What was the key component that made the Neolithic revolution a “revolution”?

Imagine a child who consistently gets mediocre grades and is often picked last for a team when games are played at recess. however, he likes to make silly jokes and play pranks, and he notices that people laugh when he does those things. the child starts to think that others are laughing with him, not at him. this is part of the process that charles cooley

Awoman was found strangled in the basement of her home where she lived with her husband. the crime scene was processed and investigators left. the next day, the medical examiner reported that a scalloped, woven belt was used to strangle the victim. the police asked the husband to search the house again to look for such a belt and he agreed. a belt was found that matched marks on the victim. the man was arrested. his attorney made a motion that the belt be excluded from the evidence as he contended that the search was not legal. which statement is true? a. the belt should be excluded because the search was not legal. the police did not obtain a search warrant, as needed according to the fourth amendment to the u.s. constitution. b. the belt is admissible because the man gave his consent to the second search. c. the belt should be excluded because the search was not legal. the police did not obtain a search warrant, as need according to michigan v. tyler. d. the belt is admissible as evidence, according to mincey v. arizona.

Arthur met rottweiler breeders lynda and george at a dog show in rhode island. the couple, who reside in new york state, later sold several rottweiler dogs to arthur who lived in rhode island. arthur later sued lynda and george, claiming that the dogs were sick and infirm. he filed a complaint in rhode island courts, claiming that even though the dogs were sold in new york, the breeders had attended the dog show and advertised in the rottweiler newsletter which was distributed at the event in rhode island. based on the facts, do you think rhode island courts have personal jurisdiction in this case?