In the Paris Agreements of 23 October 1954, France offered to establish an independent "Saarland", under the auspices of the Western European Union (WEU), but on 23 October 1955 in the Saar Statute referendum the Saar electorate rejected this plan by 67.7% to 32.3% (out of a 96.5% turnout: 423,434 against, 201,975 for) despite the public support of Federal German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer for the plan. The rejection of the plan by the Saarlanders was interpreted as support for the Saar to join the Federal Republic of Germany.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): The rejection of the plan by the Saarlanders was interpreted as support for the Saar to do what?
Ah, so.. join the Federal Republic of Germany.

Codd's paper was picked up by two people at Berkeley, Eugene Wong and Michael Stonebraker. They started a project known as INGRES using funding that had already been allocated for a geographical database project and student programmers to produce code. Beginning in 1973, INGRES delivered its first test products which were generally ready for widespread use in 1979. INGRES was similar to System R in a number of ways, including the use of a "language" for data access, known as QUEL. Over time, INGRES moved to the emerging SQL standard.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): What computer language was used in INGRES to access data?
Ah, so.. QUEL

Often taxonomists prefer to use phylogenetic analysis to determine whether a population can be considered a subspecies. Phylogenetic analysis relies on the concept of derived characteristics that are not shared between groups, usually applying to populations that are allopatric (geographically separated) and therefore discretely bounded. This would make a subspecies, evolutionarily speaking, a clade a group with a common evolutionary ancestor population. The smooth gradation of human genetic variation in general tends to rule out any idea that human population groups can be considered monophyletic (cleanly divided), as there appears to always have been considerable gene flow between human populations. Rachel Caspari (2003) have argued that clades are by definition monophyletic groups (a taxon that includes all descendants of a given ancestor) and since no groups currently regarded as races are monophyletic, none of those groups can be clades.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): Who argued in 2003 that all clades are by definition monophyletic groups?
Ah, so..
Rachel Caspari