VCH

I guess my main issue is that every writing guide on biology states that ones writing should be brief and concise, sort of along the lines of Strunk and Whites "Omit needless words". So I've been trying to cut words wherever possible. And I do agree that long papers suck, a lot. But overall I'm pretty terrible with knowing the official rules of English so this formal writing thing is a pain. Oh and Alorael, because you didn't ask for it, here's the first paragraph of the discussion section. You know you wanna . . . And, speaking of limb abnormalities: Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) and Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla) populations at Isobel lake had seasonal abnormality frequencies that were much greater than what is expected for amphibian populations. What is more, 4 lines of evidence suggest that these elevated abnormality levels were caused by the trematode Ribeiroia ondatrae. First, greater than 98% of all abnormalities affected the hind limbs. Correspondingly, the vast majority of R. ondatrae metacercariae were found in this area. Thus, there was a correlation between the location of metacercariae and the location of limb abnormalities. This pattern is not uniques to this study; it has been observed in numerous field studies and lab experiments (Johnson et al. 1999, 2001, 2002; Kiesecker 2002). Second, mean infection intensities among Pacific chorus frog and Columbia spotted frog metamorphs were within the range known to cause high abnormality frequencies in the lab (Johnson et al. 1999, 2001; Schotthoefer et al. 2003). For example, Johnson et al. (1999) exposed P. regilla larvae to 16 R. ondatrae cercariae, out of those larvae that survived to metamorphosis, 70% had abnormalities. Third, Columbia spotted frogs had a higher abnormality frequency, and were more heavily infected with R. ondatrae metacercariae, than Pacific chorus frogs. Thus, heavier infection levels appear to have caused higher abnormality levels (i.e. abnormality levels were dose-dependent). Again, this pattern is not unique to this study; it has been observed for nearly all species exposed to R. ondatrae in the lab (Johnson et al. 2010). And furthermore, field data from the western USA shows that sites with the highest mean infection intensities among metamorphs, have the highest abnormality frequencies (Johnson et al. 2002; Johnson and Chase 2004). The final piece of evidence implicating R. ondatrae is . . .

How much should I assume a reader already knows? For instance, the two sentences below are alternate versions, but number 2 assumes that the reader knows that my entire paper is about determining if R. ondatrae (a wormy parasite) caused limb abnormalities in amphibians at Isobel Lake. I mean, the reader will obviously know that, but is sentence number two grammatically valid if I don't mention what the evidence suggests R. ondatrae did? 1. The final piece of evidence implicating R. ondatrae as the cause of limb abnormalities at Isobel Lake is . . . vs. 2. The final piece of evidence implicating R. ondatrae is . . . Thanks for any help, and if you need clarification, ask.

I find it amusing that you guys seem so knowledgeable about chain saws, yet I'm betting that none of you have used one; I might be wrong though. To add to this discussion: chainsaws are an extremely versatile tool; they're not just for making rough cuts. One can, as I have, become skilled at using them for timber-frame construction, and even standard stick-frame construction. The key is to have a sharp chain, and a saw that starts after one or two pulls; nobody likes a pull-start that doesn't start.

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S Originally Posted By: Skwish-E I had been working under a false assumption for years, it seems. You aren't the only one. I learned this fact as a child, and was always confused by the number of people who claimed their donations actually saved them money on their taxes. I don't understand why this is so misunderstood. Well some people like getting money back, or at least not having to pay anything, so that's one benefit of donating money. It's also a matter of controlling where your money goes--to the government or somewhere else.

I must be abnormal; I have trouble filling a 60GB hardrive. What are ya'll putting on them things any way?

Originally Posted By: Sylae I might as well post some of my recent stuff here: Mountains (There's been some forest fires around here, making the mountains smokey) Some pictures of the honeybees. This is the first year we'll have honey, even though we've had bees for the last three or four years. Had a lot of bad luck, but it seems to finally be paying off. I'm sure your neighbours appreciate the services your bees provide.

I've always been fascinated with death and decay of the human body. I was very disappointed when the site "watch me rot" turned out to be a hoax. Maybe one day someone really will put a camera in their coffin. I mean people donate their bodies to be plasticised, so why not.

I'm always amazed that people remember this stuff!

Fine, most Canadians will not get the fiat joke. I've never seen a Fiat vehicle nor has anyone I know. I became aware of Fiat the auto maker when I traveled through Egypt and pretty much every vehicle was a Fiat. Of course, because of my Dairy farm background, I had always know that Fiat makes agricultural equipment under the name NewHolland.

Philosophy is a useless endeavour when practiced with outdated scientific and economic knowledge, as it usually is. "What you can imagine depends on what you know. Philosophers who know only philosophy consign themselves to a janitorial role in the great enterprises of exploration that are illuminating the mysteries of our lives." Daniel C. Dennett (A philosopher that isn't working with medieval premises)

Most North Americans will not get the Fiat joke.

GURPS is way better!

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba Originally Posted By: VCH No direct danger, sure, but there's certainly some indirect danger, and that should be enough motivation for adventurers to go out and do some killing. But then humans don't usually think about long term repercussions, and those that do are rarely adventures, nor do they have the money to hire adventurers. If we're going to worry about ecological soundness in Avernum, we have to first explain why 227 chitraches, 500 wolves, 2000 flesh-eating bats, and about a million giant lizards can all survive given that their prey base is one herd of escaped cows and the occasional explorer. Dikiyoba. My specialty is symbiosis (parasitism, mutualism and commensalism) so I propose that the bats and chitraches have a symbiotic association (here a mutualism) with a chemosynthetic bacteria in their guts. The animals consume plentiful inorganic molecules containing sulfur, the chemosynthetic bacteria then convert co2 and water into organic compounds using the energy produced via oxidation of the sulfur . The bacterial population grows and is "selectively harvested" by the animals. But when plentiful free-living food sources are available the animals switch over to them. The bacteria are then solely sustained by this food source or a combination of both As a real world example take the deep-sea bivalve and tube worm species that live near hydrothermal vents, and have symbiotic associations with sulphur oxidizing bacteria. As for the cave-wolves, well, I don't know, they were sent down recently (how long has the portal been operational?) so I doubt that such a symbiosis would have developed. On the other hand, perhaps Avernum's cave-wolves are descended from surface dwelling cave wolves that have a similar symbiotic association as the bats and chitraches.

Weeeee!

Originally Posted By: Dantius Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba Originally Posted By: Harehunter That is until you've seen a nutria. Now that is one hefty rodent! It's basically a cross between a muskrat and a Guinea pig. Ecologically speaking, it may be scary when introduced into the wild, but in terms of adventuring potential it's less threatening than a giant rat. Actually, ecologically speaking, nutria are probably less threatening than a giant rat would be, too. Dikiyoba. Well, ecologically speaking, most thing that pose real threats to native ecology also pose no threat to people- kudzu and cane toads can really screw with the flora and fauna, but they can't kill people. "MAKE CHASH FAST! KILL 100 CANE TOADS TO RECEIVE REWARD NO EXPERIENCE REQUIRED!" No direct danger, sure, but there's certainly some indirect danger, and that should be enough motivation for adventurers to go out and do some killing. But then humans don't usually think about long term repercussions, and those that do are rarely adventures, nor do they have the money to hire adventurers. There are of course many small invasive things, (and the majority of life on the this planet is small) that can easily kill people, for example, trypanosomes (malaria, and chagas disease) and nematodes (filariasis). As for the bigger invasive things, the best way to remove them is, strangely enough, sending in a group of people to smash, stomp, and bash away until they're gone. Less labour intensive strategies, such as biological control, (releasing another species to take care of the first one) and chemical spays, though effective in some cases, (Vedallia beetles in California) tend not to work as well. The caveat to this is that invasive species are damn hard to remove regardless of what method is used. By the way Lilith, how is the Cane toad battle going in Australia?

Originally Posted By: Jewels in Black Silly, Nikki. All you gotta do is stop showing up. Then you don't have to explain yourself when you pop in two years later to participate in a game... or something. Have fun with all that extra time. Yeah man, this is better. But any way, go have some fun, bye.

I hope the new quickfire will have the power to burn through wood doors. It didn't in the original series.

Jeff must find it more "relaxing" to rewrite a game than to make a new one, thus there should be many cool tweaks and additions.

I also have no strong interest in what each stat does. When I played NWN1 and 2 I just clicked the recommended button at each level. I play RPGs to experience a cool story, in a cool world, or in the case of tabletop RPGs, to make my fellow PCs as angry at me as possible by just generally messing around like a true rogue or bandit should.

Yeah simple is better. Too much choice too soon can, as Lilith said, overwhelm or completely discourage a player. I'm a bit apprehensive about the "very long" list of possible traits as that implies some tough decisions at high character levels.

Yes Lilith, sorry Lilith

I applaud Jeff for remaking his older games. I think some of us forget that there's a whole new generation of gamers that would pass his games over if he didn't update them. I wish book publishers would do the same thing. I mean sure some books stay in print for ages, but others are extremely difficult to find.

My 2006 imac is not supported by Lion. What really sucks is I waited like 3 hours to download Lion off the pirate bay then found that out. I guess I'll have to buy a new computer in another 1-2 years.

i think y'all are too wrapped up in this boring-ass stuff . . . Zzzzzzzz

The bots are here.