Question: In practice, not all rule violations will result in a disqualification as the referee may use their own judgement and is not obligated to stop the match. Usually, the only offenses that the referee will see and immediately disqualify the match on (as opposed to having multiple offenses) are low blows, weapon usage, interference, or assaulting the referee. In WWE, a referee must see the violation with their own eyes to rule that the match end in a disqualification (simply watching the video tape is not usually enough) and the referee's ruling is almost always final, although Dusty finishes (named after, and made famous by, Dusty Rhodes) will often result in the referee's decision being overturned. It is not uncommon for the referees themselves to get knocked out during a match, which is commonly referred to by the term "ref bump". While the referee remains "unconscious", wrestlers are free to violate rules until the referee is revived or replaced. In some cases, a referee might disqualify a person under the presumption that it was that wrestler who knocked them out; most referee knockouts are arranged to allow a wrestler, usually a heel, to gain an advantage. For example, a wrestler may get whipped into a referee at a slower speed, knocking the ref down for short amount of time; during that interim period, one wrestler may pin their opponent for a three-count and would have won the match but for the referee being down (sometimes, another referee will sprint to the ring from backstage to attempt to make the count, but by then, the other wrestler has had enough time to kick-out on their own accord).
Is there an answer to this question: What are the usual reasons for an automatic disqualification?

Answer: low blows, weapon usage, interference, or assaulting the referee

Question: Although provision is made in Title 10 of the United States Code for the Secretary of the Air Force to appoint warrant officers, the Air Force does not currently use warrant officer grades, and is the only one of the U.S. Armed Services not to do so. The Air Force inherited warrant officer ranks from the Army at its inception in 1947, but their place in the Air Force structure was never made clear.[citation needed] When the Congress authorized the creation of two new senior enlisted ranks in 1958, Air Force officials privately concluded that these two new "super grades" could fill all Air Force needs then performed at the warrant officer level, although this was not publicly acknowledged until years later.[citation needed] The Air Force stopped appointing warrant officers in 1959, the same year the first promotions were made to the new top enlisted grade, Chief Master Sergeant. Most of the existing Air Force warrant officers entered the commissioned officer ranks during the 1960s, but small numbers continued to exist in the warrant officer grades for the next 21 years.
Is there an answer to this question: When did the USAF stop appointing warrant officers?

Answer: 1959

Question: Sebastian Cabot declares in a handwritten Latin text in his original 1545 map, that the St. John's earned its name when he and his father, the Venetian explorer John Cabot became the first Europeans to sail into the harbour, in the morning of 24 June 1494 (against British and French historians stating 1497), the feast day of Saint John the Baptist. However, the exact locations of Cabot's landfalls are disputed. A series of expeditions to St. John's by Portuguese from the Azores took place in the early 16th century, and by 1540 French, Spanish and Portuguese ships crossed the Atlantic annually to fish the waters off the Avalon Peninsula. In the Basque Country, it is a common belief that the name of St. John's was given by Basque fishermen because the bay of St. John's is very similar to the Bay of Pasaia in the Basque Country, where one of the fishing towns is also called St. John (in Spanish, San Juan, and in Basque, Donibane).
Is there an answer to this question: Who did British and French historians claim sailed into St John's harbor in 1494?

Answer: unanswerable

Question: The 19th century brought new standards of accuracy and style. In regard to accuracy, observes J.M. Cohen, the policy became "the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text", except for any bawdy passages and the addition of copious explanatory footnotes. In regard to style, the Victorians' aim, achieved through far-reaching metaphrase (literality) or pseudo-metaphrase, was to constantly remind readers that they were reading a foreign classic. An exception was the outstanding translation in this period, Edward FitzGerald's Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (1859), which achieved its Oriental flavor largely by using Persian names and discreet Biblical echoes and actually drew little of its material from the Persian original.
Is there an answer to this question: What banned standards of translation came with the 19th century?

Answer:
unanswerable