Assassin #39;s Creed 4 Black Flag Freedom Cry Gameplay Walkthrough Part 7 - Let #39;s Play (Xbox One/PS4/PC)
Assassin #39;s Creed 4 Black Flag Freedom Cry Gameplay Walkthrough - Part 7 (Xbox One/PS4/PC) Subscribe to GamesHQMedia http://bit.ly/GamesHQMedia Playlist lin...
By: GamesHQMedia
See the original post:
Freedom Facilitators with Tracey Walker
Freedom Facilitators with Tracey Walker.
By: Diane Diamantis
View original post here:
SANTA CRUZ -- A 33-year-old Freedom man sentenced to life in prison without parole for the 1997 murder of a Cabrillo College student is vying for a chance at freedom.
An attorney for Francisco Marquez appeared in Santa Cruz County Superior Court Wednesday to petition for Marquez to be resentenced.
Marquez and Jesus Arroyo Madrigal were convicted of first-degree murder, carjacking and kidnapping in 1998 in the killing of 18-year-old Ulysses Huante.
Madrigal was sentenced to 35 years to life in prison, giving him a chance at parole. Marquez was sentenced to life without parole, partially because he admitted to being the shooter.
But in 2012, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill into law that allowed for the review of juveniles sentenced to life without parole after serving 15 years. Marquez, who was 17 at the time of the crime, is eligible for resentencing.
He is the first in the county and possibly the state to petition to be resentenced under the law, according to the California District Attorneys Association.
Marquez has to show he has been properly rehabilitated to get a resentencing hearing and a Santa Cruz County Superior Court judge will decided whether to resentence him, said Santa Cruz County prosecutor Celia Rowland.
If resentenced, Marquez could see a lesser sentence of 57 years to life in prison, Rowland said.
But prosecutors are opposing the resentencing petition because of the seriousness of the crime.
Marquez's attorney, Ken Azevedo, said it was his client's right to petition for resentencing.
Original post:
Freedom man convicted of murder in 1998 petitions for resentencing
The Gettysburg area transit company received the needed local match, according to
By Mark Walters
mwalters@eveningsun.com @walt_walters on Twitter
Freedom Transit's fixed-route bus service will run at least through June 30, said Rich Farr, executive director of Rabbittransit.
The fledgling public transportation model was saved during a private meeting held Monday afternoon at the Gettysburg National Military Park Museum and Visitor Center. The bus service was slated to be discontinued Dec. 30 if a $65,264 local match was not raised by then.
Some private individuals and businesses offered financial contributions that will carry the program through June 30, Farr said.
Gettysburg battlefield Superintendent Bob Kirby pledged $4,000 on behalf of the National Park Service, said Katie Lawhon, park spokesperson.
Farr declined to release the names of other individuals or businesses who offered financial support.
"We stopped the bleeding for now," Farr said. "But for those who are concerned, they still need to be concerned."
Entering Monday's meeting, Adams County, Gettysburg Borough and Cumberland Township officials had collectively dedicated $18,000 for Freedom Transit among their preliminary 2014 budgets.
Read more from the original source:
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory's
The Eugenics Archive utilizes Flash for enhanced search features, cross referencing, and interactive images created with Zoomifyer. Get the Flash plugin at Adobe.com.
The Eugenics Archive will open in a new window.
I prefer the original, HTML-only Eugenics Archive site, take me there.
Based on a task force recommendation, the North Carolina legislature is considering paying $50,000 to living individuals sterilized by the state against their will or without their knowledge. North Carolina reportedly sterilized 7,600 individuals between 1929 and 1974. However, other American states also passed laws legalizing sterilization; the first was passed in Indiana in 1907
GO TO BLOG
Examine the Chronicle of how society dealt with mental illness and other "dysgenic" traits in the final section of our website DNA Interactive. Meet four individuals who became objects of the eugenic movement's zeal to cleanse society of "bad" genes during the first half of the 20th century. Then meet a modern-day heroine for an account of mental illness and the lesson it holds for living in the gene age.
COLD SPRING HARBOR LABORATORY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
The rest is here:
The American prisons that sterilized female inmates
Sterilised behind bars - how have Eugenics programs found their way into the US prison system? Sterilised behind Bars - How have eugenics programs found thei...
By: Journeyman Pictures
Continue reading here:
Eugenics, the social movement claiming to improve the genetic features of human populations through selective breeding and sterilization,[1] based on the idea that it is possible to distinguish between superior and inferior elements of society,[2] played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States prior to its involvement in World War II.[3]
Eugenics was practised in the United States many years before eugenics programs in Nazi Germany[4] and U.S. programs provided much of the inspiration for the latter.[5][6][7] Stefan Khl has documented the consensus between Nazi race policies and those of eugenicists in other countries, including the United States, and points out that eugenicists understood Nazi policies and measures as the realization of their goals and demands.[5]
A hallmark of the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th century, now generally associated with racist and nativist elements (as the movement was to some extent a reaction to a change in emigration from Europe) rather than scientific genetics, eugenics was considered a method of preserving and improving the dominant groups in the population.
The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton, which originated in the 1880s. Galton studied the upper classes of Britain, and arrived at the conclusion that their social positions were due to a superior genetic makeup.[8] Early proponents of eugenics believed that, through selective breeding, the human species should direct its own evolution. They tended to believe in the genetic superiority of Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples; supported strict immigration and anti-miscegenation laws; and supported the forcible sterilization of the poor, disabled and "immoral".[9]
The American eugenics movement received extensive funding from various corporate foundations including the Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune.[6] In 1906 J.H. Kellogg provided funding to help found the Race Betterment Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan.[8] The Eugenics Record Office (ERO) was founded in Cold Spring Harbor, New York in 1911 by the renowned biologist Charles B. Davenport, using money from both the Harriman railroad fortune and the Carnegie Institution. As late as the 1920s, the ERO was one of the leading organizations in the American eugenics movement.[8][10] In years to come, the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees and concluded that those who were unfit came from economically and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as Davenport, the psychologist Henry H. Goddard, Harry H. Laughlin, and the conservationist Madison Grant (all well respected in their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the "unfit". Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods; Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak Family; Grant favored all of the above and more, even entertaining the idea of extermination.[11] The Eugenics Record Office later became the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Eugenics was widely accepted in the U.S. academic community.[6] By 1928 there were 376 separate university courses in some of the United States' leading schools, enrolling more than 20,000 students, which included eugenics in the curriculum.[12] It did, however, have scientific detractors (notably, Thomas Hunt Morgan, one of the few Mendelians to explicitly criticize eugenics), though most of these focused more on what they considered the crude methodology of eugenicists, and the characterization of almost every human characteristic as being hereditary, rather than the idea of eugenics itself.[13]
By 1910, there was a large and dynamic network of scientists, reformers and professionals engaged in national eugenics projects and actively promoting eugenic legislation. The American Breeders Association was the first eugenic body in the U.S., established in 1906 under the direction of biologist Charles B. Davenport. The ABA was formed specifically to investigate and report on heredity in the human race, and emphasize the value of superior blood and the menace to society of inferior blood. Membership included Alexander Graham Bell, Stanford president David Starr Jordan and Luther Burbank.[14][15] The American Association for the Study and Prevention of Infant Mortality was one of the first organizations to begin investigating infant mortality rates in terms of eugenics.[16] They promoted government intervention in attempts to promote the health of future citizens.[17][verification needed]
Several feminist reformers advocated an agenda of eugenic legal reform. The National Federation of Womens Clubs, the Womans Christian Temperance Union, and the National League of Women Voters were among the variety of state and local feminist organization that at some point lobbied for eugenic reforms.[18]
One of the most prominent feminists to champion the eugenic agenda was Margaret Sanger, the leader of the American birth control movement. Margaret Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent unwanted children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and incorporated the language of eugenics to advance the movement.[19][20] Sanger also sought to discourage the reproduction of persons who, it was believed, would pass on mental disease or serious physical defect. She advocated sterilization in cases where the subject was unable to use birth control.[19] Unlike other eugenicists, she rejected euthanasia.[21] For Sanger, it was individual women and not the state who should determine whether or not to have a child.[22][23]
In the Deep South, womens associations played an important role in rallying support for eugenic legal reform. Eugenicists recognized the political and social influence of southern clubwomen in their communities, and used them to help implement eugenics across the region.[24] Between 1915 and 1920, federated womens clubs in every state of the Deep South had a critical role in establishing public eugenic institutions that were segregated by sex.[25] For example, the Legislative Committee of the Florida State Federation of Womens Clubs successfully lobbied to institute a eugenic institution for the mentally retarded that was segregated by sex.[26] Their aim was to separate mentally retarded men and women to prevent them from breeding more feebleminded individuals.
View post:
Eugenics in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lutz Kaelber, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Vermont
Presentation about "eugenic sterilizations" in comparative perspective at the 2012 Social Science History Association: 1, 2.
American eugenics refers inter alia to compulsory sterilization laws adopted by over 30 states that led to more than 60,000 sterilizations of disabled individuals. Many of these individuals were sterilized because of a disability: they were mentally disabled or ill, or belonged to socially disadvantaged groups living onthe margins of society. American eugenic laws and practices implemented in the first decades of the twentieth century influenced the much larger National Socialist compulsory sterilization program, which between 1934 and 1945 led to approximately 350,000 compulsory sterilizations and was a stepping stone to the Holocaust. Even after the details of the Nazi sterilization program (as well as its role as a precursor to the "Euthanasia" murders) became more widely knownafter World War II (and which the New York Times had reported on extensively and in great detail even before its implementation in 1934), sterilizations in some American states did not stop. Some states continued to sterilize residents into the 1970s.
While Germany has taken important steps to commemorate the horrors of its past, including compulsory sterilization (however belatedly), the United States arguably has not when it comes to eugenics. For some states, there still is a paucity of reliable studies that show how and where sterilizations occurred. Hospitals, asylums, and other places where sterilizations were performed have so far typically chosen not to document that aspect of their history. Moreover, until now there has never been a websiteproviding an easily accessible overview of American eugenics for all American states.
This site provides such an overview. For each state for which information is available (see below), there is a short account of the number of victims (based on a variety of data sources), the known period during which sterilizations occurred, the temporal pattern of sterilizations and rate of sterilization, the passage of law(s), groups indentified in the law, the prescribed process of the law, precipitating factors and processes that led up a states sterilization program, the groups targeted and victimized, other restrictions placed on those identified in the law or with disabilities in general, major proponentsof state eugenic sterilization, feeder institutions and institutions where sterilizations were performed, and opposition to sterilization. A short bibliography is also provided.
While this research project was initially intended to giveshort accounts for each state, it quickly moved beyond this goal. For those states for which detailed monograph-length studies are availabe, it merely summarizes existing scholarship, but for other states for which such information is not readily available, it establishes the core parameters within which a state's eugenic sterilizations were carried out. As part of this research the current state of the facilities where sterilizations occurred or that served as feeder institutions is addressed.
This researchbrought into relief one particularpiece of information that might notbe known even to the specialists in the field. In Nazi Germany, during the peak years of sterilization between 1934 and 1939, approximately 75-80 sterilizations occurred per year per 100,000 residents. In Delaware, during the peak period of sterilizations (late 1920s to late 1930s), the rate was 18, about one fourth to one fifth ofGermany's during its peak period, orhalf of Bavarias in 1936.[1]While the difference in the sterilization rate for a totalitarian regime with a federal sterilization law soon to commit mass murder on a historically unprecedented scale and a democratically governed state in a democratic nation remains significant,[2] it is much smaller than one might perhaps expect.
Contributions to this project were made by sophomore honors students at the University of Vermont as part of an Honors College course on Disability as Deviance. These students wrote up the primary accounts, which were then edited and amended by Lutz Kaelber, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Vermont, who is solely responsible for its contents and any errors or omissions. Research that went into this project was supported in parts by grants of the College of Arts and Sciences Deans Office and the Center for Teaching and Learning, and by funds of the University of Vermont's Honors College.
Update 2011: A new group of students in the Honors College at the University of Vermont, together with students in a senior-level sociology course, took on the project of revising and updating all existing states' webpages. This project was commenced in the fall of 2010 and concluded in the spring of 2011. The literature under consideration was expanded to include many undergraduate, master's, and doctoral theses at various institutions, as well as the most recent available scholarly literature and journalistic reports. Web-based information was also updated.
Link to "Eugenics" and Nazi "Euthanasia" Crimes gateway page.
See the original post:
(This article first appeared in the January 20, 1992 edition of Citizen magazine)
How Planned Parenthood Duped America At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.
Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."
Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.
While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.
These eugenic and racial origins are hardly what most people associate with the modern Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which gave its Margaret Sanger award to the late Dr. Martin Luther King in 1966, and whose current president, Faye Wattleton, is black, a former nurse, and attractive.
Though once a social pariah group, routinely castigated by religious and government leaders, the PPFA is now an established, high-profile, well-funded organization with ample organizational and ideological support in high places of American society and government. Its statistics are accepted by major media and public health officials as "gospel"; its full-page ads appear in major newspapers; its spokespeople are called upon to give authoritative analyses of what America's family policies should be and to prescribe official answers that congressmen, state legislator and Supreme Court justiices all accept as "social orthodoxy."
Blaming Families Sanger's obsession with eugenics can be traced back to her own family. One of 11 children, she wrote in the autobiographical book, My Fight for Birth Control, that "I associated poverty, toil, unemployment, drunkenness, cruelty, quarreling, fighting, debts, jails with large families." Just as important was the impression in her childhood of an inferior family status, exacerbated by the iconoclastic, "free-thinking" views of her father, whose "anti-Catholic attitudes did not make for his popularity" in a predominantly Irish community.
The fact that the wealthy families in her hometown of Corning, N.Y., had relatively few children, Sanger took as prima facie evidence of the impoverishing effect of larger families. The personal impact of this belief was heightened 1899, at the age of 48. Sanger was convinced that the "ordeals of motherhood" had caused the death of her mother. The lingering consumption (tuberculosis) that took her mother's life visited Sanger at the birth of her own first child on Nov. 18, 1905. The diagnosis forced her to seek refuge in the Adirondacks to strengthen her for the impending birth. Despite the precautions, the birth of baby Grant was "agonizing," the mere memory of which Sanger described as "mental torture" more than 25 years later. She once described the experience as a factor "to be reckoned with" in her zealous campaign for birth control.
From the beginning, Sanger advocacy of sex education reflected her interest in population control and birth prevention among the "unfit." Her first handbook, published for adolescents in 1915 and entitled, What Every Boy and Girl Should Know, featured a jarring afterword:
Excerpt from:
Screwed up Eco system
One.
By: Raina Fortini
Read more from the original source:
An ecosystem is a community of living organisms (plants, animals and microbes) in conjunction with the nonliving components of their environment (things like air, water and mineral soil), interacting as a system.[2] These biotic and abiotic components are regarded as linked together through nutrient cycles and energy flows.[3] As ecosystems are defined by the network of interactions among organisms, and between organisms and their environment,[4] they can be of any size but usually encompass specific, limited spaces[5] (although some scientists say that the entire planet is an ecosystem).[6]
Energy, water, nitrogen and soil minerals are other essential abiotic components of an ecosystem. The energy that flows through ecosystems is obtained primarily from the sun. It generally enters the system through photosynthesis, a process that also captures carbon from the atmosphere. By feeding on plants and on one another, animals play an important role in the movement of matter and energy through the system. They also influence the quantity of plant and microbial biomass present. By breaking down dead organic matter, decomposers release carbon back to the atmosphere and facilitate nutrient cycling by converting nutrients stored in dead biomass back to a form that can be readily used by plants and other microbes.[7]
Ecosystems are controlled both by external and internal factors. External factors such as climate, the parent material which forms the soil and topography, control the overall structure of an ecosystem and the way things work within it, but are not themselves influenced by the ecosystem.[8] Other external factors include time and potential biota. Ecosystems are dynamic entitiesinvariably, they are subject to periodic disturbances and are in the process of recovering from some past disturbance.[9] Ecosystems in similar environments that are located in different parts of the world can have very different characteristics simply because they contain different species.[8] The introduction of non-native species can cause substantial shifts in ecosystem function. Internal factors not only control ecosystem processes but are also controlled by them and are often subject to feedback loops.[8] While the resource inputs are generally controlled by external processes like climate and parent material, the availability of these resources within the ecosystem is controlled by internal factors like decomposition, root competition or shading.[8] Other internal factors include disturbance, succession and the types of species present. Although humans exist and operate within ecosystems, their cumulative effects are large enough to influence external factors like climate.[8]
Biodiversity affects ecosystem function, as do the processes of disturbance and succession. Ecosystems provide a variety of goods and services upon which people depend; the principles of ecosystem management suggest that rather than managing individual species, natural resources should be managed at the level of the ecosystem itself. Classifying ecosystems into ecologically homogeneous units is an important step towards effective ecosystem management, but there is no single, agreed-upon way to do this.
Arthur Tansley, a British ecologist, was the first person to use the term "ecosystem" in a published work.[fn 1][10] Tansley devised the concept to draw attention to the importance of transfers of materials between organisms and their environment.[11] He later refined the term, describing it as "The whole system, ... including not only the organism-complex, but also the whole complex of physical factors forming what we call the environment".[12] Tansley regarded ecosystems not simply as natural units, but as mental isolates.[12] Tansley later[13] defined the spatial extent of ecosystems using the term ecotope.
G. Evelyn Hutchinson, a pioneering limnologist who was a contemporary of Tansley's, combined Charles Elton's ideas about trophic ecology with those of Russian geochemist Vladimir Vernadsky to suggest that mineral nutrient availability in a lake limited algal production which would, in turn, limit the abundance of animals that feed on algae. Raymond Lindeman took these ideas one step further to suggest that the flow of energy through a lake was the primary driver of the ecosystem. Hutchinson's students, brothers Howard T. Odum and Eugene P. Odum, further developed a "systems approach" to the study of ecosystems, allowing them to study the flow of energy and material through ecological systems.[11]
Energy and carbon enter ecosystems through photosynthesis, are incorporated into living tissue, transferred to other organisms that feed on the living and dead plant matter, and eventually released through respiration.[14] Most mineral nutrients, on the other hand, are recycled within ecosystems.[15]
Ecosystems are controlled both by external and internal factors. External factors, also called state factors, control the overall structure of an ecosystem and the way things work within it, but are not themselves influenced by the ecosystem. The most important of these is climate.[8] Climate determines the biome in which the ecosystem is embedded. Rainfall patterns and temperature seasonality determine the amount of water available to the ecosystem and the supply of energy available (by influencing photosynthesis).[8]Parent material, the underlying geological material that gives rise to soils, determines the nature of the soils present, and influences the supply of mineral nutrients. Topography also controls ecosystem processes by affecting things like microclimate, soil development and the movement of water through a system. This may be the difference between the ecosystem present in wetland situated in a small depression on the landscape, and one present on an adjacent steep hillside.[8]
Other external factors that play an important role in ecosystem functioning include time and potential biota. Ecosystems are dynamic entitiesinvariably, they are subject to periodic disturbances and are in the process of recovering from some past disturbance.[9] Time plays a role in the development of soil from bare rock and the recovery of a community from disturbance.[8] Similarly, the set of organisms that can potentially be present in an area can also have a major impact on ecosystems. Ecosystems in similar environments that are located in different parts of the world can end up doing things very differently simply because they have different pools of species present.[8] The introduction of non-native species can cause substantial shifts in ecosystem function.
Unlike external factors, internal factors in ecosystems not only control ecosystem processes, but are also controlled by them. Consequently, they are often subject to feedback loops.[8] While the resource inputs are generally controlled by external processes like climate and parent material, the availability of these resources within the ecosystem is controlled by internal factors like decomposition, root competition or shading.[8] Other factors like disturbance, succession or the types of species present are also internal factors. Human activities are important in almost all ecosystems. Although humans exist and operate within ecosystems, their cumulative effects are large enough to influence external factors like climate.[8]
Follow this link:
"I bequeathe myself to the dirt, to grow from the grass I love; If you want me again, look for me under your boot-soles." - Walt Whitman
In this lesson, we will learn answers to the following questions:
The study of ecosystems mainly consists of the study of certain processes that link the living, or biotic, components to the non-living, or abiotic, components. Energy transformations and biogeochemical cycling are the main processes that comprise the field of ecosystem ecology. As we learned earlier, ecology generally is defined as the interactions of organisms with one another and with the environment in which they occur. We can study ecology at the level of the individual, the population, the community, and the ecosystem.
Studies of individuals are concerned mostly about physiology, reproduction, development or behavior, and studies of populations usually focus on the habitat and resource needs of individual species, their group behaviors, population growth, and what limits their abundance or causes extinction. Studies of communities examine how populations of many species interact with one another, such as predators and their prey, or competitors that share common needs or resources.
In ecosystem ecology we put all of this together and, insofar as we can, we try to understand how the system operates as a whole. This means that, rather than worrying mainly about particular species, we try to focus on major functional aspects of the system. These functional aspects include such things as the amount of energy that is produced by photosynthesis, how energy or materials flow along the many steps in a food chain, or what controls the rate of decomposition of materials or the rate at which nutrients are recycled in the system.
By and large, this set of environmental factors is important almost everywhere, in all ecosystems.
Usually, biological communities include the "functional groupings" shown above. A functional group is a biological category composed of organisms that perform mostly the same kind of function in the system; for example, all the photosynthetic plants or primary producers form a functional group. Membership in the functional group does not depend very much on who the actual players (species) happen to be, only on what function they perform in the ecosystem.
Figure 1. Energy flows and material cycles.
Energy enters the biological system as light energy, or photons, is transformed into chemical energy in organic molecules by cellular processes including photosynthesis and respiration, and ultimately is converted to heat energy. This energy is dissipated, meaning it is lost to the system as heat; once it is lost it cannot be recycled. Without the continued input of solar energy, biological systems would quickly shut down. Thus the earth is an open system with respect to energy.
Follow this link:
What is a Biome? A biome is a large area with similar flora, fauna, and microorganisms. Most of us are familiar with the tropical rainforests, tundra in the arctic regions, and the evergreen trees in the coniferous forests. Each of these large communities contain species that are adapted to its varying conditions of water, heat, and soil. For instance, polar bears thrive in the arctic while cactus plants have a thick skin to help preserve water in the hot desert. To learn more about each of the major biomes, click on the appropriate heading to the right.
What is an Ecosystem? Most of us are confused when it comes to the words ecosystem and biome. What's the difference? There is a slight difference between the two words. An ecosystem is much smaller than a biome. Conversely, a biome can be thought of many similar ecosystems throughout the world grouped together. An ecosystem can be as large as the Sahara Desert, or as small as a puddle or vernal pool. Ecosystems are dynamic interactions between plants, animals, and microorganisms and their environment working together as a functional unit. Ecosystems will fail if they do not remain in balance. No community can carry more organisms than its food, water, and shelter can accomodate. Food and territory are often balanced by natural phenomena such as fire, disease, and the number of predators. Each organism has its own niche, or role, to play.
How have humans affected the ecosystems? We have affected ecosystems in almost every way imaginable! Every time we walk out in the wilderness or bulldoze land for a new parking lot we are drastically altering an ecosystem. We have disrupted the food chain, the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, and the water cycle. Mining minerals also takes its toll on an ecosystem. We need to do our best to not interfere in these ecosystems and let nature take its toll.
See the rest here:
Ecosystem Gardening is about teaching you sustainable gardening, conservation of natural resources, and to create welcoming habitat for wildlife in your garden so that you will attract more birds, butterflies, pollinators, frogs and toads, bats, and other wildlife to your garden.
Dont miss Wren Song, the Ecosystem Gardening newsletter, coming to your inbox every week with the best tips on creating your wildlife habitat garden, great resources, and breaking news. All of the best information and upcoming news is announced first to the wonderful folks who have subscribed to this free newsletter.
Check out the Blog for more in-depth information, but heres an introduction to get you started.
Also Carole Sevilla Brown is available to speak at conferences and workshops about all of the following topics. Please click Contact above and let me know what your needs are.
The 5 Pillars of Ecosystem Gardening When you pay attention to these five pillars, you will automatically begin to attract more wildlife to your wildlife garden, youll be well on your way to becoming a good steward of your property, and you will be contributing to a healthy environment.
Dont miss Ecosystem Gardening for Wildlife, A 4-part online workshop series teaching you to garden sustainably, conserve natural resources, and create welcoming habitats for wildlife so that you will attract more birds, butterflies, native pollinators, and other wildlife to your garden.
What the Heck is Ecosystem Gardening?
Why Your Garden Matters to Wildlife
Follow this link:
Cyborg Jeff - Hopeness
A collection of tracker modules produced and released by Cyborg Jeff. Cyborg Jeff ----------------- Official Website: http://www.cyborgjeff.com/ Bandcamp: ht...
By: SoundWave Trax
See the original post here:
Cyborg Jeff - I Want (Vocal Version)
A collection of tracker modules produced and released by Cyborg Jeff. Cyborg Jeff ----------------- Official Website: http://www.cyborgjeff.com/ Bandcamp: ht...
By: SoundWave Trax
Follow this link:
Cyborg Jeff - Introduction
A collection of tracker modules produced and released by Cyborg Jeff. Cyborg Jeff ----------------- Official Website: http://www.cyborgjeff.com/ Bandcamp: ht...
By: SoundWave Trax
Read more:
Cyborg Jeff - If Love Is A Power?
A collection of tracker modules produced and released by Cyborg Jeff. Cyborg Jeff ----------------- Official Website: http://www.cyborgjeff.com/ Bandcamp: ht...
By: SoundWave Trax
More here:
Cyborg Chess Demo - how to change color during the game
Demo del gioco di scacchi Cyborg Chess, disponibile per l #39;istallazione (GRATIS) ai seguenti link: ANDROID: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=it.y...
By: Gianluca Conti
See original here:
Cyborg Chess Demo - how to change color during the game - Video
Cyborg Jeff - Mon Ptit Bisounours
A collection of tracker modules produced and released by Cyborg Jeff. Cyborg Jeff ----------------- Official Website: http://www.cyborgjeff.com/ Bandcamp: ht...
By: SoundWave Trax
See the article here: