Is the correct formulation here.

An idea is joining two things which seem different, but can be shown to actually be the same. By providing possible reapplication, that is part of the way to "something new," depending on how far afield. If you look at many "new" ideas, the parts and their origins become obvious. The "new" part will often be the means of moving the solution to its new context.

Take, for example the derivation of the Lorentz contraction from a description of the movement of light in aether. Lorentz simplified the mathematics by inventing the idea of local time, to move equations meant for kinematics to this new context of Maxwellian radiation. Poincare recognized that "local time" was an ingenious idea, but did not quite get to what we think of as relativity. The Lorentz contraction, and "local time" are then moved, essentially wholesale, into Einstein's kinematics.

New isn't always the elephant, it is the ability to visualize the elephant where it has never been before. Since innovation is not a completely black box problem, aiding visualization of it can be valuable.

If by few you mean 1, then yes. However, black hat hacking was going on by the 1970's. 1988 saw the Morris worm, which is basically the first script kiddie kind of attack, just enough knowledge to be destructive. The Cukoo's Egg details attacks from 1986, and was published in 1989. This was before the deregulation of the internet.

Since the US government created arpanet. For a long time the general public did not have access.

Blazingly dumbest thing written today. Blogging was over-run with war trolls. Look at who, personally, won: war supporters. Virtually without exception, warthogs did fine personally as columnists. We would just have been treated to a massive social media push. Twits of War, does, however, have sort of a ring to it.

Reality: we've been moving towards an nastier society for some time. Americans wanted a war, against a largely hapless target. And the people who pimped for the war are still grinding out column inches. Twitter can't even get rid of the zombies of Iraq, let alone stop the war itself.

He was fired because his financial results sucked. The projections on the launch were higher than actual sales, and the perception is the problems with launch were at the root of it. As much as one would like to say he was fired for being a DRM pimping grease ball, the reason he went down is because he could not execute well enough on being a DRM pimping grease ball.

"The hypothesis is about fermented beverages, not beer specifically"

You are welcome to present evidence for regular fermentation from the Younger Dryas settlements. But you won't find any.

That is, where there is large consumption of milk as a staple, the genes for lactose tolerance are selected for heavily. The same would be true of alcohol: there would be adaptations that correspond to civilized areas. For reasons of my current research, and can state categorically that we don't see a good overlap between early domestication of grain, and alcohol digestion, this would include maltose tolerance, alcohol tolerence, adaptations of insulin response, and so on. Lactose selectivity is extremely high, if beer were the water of early cities, we'd expect similar levels of selection for the same reason.

The "birth of consciousness" error isn't new: several authors have labelled some particular recent reductive change as being "what makes us modern humans." So far, we have not found any good genomic evidence for this. It may be there, we've missed big things before, but this one makes undergraduate levels of blunder and is being pushed out with out even a basic filter.

Beer is SEO friendly, what can I say.

Domestication of grains starts 2000 years, at latest, from the earliest brewing of beer. The "beer hypothesis" also lacks skeletal evidence, and also genomic evidence. More interesting is the rapid spread of later lactose tolerance, which has an extremely high selective index. Also contradicting the reductive understanding of the role of beer is the lack of pottery containers for it in many early cultures, or lack of evidence for brewing in places such as China, even though rice and grain cultivation were quite early there.

So summary: beer is late, it is missing from many cultures, and the genomics would support a much higher selection for digesting of it –as they do with milk –if a small area invented brewing and this was the core civilizing agent.

further, linguistic convergence argues for language being close to 100,000 years old, and cultural progressions, that is "fashion" are as much as 70,000 years old. The understanding of band organization - that is groups smaller than tribes that do not produce a surplus, and there fore have little to no "state" apparatus or long term castes - is not the placid realm before angst. The Australian aboriginal mythology is filled with a sense of angst as their climate changed, and they are band organized.

There are many better hypotheses for the role of intoxication in human history. Far more likely beer takes off as soon as agriculture becomes intertwined with water, because over the long term the water becomes fouled. It also has an important role when economic castes in settlements start to become forces in themselves. It may have been used as part of combat, as the only medication they had.

This doesn't even pass a simple date match of events to create a timeline.

They are potential value add customers.

Incorrect.

Equality before the law is a principle that is even more intrinsic than the constitution.

Divorce is a dissolution, not a breach, of the marriage contract.

They didn't but bigots, theocrats, and racists, wish they did.

No where is the Federal government declared to be a republic and not a democracy. There are statements from people who could be called "the founders" on both sides of the issue, precisely because the words then have a different meaning from now.

It's most frequent use is by racists.