel: their terrain was often mountainous, and their pack animal, the llama, of the wrong build for cart-pulling. The only place wheels were ever used was in children’s toys.There are a lot of steps, conditions, and so on needed to make the wheel useful. Without these conditions, you don’t get wheels.To take it back on topic: it’s a similar case with writing systems.Writing is, like the wheel, ubiquitous. It’s easier for your average literate urban person to imagine a world without farming than one without writing. You write symbols for the sounds you say: how hard could it be to come up with that? Any group of people who hasn’t come up with it must be stupid or backwards or uncivilized or some variant thereof, right?Except, once again, it’s harder than that. Writing has been invented four times: in Mesopotamia; in Egypt; in China; and in Mesoamerica. Every other writing system comes from one of those four. (Our own alphabet is from Egyptian, as covered here.) Each of those four times, writing has developed in the same way, which is as follows:In the beginning, civilization is created. (ahem: This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.)Now you have cities, and people in the cities, and people making and buying and selling food and livestock and slaves and things, and governments taxing people, and a great big stew of transactions that need to be taken care of. There’s a need for administration, for keeping track of records.So, people - and this is the great unsung invention of humanity, ultimately responsible for all of history, art, culture, literature, mathematics, and tradition in the civilized world from five thousand years ago through to today - invent accountants.Then they invent bureaucrats. Administrators. Record-keepers. The people who sit at desks and write things down.And it’s that “write things down” bit that revolutionizes the world. In order to keep track of purchases, taxes, trades, who sold cows to who in exchange for what amount of barley, things that no human can hold in their mind, they come up with a system: draw pictures to represent different things. Write, say, “[BOB][2][COW][to][JAMES][for][300][unit][BARLEY]”, using pictures for “cow” and “barley” and dots and lines for “2” and “300”.But how do you write “Bob” or “James” or “to” or “for”? You can’t draw a picture of a preposition! What you can do, however, is draw a picture of a thing that sounds like “to” or “for”. We still do a version of this: “2” sounds like “to”, so you can write “Bob sold 2 cows 2 James 4 300 units of barley”. Substitute the rest of the words for pictures, numbers, or pictures that sound like another word for the thing they represent, and you have a way to keep track of anything.As the civilization would eventually realize, you can do more than accounting with this system. Add some more pictures for the rest of written language and you can write anything you’d like. You can write letters. You can write stories. You can write down the poems that have been floating around orally for centuries. The pictures steadily become more stylized until they no longer look like pictures but rather like abstract symbols.Writing has been invented. By accountants. (In fact, the first name we have record of isn’t the name of a king, or of a legendary hero, or of a poet: it’s of an accountant named Kushim, signing his name on a receipt to file away.)The so-called Kushim tablet, dating to the 3400s BC. It reads: “29 086 units of barley were received over the course of 37 months. Signed, Kushim.”Writing is only practical in a situation where a large amount of information, too large for any one person or even group of people to remember and too boring and specific for any of them to need or want to, has to be recorded for a long period of time. In a tribal hunter-gatherer society, you really only need to remember:edible and poisonous plants and animals: This is something you need to remember, so it’s a.) unlikely anyone would forget it, b.) something practical that needs to be immediately retrieved, and c.) visual in any case. It doesn’t benefit from writing, so writing does not need to be invented to keep track of what you can or can’t eat.histories/stories/traditions: These could benefit from being written down, which is why, when writing was invented, they were some of the earliest things to be written down. In a tribal society, they were passed down orally instead. This didn’t require a superhuman memory, and so worked well enough that writing wasn’t necessary.In an early agricultural societies, writing wasn’t needed, either, for much the same reason; nor in proper towns, because trade was not yet so complicated that it required accountants. It’s like the wheel: it’s useless if you’re missing any of the right parts, the right context, the right environment. Necessity is the mother of invention; inversely, lack of necessity is the, er, contraceptive of invention.The earliest that writing could have arisen is the earliest that complex cities with administration existed, with the oldest surviving records dating from a few centuries later, with the older ones having been lost or destroyed.When is that? It’s about 4000–5000 BC, if you’re stretching the estimate, in Mesopotamia and Egypt, whose governments evolved roughly parallel. From there, they developed accountants, then writing. And when are the earliest records of writing? From just a little after that period. Writing would have been invented in 4000–5000 BC, which is the earliest it could have been invented.The only way writing could have been invented in 100 000–25 000 BC is if there were complex cities with administration back then. It’s easy for writing materials to decay; it’s a lot harder for an entire civilization (and, necessarily, agriculture itself, which is only thought to have been invented 10 000 years ago) to go unnoticed.To answer your question, it isn’t possible that any writing systems existed before 4000-5000 BC at the earliest, because writing (and thus the entirety of literature, and so forth) was invented by accountants. In order to have writing, you need accountants; to have accountants, you need cities; to have cities, you need civilization; to have civilization, you need agriculture.Thanks for asking!

Neither (and no, Aramaic didn’t evolve from Arabic).Syriac is a variety of Aramaic, and Arabic definitely didn’t develop from it or any other varitey of Aramaic (notwithstanding a couple of others here who think Aram and Arab sounding similar is somehow evidence. It isn’t—not once you know what Aram meant in ancient times (i.e, what is now Syria: Aramaya literally means “of Syria”—a reflection of the Syrian origin of the language):Aram (region) - WikipediaIt also starts with an Aleph; Arabic’s name starts with a Ayin (and no, Aramaic didn’t lose its Ayins in ancient times, nor did Arabic gain Ayins).Arabic lacks the Northwest Semitic innovations common to both Hebrew and Aramaic (such as word-initial mutation of w to y). It also lacks Aramaic’s suffix (which then became the language’s equivalent to the definite article EDIT: I’ve found other interpretations, such as an extension of the feminine, or as an inversion of the ha pronoun—think “noun+ha”, instead if “ha+noun” (Pat-El, 2009, “The development of the Semitic Definite Article: a Syntactic approach), or its use of dhu as a purely genitive marker (Frozen itself in a genitive form).Arabic also doesn’t have Aramaic’s tendency of turning n’s to r’s ( bar in Aramaic, bin in Arabic, for example), not did it share the trend toward spirantization (so it can’t even be said to very influenced by Aramaic, beyond some loanwords. EDIT: and apparently, they got those from writing, since the pronounciation is too archaic, or just plain off***). Finally, Arabic largely lost the originaly conceptive derivation (this takes some explanation: in PS, you got a concept for a root—say m-l-k, by adding an ūt ending. So m-l-k = malkūtum* “kingship”. Arabic borrowed this word from Aramaic, but beyond a few loanwords of this form from it and Hebrew, this form was lost early in Arabic’s evolution; concepts are instead done in other ways: most commonly, like this: 3-S-b > 3aSabiyyah).Similarly, Aramaic lacks the following features that Arabic exhibited since the earliest attestations in text (as complete sentences, anyway)1-fi (Arabic for “in”)2-inna and anna (I forget the technical term in English, but they look like this in Arabic: إن، أن(.3-the use of the maf’ul form.4–negative ma (this is partly shared with Hebrew, but in Hebrew’s case it’s largely a poetic device, and is not used at all in regular speech or writing (it’s in the bible); Arabic’s ma no longer just means “what”, but also means “not”)5-broken plurals (this btw isn’t as helpful in figuring out where Arabic belongs; we’ll return to this).Finally: both are first attested withing a century of each other—not enough time for Aramaic to become Arabic (and certainly not enough to develop the complex case system Proto-Arabic had, which survives in our writing to this day: that system btw is more complex than what PS had).Arabic is currently classified as a Primary branch of Central Semitic (the other is NW Semitic—Aramaic goes here, along with Hebrew, Amorite, and possibly Sabaean and its kin, though Sabaean and its kin might themselves form a primary offshoot of Central Semitic). So the features it does share with Aramaic are typically those it inherited from proto-central-Semitic, spoken sometime before 2000BC. Keep in mind that Semitic languages exhibit signs of constant contact for long period before they split off from each other: this is why Moabite—a Canaanite dialect—has features similar to those in Aramaic and Arabic (the use of n instead of m for plurals comes to mind).So Arabic didn’t evolve from Aramaic. While we’re at it, it sure as heck didn’t evolve from Sabaean** or any other Epigraphic South Arabian Language (Arabic lacks the bizarre turn those fellows took with the case system, which uses m, n, and null to indicate various states of definitiveness; the specifics have prompted one linguist to propose that Aramaic and Sabaean are somehow related more closely than previously believed (Sabaean doens’t have the w-y change though, so…)).Additionally, the broken plural system used there and in Arabic are different in form anyway, with slightly different strategies (the differences are even greater with Ethio-Semitic). It’s now being proposed (notably by Huehnergard and al-Jallad), that all broken plurals are in fact derived from a PS strategy for plurals, lost in Akkadian and NW Semitic.So Arabic evolved directly from a proto-Central Semitic dialect. The only question is where?Well, I can tell you where it didn’t:1-Yemen: not attested there till c. The 1st Century BC. It has another issue—one shared by Oman (see below).2-Central Arabia: the Thamudic inscriptions there typically reveal an undeciphered language (if it were Arabic, we’d know: keep reading)3-Ihsa’: Arabic is found there, but it postdates the first record of either Arabic or Arabs.4-Oman: we know South Semitic languages were spoken there first: they all have a notable Cushitic substratum that Sabaean and Arabic lack. That should tell you something obvious, so I’ll not type up the paragraph needed to elaborate.5-Ethiopia: they did their own thing there too, and this is first attested around the same time Arabic is.6-the fertile crescent proper (obvious reasons).So where is Arabic from?Well, there’s one area left out: the marginal regions in what is now Jordan, the Sinai, and eastern Syria, and the Hijaz (particularly the north). That’s the only area that hasn’t been ruled out. Any inscriptions?well, yes: here are some inscriptions—mostly in Jordan and Hijaz (I’ll transliterate into the languages current writing system: any missing long vowels should be easy to fill in):مرد عل اجرفس كسر هسلسلة (if you know your Holy Land History, you can date this one)فيفعل لا فدا و لا اثرا فكن هنا يبغنا الموت لا ابغاه فكن هنا ارد جرج لا يردنالصعب بن وهب هسفرلشر بن نشدال بن فرس و هرق هنقة (the last part would be spelled nowadays as و هرّق هناقة(here’s a curse (can you spot the deity?)فهلت عورم عور حجر بعد سفر (with modern spelling: فهلّات عوّري ما عوّر حجر بعد سفر)A random king’s name from the area:حارثLet me put this way: I’ll let any Arab who reads the above take a stab at translation. There’s one word here that may be not so obvious, but context might clear it up (these are all rock inscriptions: that’s all the context needed)I mentioned tow people here: Huehnergard and al-Jallad. Their articles are readily available online, and they do a great job explaining the evidence. Conclusive? No. It’s possible more inscriptions could upend this, so this might make this all outdated anyway. But currently, that origin makes the most sense: the earliest mention of Arabs (or any Arabic word), are as soldiers fighting in Northern Syria at Qarqar, 853BC, as part of a coalition of a dozen princes against Shalmaneser III. As gindibu—their leader—is listed as a prince, this suggest they’ve been around long enough to form at least a proto-state.Anyone arguing for a Yemeni origin (or anywhere else) for the language would have to explain the earlier mention in the North, and also explain how a people in Yemen were able to bring a contingent all the way to Northern Syria—and not be noted for this by anyone. Finally, why no evidence of Arabic in the south till centuries later—by which time the Arabs produced three polities in the north (Gindibu’s Arabs, Qeder, Nabataea)?EDIT: I’ve fixed so typos, and added suggestions for further typos to be fixed.**there are two branches of Semitic represented in these inscriptions: South and Central (Ethiosemitic traditionally under the former, though it might in fact be separate). Sabaean is in the latter, as are a few of the other Old South Arabian languages.***It seems strange, until you consider that even in many Arab areas, Aramaic was used for administration (the Nabataeans were Arab, and spoke Arabic, but used Aramaic for administration. This was a pro-business policy: the Nabataeans—much like Arabs later on, and into the present—have always appreciated business: they were as much merchants as nomad and warriors.)

what are the fundamental features of a modern LMS? As you haven't said what you mean by "modern" I will make up my own definition and then answer that question. Let's say that a primitive LMS is a collection of tools--for resource sharing, discussion, syllabus, assignments, quiz/test, etc. The primitive LMS was largely used for pushing information and course content to students. In blended or online classes the discussion forum was also used for discussion activities.  The primitive LMS was about getting students to jump through the right hoops, in FERPA-induced privacy.A modern LMS (if one yet exists) is task-oriented rather than tool-or...

They always did.From 2009 when I switched, this was always true.Noob vapers like tobacco flavours, long-term vapers like sweet / dessert / complex flavours. Many have an ADV (all day vape) - what they take out to work etc. - and some variants for evening / whatever. They might want a specific flavour after a meal, like chocolate mint - it does exactly the same job as an ‘After 8’ choc mint does with a coffee, and for some people it does a better job. They might want to ‘snack’ on vape flavours rather than food snacks in order to avoid the weight gain many experience after smoking cessation.In the early days of vaping, the typical vaper was an oldie who vaped Rich Virginia Tobacco flavour as a noob; then RY4 (caramel-vanilla tobacco flavour) after a while; then toffee apple for an ADV as a long-time vaper, and when no one was looking Strawberry Sundae in the privacy of their own home, as a consenting adult. There were no youngsters in it, they wanted to look cool with their friends and smoked. Vaping was for the oldies: people who had friends who were dying from smoking and didn’t like the ways they were dying.A few years ago that changed, mostly via the cloud-chasing gear that puts out enough fog to blank out the Albert Hall / Madison Square Gardens. Then the twenty-somethings piled in as it started to look cool. You could really annoy a lot of old people with all that fog.Now the teens are in it because their role models, the cool 20’s, are vaping instead of smoking.Why worry?I don’t know, you tell me.Kids are always going to get in to stuff they think is cool. For years they thought vaping was for the wrinklies and avoided it like the plague. Now I guess some hip-hop star is vaping so they are going for it. Just remember this:In the developed Western world, youth smoking rates have fallen through the floor. They aren’t smoking now, they are vaping. There is no ‘gateway into smoking’ if, year after year, smoking rates are falling. WTF?? Who is getting paid to lie to you about this?Smoking prevalence has dropped like a stone. In my country, the UK, smoking rates have fallen so fast that the pharmaceutical industry are desperate to put a stop to vaping any way they can. (Pharma makes about double what the tobacco industry does from smoking, in the UK.)After 10 years, there is still nobody who can present any well-argued science-based reason why vaping will ever kill anyone who was not previously a smoker. All the fatuous rubbish that has been presented in this space has been torn to shreds by independent scientists and the most senior tobacco control figures in the world, such as Prof Etter of Geneva and Prof Britton of the RCP (Royal College of Physicians). The only people who promote the ‘death from vaping’ line now are pharma shills and the usual paid liars from SoCal.None of the dozens of clinical trials in which large quantities of pure nicotine were administered daily to never-smokers ever reported a single subject who showed any sign of dependence on nicotine. As far as scientists are concerned, there is no evidence that pure nicotine has any effect related to reinforcement or dependence. Dr Newhouse of Vanderbilt, the world’s leading nicotine researcher, whose day job is basically giving very large doses of pure nicotine to large numbers of never-consumers of tobacco in the search for better therapies for Parkinson’s disease and other neurological conditions, states: “The risk of addiction to nicotine alone is virtually nil.” He should know, as he has administered more nicotine in larger doses to more never-smokers for longer periods in more clinical trials than anyone else. Nobody is arguing with him.No clinical trial has ever reported any person becoming dependent on vaping, or nicotine delivered by vaping. This would be easy to show if it were possible:CTs and RCTs with nicotine are now more numerous than at any point in history, in the search for new therapies for the rising numbers of neurological and auto-immune disease - which nicotine in the diet helps to prevent, and which are successfully treated by mega-nutrition therapy with nicotine.Ethics panels authorise such trials with pure nicotine and never-smokers as a routine matter. They are ongoing all of the time. Pure nicotine is regarded as harmless by the research community and can be administered ad lib, ad infinitum to CT subjects as there are no reasons why not. No person has ever been harmed in any way by the administration of large amounts of nicotine every day for up to 6 months in these trials.Dependence on nicotine requires a tobacco delivery vehicle. Smoke, and you risk becoming dependent. Not otherwise.It looks very much as if vaping is innoculating youth against smoking. Only the insane would consider this a bad thing. As the head of ASH UK said in a presentation for American doctors, “Vaping is very unlikely to ever kill anyone”. That’s the head of ASH: the government’s anti-tobacco organisation.Smoking kills 100,000 a year in the UK and 440,000 a year in the US, so they say. Vaping hasn’t killed anyone yet, hasn’t shown any evidence that it might, and is unlikely to kill anyone according to the world’s most senior tobacco control figures.Only the insane would consider it a bad idea. It will save millions and millions of lives and destroy cigarette sales in the Western world.Now who is it you’re saying tells you it’s a bad idea? I wonder who pays them.On second thoughts, no need to wonder.

Many people across India are curious about the Gorkhaland issue, but most of them do not know about the issue very well and are of the false impression that Gorkhaland is a demand by the Gorkhas for separation from India.Hence, the following paragraphs below would help those, who are not familiar with the Gorkhaland issue. As one will read the story, they can view that the demand for Gorkhaland is a just and moral demand for the creation of the state of Gorkhaland within the geographical and constitutional contours of India.To make it for an easy read, I have made a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), which has been answered, thus acting as a guide to Gorkhaland issue.Q. Who are Gorkhas in the Indian context?A.The 'Gorkhas' in the Indian context are Indian citizens of Nepali ethnicity, who live across the length and breadth of India. The term 'Gorkha' in the Indian context is used to differentiate the Indian citizens of Nepali ethnicity from the citizens of Nepal, who prefer to be called 'Nepalese.'Many a time, people mistake the Indian 'Gorkhas' with Nepalese 'Gorkhali'. It is to be noted that in terms of Nepal, 'Gorkhali' refers to the people from the 'Gorkha' region. However, the use of the term 'Gorkha' in the Indian context is very different than in Nepal's context. Therefore, the term 'Gorkha' refers to different groups of people depending on the country they are being used in reference to.Q. Did the Gorkhas immigrate to India?A. Majority of the people who identify themselves as 'Gorkhas' in India are sons and daughters of the soil, and their forefathers 'came with the land.' They did not immigrate to India. However, it is well recognized that there are many immigrants from Nepal, who have also settled in India, post-independence.Q. What do you mean by 'came with the land'?A.The Nepali kingdom in the 17th and 18th Century was spread all over the Himalayas. In the year 1777, Nepal had appropriated the Kingdom of Sikkim (that included most of the present day Darjeeling district) in the east and had also successfully invaded and conquered the Kingdoms of Kumaon, Garhwal and Kangra in the west. The Nepali Kingdom was spread from the east of rivers Teesta to the west of river Sutlej.However, following the Anglo-Nepal war of 1814-1816, Nepal agreed to cede most of the Terai region, the lands of Sikkim, Kumaon, Garhwal and Kangra to the British through the Treaty of Sugauli (Sugauli Sandhi), which was signed on 4 March 1816. After the Anglo-British war of 1865, the British appropriated the lands that are today known as Kalimpong and Dooars. Therefore, all the people of Nepali, Sikkimese and Bhutanese origin, who were living in these tracts automatically came under the British and subsequently under India (after the British left), hence the term – 'came with the land.'Q. Were there Gorkhas in Darjeeling region prior to the British coming to India?A.Recorded history shows that the region was inhabited as early as the 9th century. When Guru Padmasambhava had passed through this region in the 9th century, he had established Buddhism in the region – which indicates the presence of people living in the area way, before the British ever landed in Asia.In the Indian context, the word 'Gorkha' is an umbrella term used to identify a varied group of people, as one unified entity, in terms of Darjeeling, communities such as the Róng – Lepchas, the Tsong – Limbus, the Kirat – Rai, the Dukpas and the Magars are the aboriginal/ethnic/native people of the region, who constitute a large chunk of the 'Gorkha' people living in the Darjeeling region. Hence, it can be safely said that the majority of the 'Gorkhas,' who belong to these communities and are living in Darjeeling, ethnic to the region.In addition, other groups of people such as the Gurungs, Thapas, Chettris, Newars, Sunwars, Bahuns, Kamis, Damais, Sarkis, Bhutias, Thamis etc., came to the region following subsequent wars. For instance, the establishment of the Kingdom of Sikkim in 1642 brought in a large Bhutia population from Tibet and Bhutan into the region. Similarly, the Nepali incursions starting from as early as 1700s brought many present day Nepalis to the region. Hence, it can be safely concurred that the 'Gorkha' presence far supersedes the British arrival in the region.Q. What historical claims does West Bengal have over the Darjeeling-Dooars region?A.Ironically None! There is no shared history between the Darjeeling-Dooars region, and the rest of West Bengal till the year 1935. The only common thread that connects Darjeeling and the rest of Bengal prior to 1935 is that they shared a common Governor (for administrative ease).It is interesting to note that following the partition of Bengal in 1905, the administration of Darjeeling was handed over to the Bhagalpur Division in Bihar Presidency between 1905-1907, following which a demand for a separate administrative unit for the Darjeeling-Dooars region (a la Separate State in today's term) was first raised by the Hillmen's Association in 1907, making the demand for a separate state constituting the hills, Terai and Dooars region the oldest demand for statehood in India.The only reason as to why such a demand was not entertained by the British Government, is because the Darjeeling and Dooars region were already declared a "non-regulated area", which meant that the rules and laws developed for the rest of India would not be automatically applicable to the region.Q. Why is Darjeeling a part of West Bengal?A.The Darjeeling region only became a part of West Bengal Presidency in the year 1935, when it was required to send an elected member to the Bengal Legislative Assembly. It was done purely for the then administrative ease, as the British could control the Darjeeling region better from Bengal than from Bhagalpur in Bihar.Q. Why are people in Darjeeling demanding Gorkhaland?A.The demand for a separate administrative unit (separate state in today's term) for the Darjeeling region had started as early as 1907. However, the influx of Bangladeshi refugees starting in 1965 and later state sponsored illegal immigrants from Bangladesh post-1971 for vote bank by subsequent West Bengal governments led to marginalization of the ethnic Gorkha, Kamtapuri and the Rajbanshi communities of the region. The demand for Gorkhaland is a demand to protect the identity, culture, history, traditions and the rich bond of people from Darjeeling region, which they share with their land.Furthermore, the Gorkhas from the Darjeeling region have continued to be labeled by the fascist and state sponsored Bengali organizations such as Bangla O Bangla Bhasa Bachao Samity, Amra Bangali, Jan Jagaran Morcha, Jan Chetna Morcha as illegal immigrants and the demand for Gorkhaland illegal. They have rendered the ethnic Gorkha people as an intruder in his/her own ancestral lands. This has caused widespread socio-economic and political marginalization of the Gorkhas. All these factors have resulted in the Gorkhas being under-represented, stereotyped and communally discriminated in almost all sectors.Moreover, Bengal has always been colonial in its approach to this region. The large revenues collected from Darjeeling region have been used to develop other parts of Bengal, while neglecting even the basic infrastructure in the region.Case in point: the National Highway 55, which used to be the artery connecting the hills of Darjeeling to the rest of India, has been closed due to land slide since 2009 and the West Bengal government has done nothing to rebuild it. Last year alone, there were over 20 malnutrition related death (death due to starvation) reported from the Dooars region and yet the West Bengal government did nothing to alleviate the sufferings of the people in the region.Q. Is the proposed Gorkhaland region economically viable?A.The proposed Gorkhaland region is rich in bio-diversity, scenic views, hydro potentials, tourism, NTFP, Tea and numerous other resources. Darjeeling Tea has been accorded the Geographical Indicator status recently by the WTO, which has caused the price of Darjeeling Tea to double in the world market. The demand for tea from the Dooars region is also at an all time high. Even the most conservative estimates put the revenue potential from tea, tourism and hydro from the proposed Gorkhaland area at over 1600 Crores per annum. It is estimated that the revenues from Tea and Tourism alone will make the proposed Gorkhaland region a revenue surplus state. The revenues collected from hydro development, NTFP, cross-border trades and other resources will make the proposed state of Gorkhaland as one of the most economically vibrant states in India.Q. Is the demand for Gorkhaland illegal?A. No, to demand for a separate state is the democratic right of every Indian citizen, and the formation of new states is enshrined in our constitution.Article 3 of the Indian constitution specifically deals with the issues regarding the formation of new states:Article 3. Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States—Parliament may by law—(a) form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State;(b) increase the area of any State;(c) diminish the area of any State;(d) alter the boundaries of any State;(e) alter the name of any State:Hence, the demand for Gorkhaland is a legitimate demand.Q. Why is West Bengal opposed to the formation of Gorkhaland?A. The state of West Bengal is one of the most economically backward states in India. Even though, it is the 5th largest in terms of its size, but due to the high debt burden of over Rs. 2.5 lakh Crores, West Bengal is practically bankrupt and is highly dependent on the Central Government and the revenues generated from the proposed Gorkhaland region for its sustenance and economic survival. A conservative estimate indicated that if the proposed Gorkhaland state is formed, West Bengal is expected to lose over 40% of its revenue stream.So despite all the rhetoric stating, "Darjeeling is Bengal's Abhinno Aanga," Bengal is scared of loosing its hen, which is currently laying the golden eggs. It is scared of losing the cash cow that has continued to discount the development of Bengal's other regions over and over since independence.Further, Bengal has always held a parochial, colonial and discriminatory attitude towards the proposed Gorkhaland region and continues to do so. Late. Subash Chakraborty a Minister in the CPI(M) Government had said to the Gorkhas "khetey diyechi, sutey chai?" [Meaning: "we have given you food to eat, now you want a space to sleep?"] Hinting that the Bengalis have been benevolent towards the Gorkhas in allowing the Gorkhas to live in Bengal, while ungraciously ignoring the fact that the Gorkhas are ethnic to the land. Similarly, many Bengali scholars [such as Sumanta Sen of The Telegraph] and politicians [such as Dr. Mukund Majumdar and Mr. Ashok Bhattacharjee] continue to call the ethnic Gorkhas foreigners and intruders, which gives a sense of insecurity amongst the ethnic Gorkhas – thus, the demand for Gorkhaland.Compiled by Upendra Mani Pradhan, Meri News

What a slap in the face for Congress and AAP.   The President of India, Sri Pranab Mukherjee himself approved presidents rule today in Arunachal Pradesh. President Pranab Mukherjee gives assent to central rule in Arunachal Pradesh - Times of India This is after the Congress delegation met the President ! and mind you he is a very senior congress leader!  Which certainly proves its not an agenda of BJP to destablize Arunachal Pradesh and the President Pranab Mukherjee is NO rubber stamp! It was the cabinets assessment considering the situation to indict Presidents rule. BJP just cant declare presidents rule (as the ignorant OP assumes so). NDTV quotes this " A day after Home Minister Rajnath Singh was asked to present clarifications in person, President Pranab Mukherjee has signed off on central rule for Arunachal Pradesh, indicating his agreement with the government's assessment of the state's political crisis.". Even before any decision was taken, Sr Sri Kejriwal has already declared an emergency !  and now he had to bite dust!  I am looking forward to Sri Sri Kejriwal tweeting "Murder of democracy by President !"!, but he wont, and I can bet on that!  Its very easy now to determine Kejriwals course of action.So in short , BJP will not impose presidents rule,  unless situation demands.  The wikipedia states "the phrase "President's rule" refers to the imposition of Article 356 of the Constitution of India on a State whose constitutional machinery has failed. In the event that a State government is not able to function as per the Constitution, the State comes under the direct control of the central government; in other words, it is "under President's rule". Subsequently, executive authority is exercised through the centrally appointed Governor, who has the authority to appoint retired civil servants or other administrators, to assist him."I certainly don't see any such situation in Delhi, so there is no question of BJP imposing it.  Meanwhile if there was role reversal, I wouldn't have thoughts about AAP attempting to do it!

You are not quite versed in the political party Russia. Navalny has never been a political opponent of Putin. While many Western media tried to present it in such. I follow the work of Alexei for many years. He started with the topic of exposing corruption in Russia. Political activity began in 2000, the opposition party "Yabloko" from which in 2007 with scandal has been excluded with the formulation "for causing political damage to the party, in particular, for nationalist activities." In fact, he tried to replace him as the founder of the party Grigory Yavlinsky. In 2010, the 34-year-old Navalny, on the recommendation of Garry Kasparov, Yevgenia Albats, Sergei Guriev and Oleg Sivinskogo, six months training at Yale University "Yale World Fellows". After this training the career of a fighter against corruption in Russia began to grow. In November 2011 the Executive Director of the "American Institute of modern Russia" and former Yukos lawyer Pavel Ivlev Navalny hired to provide legal services, paying that fees in the amount of 10 thousand dollars a month. According to Navalny, to provide for his personal needs, he needs two or three such client. However the lawyer chamber of Moscow has deprived the Bulk of the status of lawyer in 2013 after the entry into force of the verdict in the case of "Kirovles". From that moment, the Bulk of the problems started with the law. In 2013, Navalny said he plans to hold a post of the President of Russia.Since the beginning of the 2010s years, he is an accused, a witness and a defendant in a number of criminal, administrative and arbitration cases. In a number of cases issued and in force convictions. In 2013 began the active part of the process in the case of "Yves Rocher", on which the December 30, 2014, the court sentenced Alexei Navalny to 3 years and 6 months probation.20 February 2015 Navalny was put under administrative arrest for 15 days for unauthorized campaigning in the subway. From 2011 to 2018 Navalny was 10 times sentenced to administrative arrests. Only this time he spent in the detention center 192 days. According to estimates by Deutsche Welle, the time spent Navalny behind bars has increased sharply in 2017 and 2018 was 80 days. With increasing fees from curators Bulk increased the number of arrests by law enforcement agencies. In recent times the payment of its activities Navalny receives from the monetization of bitcoin. Strangely the chronology of the actions and arrests coincides with the dates of payment of fees.Bulk made anti-Russian activities profitable means of income. Popular support, he has not achieved, and just a little "shits" in the liberal party.I think that's why Putin the activities of Navalny does not matter. Make him a "hero and victim of the regime" is just silly and not rational. For Putin it is more important that the failed and not the popular leader was alive and well.In principle, the liberal party raised his head new and young activists. They tried to protest against the elections in Moscow, but did not succeed in this. Imaginary hunger strikes and marches did not affect the opinion of voters. Although to Western masters, they were able quite to report that the allocated funds they managed to spend in police stations and to penalties for unauthorized rallies.I think that Putin is necessary just to keep these valuable staff, who in huge money to pretend that in Russia the opposition has the power and authority. Think more...

Scene: the PM’s private office. Prime Minister Jim Hacker at his desk, head in hands, worried (as usual). Standing before the desk, sedately (as usual) is the PM’s Private Secretary, Bernard Woolley.Hacker: Where is Humphrey? I need him. I need him now! Now, Bernard!Woolley: He’s on his way, Prime Minister.Knock at the door. Sir Humphrey Appleby, Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet, opens it, peeks in, holding a folder under his arm.Appleby: You called, Prime Minister?Hacker, gesturing impatiently: Yes, yes Humphrey!Appleby takes the appointed chair before the desk.Hacker: Humphrey, what are we going to do? The British people have compelled the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, without a deal! It’s absolute chaos. Parliament’s been tied up in knots for months. No one has any answers!Appleby, calm and smiling: With respect, Prime Minister, someone does.Hacker, still lost in his rant, fails to register this, and continues: I’m the only Prime Minister in the history of Britain who has suffered not one, but three, massive votes of “no confidence,” and yet, no one asks me to resign! The House of Commons has no confidence in me, yet they want me to continue!Woolley: Well, it’s a compliment, Prime Minister. It means they have even less confidence in anyone else. Of all the people in the United Kingdom, they have the least lack of confidence in you, than they have in anyone in Britain. You’re the least least confidence-inspiring person in United Kingdom!Hacker, sarcastically, after a pause: Thank-you, Bernard. You have a genius for knowing how to “buck-up” someone’s spirits.Woolley: Thank-you, Prime Minister, but may I call to your attention, Sir Humphrey’s immediately prior statement.Hacker: What? What? What was it you said, Humphrey?Appleby, still calm and smiling: With respect, Prime Minister, I said, “someone does.”Hacker: Someone does? Someone does what?Appleby: Have the answer.Hacker: Answer? What answer? Answer to what?Appleby: To the current crisis of what the press has, with their usual colloquial derision, been calling “Brexit.” (Humphrey says this last word with evident distaste).Hacker, frantic: Who? Who? Get them in here, at once!Appleby: He is in here, Prime Minister.Hacker, puzzled: Who - Bernard? Bernard hasn’t had a straight answer for the past ten years!Woolley: Thank you, Prime Minister.Appleby: No, Prime Minister. No, not Bernard.Hacker: Then who? Me? Are you saying I have the answer, but don’t know it? Tell me what it is I know but don’t know I know, right now!Appleby: No, Prime Minister, with regret, this is one of those rare instances wherein you actually do not have the answer that you do not know that you have - or rather, in this instance, do not have.Hacker takes a pause to drink this in, then shakes it off.Hacker: But, that only leaves one - that only leaves you. Humphrey, do you have the answer?Appleby, with false humility: Yes, Prime Minister, I do.Hacker: Then tell it to me!Appleby, handing over the folder he carried-in with him: The answer is comprehensively presented in this short paper.Hacker snatches the folder, opens it so swiftly that he almost rips the cover off, and starts to read.Appleby, sotto voce: Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest ….Hacker looks up sharply, glaring at Appleby: This paper says we have to hire another ten thousand civil servants!Appleby: Of course, Prime Minister.Hacker: Within the next three weeks!Appleby: Speed is essential, Prime Minister. The crisis demands it!Hacker looks back at the paper, reads a little more, looks up: And a fifty percent increase in the salaries of the senior civil servants!Appleby: To correspond with their increased responsibilities.Hacker: What increased responsibilities?Appleby: With respect, Prime Minister, what is the greatest effect of “Brexit?” European civil servants have been, for decades, increasingly taking-over regulation of every aspect of the lives of the people of Britain. And now, the people Britain have risen up, and said, NO MORE! No more regulation of every detail of the lives of Britons, by the French-speaking, German-speaking, even, dare I say it, Italian-speaking bureaucrats of Europe. From now on, the regulation of the lives of Britons must be done by English-speaking British civil servants! And you, Prime Minister, have heard the call! You have heard the voice of the people of Britain, of Her Majesty’s sacred subjects, that they refuse to be regulated, by anyone but Britons! To meet the task that the people of Britain have asked you to bear upon your shoulders, it is vital, immediately, to hire the British civil servants that the people of Britain have called upon your government to provide. Ten thousand is a small number, compared to the tens of thousands of European bureaucrats who have, at the stroke of Brexit, been cast off the backs of the people of Britain! But with our superior British efficiency in the management of government, those ten thousand will be, we think, at the present time, taking into account variables not yet precisely known, but able to be predicted, with reasonable certainty, though subject to future developments, enough for you to answer the call that the British people have made upon you.Hacker, after a thoughtful pause: I see - I think. In other words, push it all off to the bureaucrats.Appleby: Yes, Prime Minister.Hacker: But what about the salary increases for the senior civil servants?Appleby: The senior civil service will be handling vastly increased duties, with vastly increased responsibilities. Frankly, Prime Minister, I do not think the people of Britain would entirely and completely trust a Prime Minster’s carefulness and wisdom, by saddling the people of Britain with cheap, cut-rate civil servants. The people of Britain deserve the best! Britain is like a cultured gentleman, who only goes about wearing a Savile Row bespoke suit that befits his station - not a cheap off-the-rack from some nameless discount store.Hacker: You mean, the nation’s civil servants are like a suit Britain wears, when walking about in public?Appleby: Exactly, Prime Minister.Hacker: But you benefit substantially from this, Humphrey. Isn’t there a little bit of self-interest in your advice?Appleby: Not at all, Prime Minister! Prime Minister, let me give you a sense of my approach to life. Success consists of putting yourself into a place, that once society decides that the people in that place deserve a rise, you happen to be one of the people in the place that society decides to rise. The answer I have described is the true and valid answer, entirely apart from the fact that I happen to benefit from it.Hacker hands back the folder: Humphrey, put this on the top of the agenda for tomorrow’s cabinet meeting, with the message: Action Now.Appleby: Yes, Prime Minster.