The wikipedia page on spores begins with the statement that "Spores form part of the life cycles of many bacteria, plants, algae, fungi and some protozoans"
This is not wrong, but it's far from precise, or comprehensive.
but the reference for that goes to a 404'd pollenplus.com page
Hmm, can't say that I'm surprised. Doesn't sound like one of the shining lights of Wikipedia.
I'm not a biologist ; I don't claim deep knowledge in this area. But many (possibly a majority) of the dozens of phyla of "protozoa" are described as producing spores, as are a significant number of bacterial phyla. In my slowly proceeding efforts to get up-to-the-last-decade on modern biology, I haven't got up to the fungi (with which phyla one normally associates "spores"), but collectively that kingdom doesn't add to more phyla than the ones I've listed already.
In short, "spore" seems to be a very widely used term that probably denotes a "resting" stage of many life forms, which is probably achieved in many different ways in different phyla. I suspect that on a descriptive front, one could probably make a good case for describing tardigrade tuns as spores of multicellular organisms.
It sounds like Wikipedia isn't up to scratch for getting a coherent picture of this aspect of current biological understanding. As I said, I don't claim deep knowledge, and can't proffer recommendations for anything better, other than conventional college or on-line courses. For my purposes, working through a late-90s textbook is sufficient, even if the number of phyla has varied since publication. YMMV.
to protect people too stupid to not upload pictures to the Internet that they think might cause them problems later...
Several relevant quotes from an SF author : "not responsible for advice not taken" ; "stupidity has always carried the death penalty" ; "just think of it as evolution in action".
So yeah, pretty stupid overall. This is another sad attempt at a form of DRM.
The only way that I'd disagree with you is that, from the summary, this is an easily-broken form of DRM which seems to have been designed for purposes that wouldn't cause the developers sleepless nights. It's doomed to failure in multiple ways (didn't I mention yEnc in my very last posting on SlashDot? I think I did.), but I don't think it actually qualifies as evil.
I had his book until my ex girlfriend burnt it in a ritual book burning of my belongings.
I hope that she was an ex before you discovered her penchant for burning books. Dangerous animal. Back away carefully and make good your escape. Not human and not safe for sex.
Try to get her to fuck a lawyer (another non-human animal form) and then look on from the sidelines as she burns his belongings and gets deeply fucked over herself.
I don't see that option in Mozilla/Seamonkey or Firefox.
Do Mozilla advertise their browsers (I forget what SeaMonkey is/ was) as being suitable for crippled browsing for mind-impaired people? I don't think that I saw that part of the advertising campaign. Is it an option, or a compulsory part of your current choice of browser?
Hard to stick up a liquor store and meditate at the same.
Speaks the voice of experience ?
Did the liquor store have a video camera recording when you tried this... unusual... stick up? That would make for an interesting, not to say amusing, video.
s/caught up to what everyone on the internet was thinking/said on a formal record/
Before I went out to sea, lawyers of my acquaintance were saying this. But not being involved in the case, their statements were of no weight.
For the record : since no civilized country has a death penalty for crimes of conscience, no civilized country allows people to be extradited (for crimes of conscience) to countries that allow execution for crimes of conscience. Ditto for torture w.r.t. crimes of conscience.
I refer the honourable readers to my previous statements that Assange may well feel himself to be safer under the responsibility of a judicial system of a country of his choice for transfer to another country (possibly of his choice) for crimes (possibly of his choice) which are unlikely to result in anything more than a minor prison sentence.
It may be threat leveraging, in reverse.
It's not impossible that CIA/FBI/WKW "Black_Ops" teams could extra judicially render Assange from England to a state of "Black_Ops" direction. But it would be implausible to happen without penetrating significant layers of UK's judicial protection. Is that a political price that "Black_Ops" political masters are willing to pay?
An interesting question. Assange has bet (probably literally) his life on his interpretation of the answer.
Like him or loathe him, you've got to respect a man who knowingly puts his life on the line.
So how did this oversight failure happen? It was a product of the Bush administration's conscious sabotage of regulation when they were in control. They appointed "pro-business" officials who had a policy of letting business get away with everything up to and including murder.
The term that we've long used for this process (up to and including, as you say, murder) is "regulatory capture". It's something that the Trade Union movement has been complaining about in Britain since well before the Piper Alpha (which was approximately 15.2 Deepwater Horizons in body count).
But the sacked MMS officials don't need to worry. There will be plenty of openings for them in the industry on the basis of their strong personal records in safety management in the industry.
I'd write more, but I'm just back onshore form a completely different shallow water HTHP drilling project, and I'm going to the pub instead.
Awww, boring. I was actually quite interested if someone had seriously tried to farm them. Would have been fun to watch. From a distance. A good distance.
The game (any specific instance of the game) exists in the context of the people playing it at the time of play. If one makes a move then, and it is not illegal, then it is the move that you have to live with. Whether it was optimal or not... that's your fault. You can regret making mistakes, but nonetheless, you have to live with the moves you make.
Yes, I do allow my opponents to retract moves. But I prefer them to make their move once, then let me get on with considering my response.
Seriously : I've heard a lot of things claimed about what the Japanese do to cetaceans, but I've not hear that claim before.
I know - google it. So I did. There was reporting of a proposal to do that in 2002. Since then... nothing I've found. The (alleged) site doesn't mention it either.
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it a kite that someone once flew?
Is that inherently wrong?
Probably no more inherently wrong than farming any other self-aware organism is. And I'm looking at you, Dean Swift, you little NOT-hypocrite, you!
I'd take the latter's voice over the former's everything else, any day.
Seconded!
While Sandra Dickinson may be, in real life, a wonderfully intelligent and subtle person, in her professional life she thoroughly succeeded in stereotyping herself as a dumb blonde with big tits and an annoying screetchy voice. Worth porking, for sure, but not worth talking to before, during or after being used as a spunk bucket. Arguably the most stupid casting decision of the Beeb for that year, if not decade.
Trillian, the moped-cornering astrophysicist planet-jumper on the other hand, could have a face and body like a bag of spanners put through a car crusher and still be a person worth knowing.
This has been the case since CCDs were invented decades ago, there's just too much to analyse everything within the budget, so they go for the obvious/important/cheap signals (delete as applicable).
Not just important/ obvious/ cheap...
Generally, you're observing towards an aim. You're mapping transverse velocities in a suite of planetary nebulae, or trying to determine the light curve of an eclipsing binary or whatever your proximal or distal project is. So you analyse the objects that you've targeted in your filed(s) of view as being planetary nebulae, or eclipsing binaries, or whatever and you get on with doing what your project has been funded to do. If you even notice something else that you capture as a serendipitous observation, you're quite likely to not even notice it.
Remember the old nick name for asteroids : "vermin of the skies". So-called because of the number of uncorrelatable smears smudges and streaks that they left on photographic plates taken for other reasons. It's only with the relatively recent combination of scanning of old plates, putting them into on-line databases, and (semi-)automating the search process that a lot of these "vermin" can be turned into useful data by finding pre-discovery images of NEOs. The amount of other data that is buried in those plates... ET could be there waving at us and we wouldn't know.
A couple of years ago I did a university "field" course in practical astronomy at the OAM (Observatorio Astronomic de Mallorca, if I remember correctly ; on that Mediterranean island). One of my projects was to obtain and analyse the light curve of a known eclipsing binary in Bootes (IIRC ; I'd have to read my reports to find out!). Great fine, marvellous ; it's a bog-standard teaching project. One of the field stars that I chose as a photometric standard turned out to be a variable too (which is, of course, why you choose several photometric standards from your field ; the likelihood of all of them being significantly variable falls rapidly as the number increases). Which is great - I get two projects for the price of one set of observations. Except that I don't : the target star had over half it's cycle visible to me, so I could extract all the necessary parameters ; my serendipitous discovery (previously discovered independently by at least two other observing teams) only showed a small part of it's cycle.
I still haven't had time to organise an observational campaign to go back and complete the project - though I have worked out what I need to do in terms of renting time on a robotic telescope. My serendipitous observations are languishing in an electronic filing cabinet and may never be used again.
And I'll bet that the same serendipitous discovery has been made by several other students on that course since.
Observations are generally made towards an end ; random data mining is a luxury few have time or energy to indulge in.
OK everyone, we know how this works out. We throw the participants into the pit along with the scorpions, then divide the crowd into four parts who scream "Vi", "EMACS", "Gnu/Linux" and "Linux" at each other until we've all got sore throats.
Then we go to the pub. To attend to the soreness. It's purely medicinal.
Except for the scorpions. They don't come to the pub ; they stay in the pit. That's an important rule.
It sounds like you follow Computer Go much more closely than I ever did (I lost the password for my KGS account several years ago, but I'd not bothered to use it for several years before that. Give me a board and a bowl of stones any day.). But the implication that Monte Carlo methods were new to Computer Go in the early 'noughties simply isn't true. One of the people who taught me Go in the mid-80s was using some form of Monte Carlo on his BBC Master Go playing engine back then. Or at least, that's what he claimed - I never saw the program running, and he admitted that it was stuck in the 20s of kyu. As was everything else in the Computer Go world in the mid-80s.
What is a 4D on KGS out in the real world? This week? I do recall getting hit by a couple of the mass down-grades during the couple of dozen games I played on it in the several years that I had an account. So it seems that the problem of grade inflation still persists.
From what few of the links in TFA work from this location, it looks like this is a toy that only plays 9x9 games.
This isn't impressive. 5x5 was solved (as in - optimal play has been mapped for the entire gamespace) around a decade ago. I wouldn't be surprised if 7x7 was also near to being solved by now (it's a mere 7.5 times as hard, probably) and I wouldn't be surprised to hear of 9x9 being solved while I'm still hearing with my ears instead of a machine. (Given the state of my ears, this is more challenging than it sounds. Pardon?)
But yeah - it's another competitor in the Computer Go stakes. It's unlikely to hurt the game. It may even help progress the art of Computer Go.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not wrong, but it's far from precise, or comprehensive.
Hmm, can't say that I'm surprised. Doesn't sound like one of the shining lights of Wikipedia.
I'm not a biologist ; I don't claim deep knowledge in this area. But many (possibly a majority) of the dozens of phyla of "protozoa" are described as producing spores, as are a significant number of bacterial phyla. In my slowly proceeding efforts to get up-to-the-last-decade on modern biology, I haven't got up to the fungi (with which phyla one normally associates "spores"), but collectively that kingdom doesn't add to more phyla than the ones I've listed already.
In short, "spore" seems to be a very widely used term that probably denotes a "resting" stage of many life forms, which is probably achieved in many different ways in different phyla. I suspect that on a descriptive front, one could probably make a good case for describing tardigrade tuns as spores of multicellular organisms.
It sounds like Wikipedia isn't up to scratch for getting a coherent picture of this aspect of current biological understanding. As I said, I don't claim deep knowledge, and can't proffer recommendations for anything better, other than conventional college or on-line courses. For my purposes, working through a late-90s textbook is sufficient, even if the number of phyla has varied since publication. YMMV.
Several relevant quotes from an SF author : "not responsible for advice not taken" ; "stupidity has always carried the death penalty" ; "just think of it as evolution in action".
The only way that I'd disagree with you is that, from the summary, this is an easily-broken form of DRM which seems to have been designed for purposes that wouldn't cause the developers sleepless nights. It's doomed to failure in multiple ways (didn't I mention yEnc in my very last posting on SlashDot? I think I did.), but I don't think it actually qualifies as evil.
That's the first mention of yEnc that I've heard for years. So much for taking over the 'Net.
Does that work in a study population who do not know of the existence of the new, improved drug?
I hope that she was an ex before you discovered her penchant for burning books. Dangerous animal. Back away carefully and make good your escape. Not human and not safe for sex.
Try to get her to fuck a lawyer (another non-human animal form) and then look on from the sidelines as she burns his belongings and gets deeply fucked over herself.
Do Mozilla advertise their browsers (I forget what SeaMonkey is/ was) as being suitable for crippled browsing for mind-impaired people? I don't think that I saw that part of the advertising campaign. Is it an option, or a compulsory part of your current choice of browser?
The soon-to-be-ex-employees are working for salary only, not stock options. Didn't you read the summary?
His ALLEGED relationship etc.
Or are the Septics doing trial-by-media again?
I think that the original post is missing something with the effect of an initial "IF..."
Speaks the voice of experience ?
Did the liquor store have a video camera recording when you tried this ... unusual ... stick up? That would make for an interesting, not to say amusing, video.
[Marvin]Depressing, isn't it?[/Marvin]
Before I went out to sea, lawyers of my acquaintance were saying this. But not being involved in the case, their statements were of no weight.
For the record : since no civilized country has a death penalty for crimes of conscience, no civilized country allows people to be extradited (for crimes of conscience) to countries that allow execution for crimes of conscience. Ditto for torture w.r.t. crimes of conscience.
I refer the honourable readers to my previous statements that Assange may well feel himself to be safer under the responsibility of a judicial system of a country of his choice for transfer to another country (possibly of his choice) for crimes (possibly of his choice) which are unlikely to result in anything more than a minor prison sentence.
It may be threat leveraging, in reverse.
It's not impossible that CIA/FBI/WKW "Black_Ops" teams could extra judicially render Assange from England to a state of "Black_Ops" direction. But it would be implausible to happen without penetrating significant layers of UK's judicial protection. Is that a political price that "Black_Ops" political masters are willing to pay?
An interesting question. Assange has bet (probably literally) his life on his interpretation of the answer.
Like him or loathe him, you've got to respect a man who knowingly puts his life on the line.
The challenge is in finding that solution.
If dealing with 3-sudoku (i.e. 3^3x3^2 grids), you should be able to solve it, if slowly.
4-sudoku (i.e. 4^2x4^2 grids) require either abnormal memory capabilities, or good record-keeping.
Does anyone have a source of 5-sudoku? I feel the need for a challenge.
The term that we've long used for this process (up to and including, as you say, murder) is "regulatory capture". It's something that the Trade Union movement has been complaining about in Britain since well before the Piper Alpha (which was approximately 15.2 Deepwater Horizons in body count). But the sacked MMS officials don't need to worry. There will be plenty of openings for them in the industry on the basis of their strong personal records in safety management in the industry.
I'd write more, but I'm just back onshore form a completely different shallow water HTHP drilling project, and I'm going to the pub instead.
Awww, boring. I was actually quite interested if someone had seriously tried to farm them. Would have been fun to watch. From a distance. A good distance.
The game (any specific instance of the game) exists in the context of the people playing it at the time of play. If one makes a move then, and it is not illegal, then it is the move that you have to live with. Whether it was optimal or not ... that's your fault. You can regret making mistakes, but nonetheless, you have to live with the moves you make.
Yes, I do allow my opponents to retract moves. But I prefer them to make their move once, then let me get on with considering my response.
Citation please.
Seriously : I've heard a lot of things claimed about what the Japanese do to cetaceans, but I've not hear that claim before.
I know - google it. So I did. There was reporting of a proposal to do that in 2002. Since then ... nothing I've found. The (alleged) site doesn't mention it either.
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it a kite that someone once flew?
Probably no more inherently wrong than farming any other self-aware organism is. And I'm looking at you, Dean Swift, you little NOT-hypocrite, you!
Seconded!
While Sandra Dickinson may be, in real life, a wonderfully intelligent and subtle person, in her professional life she thoroughly succeeded in stereotyping herself as a dumb blonde with big tits and an annoying screetchy voice. Worth porking, for sure, but not worth talking to before, during or after being used as a spunk bucket. Arguably the most stupid casting decision of the Beeb for that year, if not decade.
Trillian, the moped-cornering astrophysicist planet-jumper on the other hand, could have a face and body like a bag of spanners put through a car crusher and still be a person worth knowing.
Sorry, should that be "cruise" instead of "soar"? And "depths" instead of "heights"?
So.... build a giant indoor waterpark in an airship.
Simples!
and in deference, we can fly it by the light of the silvery Tay.
Not just important/ obvious/ cheap ...
Generally, you're observing towards an aim. You're mapping transverse velocities in a suite of planetary nebulae, or trying to determine the light curve of an eclipsing binary or whatever your proximal or distal project is. So you analyse the objects that you've targeted in your filed(s) of view as being planetary nebulae, or eclipsing binaries, or whatever and you get on with doing what your project has been funded to do. If you even notice something else that you capture as a serendipitous observation, you're quite likely to not even notice it.
Remember the old nick name for asteroids : "vermin of the skies". So-called because of the number of uncorrelatable smears smudges and streaks that they left on photographic plates taken for other reasons. It's only with the relatively recent combination of scanning of old plates, putting them into on-line databases, and (semi-)automating the search process that a lot of these "vermin" can be turned into useful data by finding pre-discovery images of NEOs. The amount of other data that is buried in those plates ... ET could be there waving at us and we wouldn't know.
A couple of years ago I did a university "field" course in practical astronomy at the OAM (Observatorio Astronomic de Mallorca, if I remember correctly ; on that Mediterranean island). One of my projects was to obtain and analyse the light curve of a known eclipsing binary in Bootes (IIRC ; I'd have to read my reports to find out!). Great fine, marvellous ; it's a bog-standard teaching project. One of the field stars that I chose as a photometric standard turned out to be a variable too (which is, of course, why you choose several photometric standards from your field ; the likelihood of all of them being significantly variable falls rapidly as the number increases). Which is great - I get two projects for the price of one set of observations. Except that I don't : the target star had over half it's cycle visible to me, so I could extract all the necessary parameters ; my serendipitous discovery (previously discovered independently by at least two other observing teams) only showed a small part of it's cycle.
I still haven't had time to organise an observational campaign to go back and complete the project - though I have worked out what I need to do in terms of renting time on a robotic telescope. My serendipitous observations are languishing in an electronic filing cabinet and may never be used again.
And I'll bet that the same serendipitous discovery has been made by several other students on that course since.
Observations are generally made towards an end ; random data mining is a luxury few have time or energy to indulge in.
OK everyone, we know how this works out. We throw the participants into the pit along with the scorpions, then divide the crowd into four parts who scream "Vi", "EMACS", "Gnu/Linux" and "Linux" at each other until we've all got sore throats.
Then we go to the pub. To attend to the soreness. It's purely medicinal.
Except for the scorpions. They don't come to the pub ; they stay in the pit. That's an important rule.
What is a 4D on KGS out in the real world? This week? I do recall getting hit by a couple of the mass down-grades during the couple of dozen games I played on it in the several years that I had an account. So it seems that the problem of grade inflation still persists.
This isn't impressive. 5x5 was solved (as in - optimal play has been mapped for the entire gamespace) around a decade ago. I wouldn't be surprised if 7x7 was also near to being solved by now (it's a mere 7.5 times as hard, probably) and I wouldn't be surprised to hear of 9x9 being solved while I'm still hearing with my ears instead of a machine. (Given the state of my ears, this is more challenging than it sounds. Pardon?)
But yeah - it's another competitor in the Computer Go stakes. It's unlikely to hurt the game. It may even help progress the art of Computer Go.