1. Corporations will leave China, and forgo any possible profit there, or they won't. Up to them. Google seems to have made their choice.
2. The nation has some soul-searching to do. I expect that the US government will do exactly nothing for a long time, while pleading that other crises are taking up all their attention. (Which, actually is a pretty good excuse right now.)
3. The UN will do nothing. Cyberwarfare is not something the UN is chartered to police, and not something they care about, and even if it were they already know what China is and they're not going to risk making them tantrum.
4. The cybercommunity? Well, if the non-chinese cybercitizens want to start a war over this, the chinese cyberwarriors will gladly take part. But this might not be much different than the status quo.
Revealing China as corporate espionage hackers surprises exactly no one. So nothing will change. Everyone already lives with the truth of chinese malfeasance. All that will change will be one or two companies deciding that they've had enough and they're pulling out of that broken country.
I like the solution for this that City of Heroes uses. Yes, they have the holy trinity of tank, damage dealer, and damage mitigator, but they have two variations on the theme that make combat dynamic and interesting.
Specialist Options: Some tanks dodge damage, others resist it, and yet others take the enemy's full attack and then quickly heal it back up. Similarly, some damage mitigators heal, others use force fields to prevent damage from happening in the first place, and others debuff the enemy enough that their damage can be shrugged off. All these options lend themselves to different situations, and the party tactics can change according to which options are present in the group.
Hybrids: All CoH archetypes are hybrids. 'Tanks' serve as tanks and crowd control. Damage mitigators might also be damage dealers or crowd controllers. Some damage dealers have abilities that make them serviceable tanks in a pinch (scrappers). Allowing each character the ability to play two or more roles keeps the game fluid and the player engaged. But no character can play all three roles of the trinity; that removes the incentive to group and creates a single-player experience that's not much fun.
The only real problem in CoH is that most encounters are so easy that their deep, interesting combat system isn't necessary. If the CoH characters are likened to chess pieces, with their own specialties and subtleties, the NPC enemies are playing tic-tac-toe. But the system itself is very, very well done.
The debate about relativity and the standard model are debates where both sides are scientists specialized in those fields. They are debating on fine points of the theories, and both sides are backed up by convincing models and hard data.
The debate on the evolution of species and global warming are debates where one side has scientists with hard data, and the other side has vested emotional or financial interest but no special training or insight into the science. These are debates between specialists and amateurs.
You can hold any opinions you wish, but don't elevate amateurs with agendas to the level of scientists. They do not know what they are talking about, no matter how passionately they parrot their disagreements.
New York would survive. Estimates are that it would be covered in about 35 cm of ash.
Here are pictures of two eruptions of the Yellowstone supervolcano: The Huckleberry Ridge Tuff and the Lava Creek Tuff. The areas shown are not wind-blown ash; that's where the pyroclastic ash will reach, at about 200 miles per hour and over 1000 degrees F. You can see that everyone from Nevada to Missouri is dead.
But New York...eh, they might make it. Poor bastards.
It came from the 1950s, when life was ideal, Reagan was a cowboy hero, and scientists were emotionless paragons in white lab coats. Conservatives today take the 1950s as their conception of how the world should work, and they get upset whenever anyone deviates from this model.
Yes, I'm being snarky, but I think it's a pretty accurate observation.
You (or someone else whose example you are following) is searching through the CSU data, to find cherry-picked results that contradict accepted climate research.
I am not accusing you of wearing a mullet. But what you are doing is very close to Creationist fanaticism. It is dishonest, politically motivated, and untrue.
The raw/final graph could be anything -- it is poorly labeled -- but I suspect it is the difference between the raw and final tree ring temperature observations. Of course there is a difference between the raw and final data, because the tree rings are *wrong* after 1960 and needed to be corrected. This has been explained.
The Darwin Zero results were biased upwards because they were homogenized (read: Averaged) with temperatures in the rest of the continent. Any time you average points together, some of them are going to go up (and others will go down). The Darwin Zero station temperatures were consistently lower than the other Australian measurements. They were *wrong* and needed to be adjusted or thrown out, and the scientists chose to adjust them.
There is nothing sinister here, and if critics were honest they'd mention the hundreds of data points that *support* the hypothesis of climate change rather than digging out the one badly-labeled graph and the one fallacious data point that disputes it.
It's like explaining to people that unicorns don't exist, while they keep shaking narwhal bones at us and shrieking 'Burn the witch!'
I work in a field closely associated with climatology (satellite remote sensing), and I work with climatologists. And I agree with the article on one point: We really do not understand how big a deal this 'climategate' is.
The worst bits in that email dump are petty squabbles between researchers and critics. That's standard -- often critics are dishonest people who are attacking the science in order to advance a political agenda, and that is very frustrating to someone who wants to do honest science. Yes, tempers flare in private emails. Scientists are human. If people are going to lose faith in science because scientists are human...then we as a race are doomed, in my opinion.
As for the results of the CSU climate research, they're not in any doubt. Every criticism of them has been answered, and there are other studies that agree with the CSU results. So attack the scientists for being human if you must, but the science is sound and must be heeded.
I really do not understand why this has blown up into such a conflagration. Anyone who gives up on science because of this trifling matter is welcome to go back to the dark ages and live their short, wholesome, science-free life.
That's freaky. I'm more interested in hearing about this phenomenon than the LHC.
And you know, they *might* be related. I don't buy any rumors about a russian rocket -- no rocket would make anything that geometrically precise and long-lived. This looks to me like a bizarre magnetic disturbance caused a bizarre aurora. The helical blue beam looks like a trace of a LEO plasma stream. The large spiral would then be a magnetic mirror -- common in the polar magnetosphere, but never this bright or perfect.
Could the LHC have spat out a magnetic monopole?
I'd like to see the timing of when the LHC spun up to power and when this display occurred.
You're probably right. But if this is a delusion, it's a delusion with no apparent cause. I'm *not* an enemy of technology. I work in high-tech fields, I own lots of high-tech toys, I'm no luddite. And it's a delusion that causes me physical pain. So it's worth it, to me, to try and avoid whatever appears to be causing the problem.
It's interesting, because I used to get headaches whenever I was near a Wifi hub. I set one up in my house for my friend's kids to use, but I kept it disconnected when I was the only one home. I was so sensitive that, if someone else were turning the Wifi on and off, I could be in a different room in the house and still tell when it was on.
But over time I think I've acclimatized to it. The headaches seem less frequent now (and I have trouble separating them from my eyestrain headaches that I get when I spend too much time at the computer). I can't detect it as much. I think my body has gotten used to whatever frequency and power was affecting me before.
I am not, by any means, a luddite scaremonger. But from personal experience I am absolutely certain that broadcasts on these frequencies have some effect on the human body. I'm glad the studies are proving that the effect is not carcinogenic. I'll trust that science. But I'll still avoid holding a cellphone to my ear and sitting near Wifi hubs just because of the potential discomfort they can cause me.
And tomorrow's front page headline. The question is whether the headline article will say, "What an outrage; someone should stop this!" or the more likely, "This is why you need to calm down and be good citizens."
Of course, the company that invented the OGL has now abandoned it.
Which means one of two things. Either they have learned the opposite lesson -- opening your IP is not good for profits -- or every generation of managers forgets the lessons learned by the ones that came before.
We've had this discussion before. I'll bring up the same point as I did last time: Contact lens displays are going to be limited by the power requirements. The solution they have in this article is equivalent to pressing a cellphone antenna up to your eyeball. It's not going to be healthy; a lot of people would go blind at that level of radiation.
My advice is to wait for the full computer-brain interface.
I'm sure they could find that information by searching Bing. That's the entire point of 'killing Google', isn't it? To take over as number one search engine.
If MS believes their service is good enough (and well-known enough) to do this, they should delist themselves from Google's indices. But they don't, so they won't.
$1M isn't peanuts to everybody. The regular public can't see Google's site rankings, but assuming they're similar to the Alexa rankings, there are some sites that would probably jump at a million dollars. The porn sites, a lot of the bloggers, and some of the shakier social networking sites would probably take the money and run.
But there's something else odd about that list. Many of the top-ranked sites -- 3 of the first 20, for example -- are Microsoft. Again, that's not Google's ranking page, but MS sites are still findable via Google. If MS plans to 'kill' Google, shouldn't they start by taking their own sites off that search engine first?
Eh, it's a matter of opinion. The Motorola Droid is okay, but I like the HTC Eris better. It's more elegant and runs faster, although it is running an older version of the Android OS. (Eris runs 1.5, Motorola runs 2.0.)
I'm a happy Verizon customer, and I'd have gotten an Eris already, except I'm not sure I want to pay an additional $30/month for a phone. I don't think I'd use the data capabilities enough to justify that cost.
We know how a black hole behaves by working with the theory. Essentially, a black hole can be modeled as a particle with large mass and possibly some charge and/or spin. It has no other definable qualities. Plug a particle like that into your equations and it's not difficult to calculate its behavior.
Of course, physicists are known for making models that are simplified to the point of absurdity. Have you heard the story of the model that assumed massless, spherical cows?
See, the Republican party was pragmatic, and they saw that there were a lot of brain-dead cackling circus buffoons who voted on issues that they were passionate about. Those issues ranged from racism (they were for it) to religion to tax relief, some of which were valid stances while others were issues that only brain-dead cackling circus buffoons cared about. The Republicans mustered those brain-dead cackling circus buffoons into a voting block by promising them that once the Republicans got enough power, they would give the brain-dead cackling circus buffoons their due.
This worked as long as Republicans continued to win elections. With their loss in 2006 and 2008, the brain-dead cackling circus buffoons have decided that they have had enough with the Republican party, who never really did anything to help the brain-dead cackling circus buffoon cause. Right now they're disorganized, running around in brain-dead cackling circus buffoon packs lead by brain-dead cackling circus ringleaders like Glenn Beck, but eventually they'll consolidate into some kind of brain-dead cackling circus buffoon party and become a real political force that will stab the Republicans in the back.
There are plenty of normal, sane conservatives out there. But as a party, they summoned the demon of brain-dead cackling circus buffoonism, and now they must pay the price for it. Live by the sword, die by the sword. The sword in this case just happens to be a bunch of brain-dead cackling circus buffoons.
Sparta and Athens were repressive societies, that successfully kept equal rights for women and the liberation of slaves out of the western Aegean for another 200 years.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
No question that Sparta was a society built upon the repression of slaves. I'm with you there.
But Sparta was incredibly progressive when it came to Spartan womens' rights. Spartan women recieved education and were literate, and they could own property. This was unheard of in that age. There had some bizarre wedding customs, but compared to any other society back then the Spartans were champions of gender equality.
Don't lump Athens and Sparta together. They were very different societies. Sparta was a slave state run by the military, for the benefit of the military (and it makes a good object lesson to show how a strong military can warp a country). Athens was more egalitarian in some respects, but much more backward when it came to women and war.
I just love the Wikipedia page on this stuff. It's pretty clinical and detached, until you get to the bottom and see where it's listed as a 'native' species:
Categories: Poaceae | Invasive plant species | Flora of the Canary Islands | Flora of Algeria | Flora of Egypt | Flora of Morocco | Flora of Ethiopia | Flora of Kenya | Flora of Tanzania | Flora of Uganda | Flora of Burundi | Flora of Cameroon | Flora of Gabon | Flora of Rwanda | Flora of Benin | Flora of Burkina Faso | Flora of Ghana | Flora of Guinea | Flora of Liberia | Flora of Mali | Flora of Nigeria | Flora of Senegal | Flora of Sierra Leone | Flora of Togo | Flora of Malawi | Flora of Mozambique | Flora of Zambia | Flora of Zimbabwe | Flora of Botswana | Flora of Lesotho | Flora of Namibia | Flora of South Africa | Flora of Swaziland | Flora of Oman | Flora of Yemen | Flora of Afghanistan | Flora of Cyprus | Flora of Iran | Flora of Iraq | Flora of Israel | Flora of Turkey | Flora of Armenia | Flora of Azerbaijan | Flora of Georgia (country) | Flora of Russia | Flora of China | Flora of Japan | Flora of Korea | Flora of Bhutan | Grasses of India | Flora of Nepal | Flora of Pakistan | Flora of Sri Lanka | Flora of Cambodia | Flora of Laos | Flora of Burma | Flora of Thailand | Flora of Vietnam | Flora of Indonesia | Flora of Malaysia | Flora of Papua New Guinea | Flora of the Philippines | Poales of Australia | Flora of Queensland | Flora of Victoria (Australia) | Flora of Tasmania | Angiosperms of Western Australia | Flora of South Australia | Flora of the Northern Territory | Flora of Greece | Flora of Italy | Flora of France | Flora of Portugal | Flora of Spain
I, for one, welcome our silica-edged (!) sawtooth grass overlords.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Corporations will leave China, and forgo any possible profit there, or they won't. Up to them. Google seems to have made their choice.
2. The nation has some soul-searching to do. I expect that the US government will do exactly nothing for a long time, while pleading that other crises are taking up all their attention. (Which, actually is a pretty good excuse right now.)
3. The UN will do nothing. Cyberwarfare is not something the UN is chartered to police, and not something they care about, and even if it were they already know what China is and they're not going to risk making them tantrum.
4. The cybercommunity? Well, if the non-chinese cybercitizens want to start a war over this, the chinese cyberwarriors will gladly take part. But this might not be much different than the status quo.
Revealing China as corporate espionage hackers surprises exactly no one. So nothing will change. Everyone already lives with the truth of chinese malfeasance. All that will change will be one or two companies deciding that they've had enough and they're pulling out of that broken country.
I like the solution for this that City of Heroes uses. Yes, they have the holy trinity of tank, damage dealer, and damage mitigator, but they have two variations on the theme that make combat dynamic and interesting.
Specialist Options: Some tanks dodge damage, others resist it, and yet others take the enemy's full attack and then quickly heal it back up. Similarly, some damage mitigators heal, others use force fields to prevent damage from happening in the first place, and others debuff the enemy enough that their damage can be shrugged off. All these options lend themselves to different situations, and the party tactics can change according to which options are present in the group.
Hybrids: All CoH archetypes are hybrids. 'Tanks' serve as tanks and crowd control. Damage mitigators might also be damage dealers or crowd controllers. Some damage dealers have abilities that make them serviceable tanks in a pinch (scrappers). Allowing each character the ability to play two or more roles keeps the game fluid and the player engaged. But no character can play all three roles of the trinity; that removes the incentive to group and creates a single-player experience that's not much fun.
The only real problem in CoH is that most encounters are so easy that their deep, interesting combat system isn't necessary. If the CoH characters are likened to chess pieces, with their own specialties and subtleties, the NPC enemies are playing tic-tac-toe. But the system itself is very, very well done.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
-- Mahatma Gandhi
They've gone past ignoring and laughing. Now we (sane people who believe in science) have a fight on our hands.
The debate about relativity and the standard model are debates where both sides are scientists specialized in those fields. They are debating on fine points of the theories, and both sides are backed up by convincing models and hard data.
The debate on the evolution of species and global warming are debates where one side has scientists with hard data, and the other side has vested emotional or financial interest but no special training or insight into the science. These are debates between specialists and amateurs.
You can hold any opinions you wish, but don't elevate amateurs with agendas to the level of scientists. They do not know what they are talking about, no matter how passionately they parrot their disagreements.
With the loss of New York as a financial center
New York would survive. Estimates are that it would be covered in about 35 cm of ash.
Here are pictures of two eruptions of the Yellowstone supervolcano: The Huckleberry Ridge Tuff and the Lava Creek Tuff. The areas shown are not wind-blown ash; that's where the pyroclastic ash will reach, at about 200 miles per hour and over 1000 degrees F. You can see that everyone from Nevada to Missouri is dead.
But New York...eh, they might make it. Poor bastards.
Indonesia has one too. You know, where all the Muslims are.
The question is who would press theirs first, if they could.
The third active supervolcano is in New Zealand. Wouldn't it be funny if the kiwis destroyed the world?
It came from the 1950s, when life was ideal, Reagan was a cowboy hero, and scientists were emotionless paragons in white lab coats. Conservatives today take the 1950s as their conception of how the world should work, and they get upset whenever anyone deviates from this model.
Yes, I'm being snarky, but I think it's a pretty accurate observation.
You (or someone else whose example you are following) is searching through the CSU data, to find cherry-picked results that contradict accepted climate research.
I am not accusing you of wearing a mullet. But what you are doing is very close to Creationist fanaticism. It is dishonest, politically motivated, and untrue.
The raw/final graph could be anything -- it is poorly labeled -- but I suspect it is the difference between the raw and final tree ring temperature observations. Of course there is a difference between the raw and final data, because the tree rings are *wrong* after 1960 and needed to be corrected. This has been explained.
The Darwin Zero results were biased upwards because they were homogenized (read: Averaged) with temperatures in the rest of the continent. Any time you average points together, some of them are going to go up (and others will go down). The Darwin Zero station temperatures were consistently lower than the other Australian measurements. They were *wrong* and needed to be adjusted or thrown out, and the scientists chose to adjust them.
There is nothing sinister here, and if critics were honest they'd mention the hundreds of data points that *support* the hypothesis of climate change rather than digging out the one badly-labeled graph and the one fallacious data point that disputes it.
It's like explaining to people that unicorns don't exist, while they keep shaking narwhal bones at us and shrieking 'Burn the witch!'
I work in a field closely associated with climatology (satellite remote sensing), and I work with climatologists. And I agree with the article on one point: We really do not understand how big a deal this 'climategate' is.
The worst bits in that email dump are petty squabbles between researchers and critics. That's standard -- often critics are dishonest people who are attacking the science in order to advance a political agenda, and that is very frustrating to someone who wants to do honest science. Yes, tempers flare in private emails. Scientists are human. If people are going to lose faith in science because scientists are human...then we as a race are doomed, in my opinion.
As for the results of the CSU climate research, they're not in any doubt. Every criticism of them has been answered, and there are other studies that agree with the CSU results. So attack the scientists for being human if you must, but the science is sound and must be heeded.
I really do not understand why this has blown up into such a conflagration. Anyone who gives up on science because of this trifling matter is welcome to go back to the dark ages and live their short, wholesome, science-free life.
I did too, in the earlier thread. I was hoping that it was an escaping magnetic monopole that caused auroral havoc.
But the destabilized rocket simulation has convinced me; it was a rocket.
At this point I'm wondering whether some US company can reproduce the effect, and sell rockets like that as fourth-of-july fireworks.
That's freaky. I'm more interested in hearing about this phenomenon than the LHC.
And you know, they *might* be related. I don't buy any rumors about a russian rocket -- no rocket would make anything that geometrically precise and long-lived. This looks to me like a bizarre magnetic disturbance caused a bizarre aurora. The helical blue beam looks like a trace of a LEO plasma stream. The large spiral would then be a magnetic mirror -- common in the polar magnetosphere, but never this bright or perfect.
Could the LHC have spat out a magnetic monopole?
I'd like to see the timing of when the LHC spun up to power and when this display occurred.
You're probably right. But if this is a delusion, it's a delusion with no apparent cause. I'm *not* an enemy of technology. I work in high-tech fields, I own lots of high-tech toys, I'm no luddite. And it's a delusion that causes me physical pain. So it's worth it, to me, to try and avoid whatever appears to be causing the problem.
It's interesting, because I used to get headaches whenever I was near a Wifi hub. I set one up in my house for my friend's kids to use, but I kept it disconnected when I was the only one home. I was so sensitive that, if someone else were turning the Wifi on and off, I could be in a different room in the house and still tell when it was on.
But over time I think I've acclimatized to it. The headaches seem less frequent now (and I have trouble separating them from my eyestrain headaches that I get when I spend too much time at the computer). I can't detect it as much. I think my body has gotten used to whatever frequency and power was affecting me before.
I am not, by any means, a luddite scaremonger. But from personal experience I am absolutely certain that broadcasts on these frequencies have some effect on the human body. I'm glad the studies are proving that the effect is not carcinogenic. I'll trust that science. But I'll still avoid holding a cellphone to my ear and sitting near Wifi hubs just because of the potential discomfort they can cause me.
And tomorrow's front page headline. The question is whether the headline article will say, "What an outrage; someone should stop this!" or the more likely, "This is why you need to calm down and be good citizens."
Of course, the company that invented the OGL has now abandoned it.
Which means one of two things. Either they have learned the opposite lesson -- opening your IP is not good for profits -- or every generation of managers forgets the lessons learned by the ones that came before.
Either way, it doesn't look good for GW's future.
Did you see the animation? That wave looks to be easily 1/14th of the solar diameter, especially near the origin.
What I learned from this article is that sunspots explode. Never knew that; I thought they faded away...
We've had this discussion before. I'll bring up the same point as I did last time: Contact lens displays are going to be limited by the power requirements. The solution they have in this article is equivalent to pressing a cellphone antenna up to your eyeball. It's not going to be healthy; a lot of people would go blind at that level of radiation.
My advice is to wait for the full computer-brain interface.
I'm sure they could find that information by searching Bing. That's the entire point of 'killing Google', isn't it? To take over as number one search engine.
If MS believes their service is good enough (and well-known enough) to do this, they should delist themselves from Google's indices. But they don't, so they won't.
$1M isn't peanuts to everybody. The regular public can't see Google's site rankings, but assuming they're similar to the Alexa rankings, there are some sites that would probably jump at a million dollars. The porn sites, a lot of the bloggers, and some of the shakier social networking sites would probably take the money and run.
But there's something else odd about that list. Many of the top-ranked sites -- 3 of the first 20, for example -- are Microsoft. Again, that's not Google's ranking page, but MS sites are still findable via Google. If MS plans to 'kill' Google, shouldn't they start by taking their own sites off that search engine first?
Eh, it's a matter of opinion. The Motorola Droid is okay, but I like the HTC Eris better. It's more elegant and runs faster, although it is running an older version of the Android OS. (Eris runs 1.5, Motorola runs 2.0.)
I'm a happy Verizon customer, and I'd have gotten an Eris already, except I'm not sure I want to pay an additional $30/month for a phone. I don't think I'd use the data capabilities enough to justify that cost.
We know how a black hole behaves by working with the theory. Essentially, a black hole can be modeled as a particle with large mass and possibly some charge and/or spin. It has no other definable qualities. Plug a particle like that into your equations and it's not difficult to calculate its behavior.
Of course, physicists are known for making models that are simplified to the point of absurdity. Have you heard the story of the model that assumed massless, spherical cows?
It's not as simple as that.
See, the Republican party was pragmatic, and they saw that there were a lot of brain-dead cackling circus buffoons who voted on issues that they were passionate about. Those issues ranged from racism (they were for it) to religion to tax relief, some of which were valid stances while others were issues that only brain-dead cackling circus buffoons cared about. The Republicans mustered those brain-dead cackling circus buffoons into a voting block by promising them that once the Republicans got enough power, they would give the brain-dead cackling circus buffoons their due.
This worked as long as Republicans continued to win elections. With their loss in 2006 and 2008, the brain-dead cackling circus buffoons have decided that they have had enough with the Republican party, who never really did anything to help the brain-dead cackling circus buffoon cause. Right now they're disorganized, running around in brain-dead cackling circus buffoon packs lead by brain-dead cackling circus ringleaders like Glenn Beck, but eventually they'll consolidate into some kind of brain-dead cackling circus buffoon party and become a real political force that will stab the Republicans in the back.
There are plenty of normal, sane conservatives out there. But as a party, they summoned the demon of brain-dead cackling circus buffoonism, and now they must pay the price for it. Live by the sword, die by the sword. The sword in this case just happens to be a bunch of brain-dead cackling circus buffoons.
25 years ago, my DM explained the difference very simply: WIS is Edith Bunker. INT is Richard Nixon.
Trust me, 25 years ago those descriptions were spot-on.
Sparta and Athens were repressive societies, that successfully kept equal rights for women and the liberation of slaves out of the western Aegean for another 200 years.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
No question that Sparta was a society built upon the repression of slaves. I'm with you there.
But Sparta was incredibly progressive when it came to Spartan womens' rights. Spartan women recieved education and were literate, and they could own property. This was unheard of in that age. There had some bizarre wedding customs, but compared to any other society back then the Spartans were champions of gender equality.
Don't lump Athens and Sparta together. They were very different societies. Sparta was a slave state run by the military, for the benefit of the military (and it makes a good object lesson to show how a strong military can warp a country). Athens was more egalitarian in some respects, but much more backward when it came to women and war.
I just love the Wikipedia page on this stuff. It's pretty clinical and detached, until you get to the bottom and see where it's listed as a 'native' species:
Categories: Poaceae | Invasive plant species | Flora of the Canary Islands | Flora of Algeria | Flora of Egypt | Flora of Morocco | Flora of Ethiopia | Flora of Kenya | Flora of Tanzania | Flora of Uganda | Flora of Burundi | Flora of Cameroon | Flora of Gabon | Flora of Rwanda | Flora of Benin | Flora of Burkina Faso | Flora of Ghana | Flora of Guinea | Flora of Liberia | Flora of Mali | Flora of Nigeria | Flora of Senegal | Flora of Sierra Leone | Flora of Togo | Flora of Malawi | Flora of Mozambique | Flora of Zambia | Flora of Zimbabwe | Flora of Botswana | Flora of Lesotho | Flora of Namibia | Flora of South Africa | Flora of Swaziland | Flora of Oman | Flora of Yemen | Flora of Afghanistan | Flora of Cyprus | Flora of Iran | Flora of Iraq | Flora of Israel | Flora of Turkey | Flora of Armenia | Flora of Azerbaijan | Flora of Georgia (country) | Flora of Russia | Flora of China | Flora of Japan | Flora of Korea | Flora of Bhutan | Grasses of India | Flora of Nepal | Flora of Pakistan | Flora of Sri Lanka | Flora of Cambodia | Flora of Laos | Flora of Burma | Flora of Thailand | Flora of Vietnam | Flora of Indonesia | Flora of Malaysia | Flora of Papua New Guinea | Flora of the Philippines | Poales of Australia | Flora of Queensland | Flora of Victoria (Australia) | Flora of Tasmania | Angiosperms of Western Australia | Flora of South Australia | Flora of the Northern Territory | Flora of Greece | Flora of Italy | Flora of France | Flora of Portugal | Flora of Spain
I, for one, welcome our silica-edged (!) sawtooth grass overlords.