Category Archives: Post Human

White Ops, known for its focus on protecting companiesfrom bot attacks, has rebranded to HUMAN to more authentically represent its values. The announcement made Tuesday.

The company -- which is now owned by Goldman Sachs MerchantBanking Division, in partnership with ClearSky Security and NightDragon -- said the name reflects its strong commitment to equality and diversity.

It marks a renewed pledge to carry out theteams long-held mission of protecting the integrity of the internet by disrupting the economics of cybercrime, according to Tamer Hassan, CEO and co-founder of WhiteOps, which has now beenrebranded to HUMAN.

Hassan announced a change in the works last October. During the past six months, the brand team spoke to customers, partners, analysts, industry leaders, employees, familyand friends, before deciding to make the change.

advertisement

advertisement

The company reviewed thousands of potential names, said Dan Lowden, CMO of HUMAN, adding that we kept coming back to HUMAN, a themeweve embodied since 2014.

As the new name suggests, the company plans to infuse humanity into the digital experience.

What does that mean? Lowden tells usthat the company fights daily to protect our customers' digital experiences.

This new identity galvanizes the vision that defines the future of the cybersecurity market on thecompanys terms, not the bots.

Bot attacks are impacting business in every corner of the internet, and are a much bigger problem than most companies realize.

WhiteOps' HumanVerification Engine protects applications, APIs, and digital media from bot attacks, preventing losses and improving the digital experience for real humans. Knowing who is a real human is one of manycomplex issues across the internet.

HUMAN now verifies more than 10 trillion interactions per week, protecting many of the largest enterprises and internet platforms. In 2020, the company saw34% growth in its customer base and 30% global growth across its teams.

Continued here:
White Ops Takes On Human Rebrand 03/30/2021 - MediaPost Communications

Breadcrumb Trail Links

The growth in cells was mostly noted in the groups of glial cells, which are responsible for carrying out post-mortem maintenance

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

Once a human dies so does their body, we might assume. All major systems shut down, muscles gradually atrophy and all organs, including the brain, are rendered obsolete.

Not quite so, researchers at the University of Illinois have discovered. Turns out some cells in the human brain dont take kindly to being told their services are no longer needed and instead grow in size and ramp up their activity for hours after death.

Scientists studying samples of brain tissue collected during routine brain surgery, watched as these cells, aptly named zombie genes, sprouted tentacles and went on to clean things up in the brain for several hours post-mortem.

Only glial cells, inflammatory cells that support the neurons, were observed carrying out the post-mortem maintenance, the researchers wrote in their study.

That glial cells enlarge after death isnt too surprising given that they are inflammatory and their job is to clean things up after brain injuries like oxygen deprivation or stroke, Dr. Jeffrey Loeb, a neurologist at the University of Illinois and corresponding author on the paper, said in a news release.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Most previous work on neurological gene expression and brain disorders has been done on brain tissues that have been dead for 12 hours or more.

However Loeb and his team, noticing differences between the global pattern of activity in fresh human brain tissue versus older tissue, decided to run a simulated death experiment to observe the level of activity in the brain immediately after it was declared dead to about a day post-mortem.

They used samples of recently collected brain tissues, which had been kept at room temperature to replicate the postmortem interval.

About 80 per cent of the genes analyzed in the brain remained relatively stable for 24 hours, researchers reported, which include genes that provide the basic cellular functions of the brain. Another group of genes connected to human brain activity such as memory, thinking and seizure activity, quickly degraded after death.

However, as the neuronal genes slowed, the zombie genes ramped up their activity, researchers found. This pattern in post-mortem changes continued for several hours, peaking at about 12 hours.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The discovery, Loeb said, could change the way research studies use postmortem brain tissues to research cures for mental illnesses such as Alzheimers, and schizophrenia and developmental disorders such as autism.

Most studies assume that everything in the brain stops when the heart stops beating, but this is not so, Loeb said. Our findings will be needed to interpret research on human brain tissues. We just havent quantified these changes until now.

The good news from our findings is that we now know which genes and cell types are stable, which degrade, and which increase over time so that results from postmortem brain studies can be better understood, he said.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Posted Newsletter will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Read the rest here:
Neuroscientists discover 'zombie genes' that come to life in the human brain after death - National Post

When workers start returning to their offices chances are they will look and feel very different. ... [+] (AP Photo/Yuri Kageyama)

We know some people are going to go back to some offices. We know those office spaces will be different than they used to be. And we know the commercial real estate industry is facing one of its most serious challenges in modern history.

But theres so much more we dont know and that will make the next 12 to 18 months an unprecedented time both for companies moving back into office spaces and the businesses that own and lease these spaces.

Forget about outer space being the final frontier: inner space in offices is certainly shaping up as the next frontier as the country starts to enter the post-pandemic era.

The quantitative and qualitative reports already coming out from across business indicate that were starting to see the first real signs of how this next phase may play out. At the height of the pandemic last year, its estimated that more half of the entire U.S. workforce did their jobs at home, up from single digits previously, according to IDC, a market research company. Emergent Research says that 15 to 18% of the workforce is likely to remain home-based once the pandemic subsides with most workers operating on a hybrid model, with some time spent in the office and some at home.

In the meantime, major companies like JPMorgan Chase JPM , Salesforce CRM and PricewaterhouseCoopers are all looking to sublet major portions of their existing office space, according to the Wall Street Journal. At the end of last year the amount of space available for sublet was up 40% from the prior year and at its highest level since 2003, CBRE Group CBRE reported.

Prices of existing premium office space dropped 17% over the past year in New York and San Francisco, worse than the national average of 13% said real estate firm JLL JLL .

So, theres no doubt the office market is going to be challenged. But property owners and real estate leasing companies alike are working to figure out how to navigate these new conditions and both see a very different commercial space landscape going forward. Among the key new characteristics are:

More use of flexible office space providers like WeWork as employers look for short-term solutions until more regular office work patterns return. Green Street, a real estate analytics company, estimates that flex leases will grow from their current share of 2% of the overall market to as much as 10% by the end of this decade.

Some office space will converted to alternative uses and while that might include the obvious choice of residential use, a less apparent reuse could be as distribution centers for e-commerce companies. With office space centrally located and adjacent to transportation these buildings could be attractive choices rather than warehouses away from major population areas, especially as same-day and even two-hour delivery becomes more common. Prologis PLD , which services the field, says a lot of its demand in the past decade has been focused in major 24-hour cities.

When office buildings do start to welcome daily workers back, chances are they will look and feel differently than in the past, says Gabe Marans, executive managing director for Savills, a major real estate leasing company. Like other businesses that have been challenged they will learn to adapt to new conditions. Remember when movie theaters upgraded? They put in reclining seats, better food and drink service. They had no choice but to offer an experience customers couldnt achieve at home, said Marans.

My prediction is that offices will be next to undergo a similar transformation. If companies want employees back in the office, everything will need to be reimagined. And employees will expect a workplace that they cant achieve remotely.

Marans says that means more services like child care, in-office health providers and even nap spaces. Individual work spaces will get bigger again, reversing a trend that had seen them decline over the past decade and there will be more collaborative huddle spaces.

Depending on the size of the office, these services will be provided by either the individual tenant or the office building itself. This will be the office 2.0, providing an experience and working environment that cant be replicated at home. Were starting to see this happening already.

While offices will need to adapt they also must be able to provide some of the comforts of home that workers have gotten used to over the past year. Thats the opinion of Gensler, the renowned architectural firm that has just issued an 81-page report on how office space will evolve going forward. It will put extra focus on health, wellness and flexibility, according to published reports. Theres going to be a lot of emphasis on technology to keep us connected and also new policies from both building operators and companies to allow that flexibility and virtual work to thrive, said Bill Baxley, managing director of Genslers Minneapolis office.

He added that Gensler learned that people miss the human experience of the traditional office setting, and that the hybrid working model is here to stay.

The return back to the office will no doubt be a long, slow process and as with most predictions about the impact of Covid, subject to constant revision. Even as many workers tell survey takers they like working from home others says they are anxious to get back to the office and out of their homes.

However many do come back and when when it happens they are likely to find the offices very different places from when they abruptly left more than a year ago.

Visit link:
Office Space Will Be The Next Frontier Post-Pandemic - Forbes

A few days ago, I was asked to share a Facebook post for a charity Im working with, one that provides groceries and food for Crawleys most vulnerable families. In the message, people were asked to donate Easter eggs to families who cant afford them; it was accompanied by a stock photo of a load of eggs. I shared the post without a seconds thought. So far, so Romesh looks like a great guy.

A couple of hours later, I checked to see if any donations had been made. I was surprised to see some people asking me if I was still vegan, because they were concerned that I had shared a picture of dairy products. I was worried that these comments would detract from the charitys cause, so I removed them, keeping my original post intact and on message. So far, so Romesh looks like a great guy who has effectively dealt with his naysayers.

I went to look at the post a little later and, in short, found that it was on fire. Some vegans had been notified that I had blocked the negative comments and had gone online to tell me, in my unwanted role as a moderator of plant-based dissenters, how disappointed they were that I had betrayed my vegan roots. Somehow they had decided that I was therefore also responsible for Nestls activities in Africa (I think there was a KitKat egg in the picture).

Silencing the critics hadnt worked, so I decided to respond. I said that, although I didnt support Nestl, or in fact dairy products in general, I was overlooking that to help children in the local area and to support a charity that needed as much support as it could get. I asked anyone who found my behaviour contradictory or hypocritical to unfollow. So far, so Romesh has put together some compelling arguments we could all learn from and isnt he still a really great guy?

It turns out I may as well have poured petrol all over my Facebook page. There was an onslaught of angry vegans saying I was encouraging the exploitation of animals, and an onslaught of angry other people saying vegans should get over themselves and that this was exactly why people hated them so much.

I am amazed by how passionate these principled vegans are, as well as confused by why they think this tactic might be effective. As far as I can see, it only seems to antagonise everyone else and confirm the opinion that we vegans are a humourless bunch of sanctimonious twats.

Still, I respect their passion. I also think they are awful, but I respect their awfulness. In fact, I understand how they became so hardcore. You become vegan for various reasons, but it often comes back to the idea that harming a sentient being seems abhorrent. So it can become increasingly frustrating when everyone else seems to be very relaxed about something you find horrendous.

However, had I been a vegan who found myself disagreeing with someones charity post, I might have tried using a little soft persuasion to encourage them to my way of thinking. Or maybe I might have donated some vegan Easter eggs to the cause, so I could really feel the warm hug of moral superiority, rather than attacking the post quite publicly and alienating a huge number of people.

Having said that, I didnt privately message them back. I publicly posted what I thought of them and even blocked some because I was so annoyed. Now Im writing about it. So far, so hypocritical. And this all coming from the guy who left Twitter because it was toxic. At this rate, the only place left for me will be Friends Reunited.

View original post here:
My charity Easter egg post was dairy shamed: what happened to the milk of human kindness? - The Guardian

The primary critical argument against the three previous films in the MonsterVerse franchise Godzilla (2014), Kong: Skull Island (2017), and Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) has been focused almost exclusively on the human element. Basically, the human characters and storylines in those three films long overstay their welcome, and the issue is exacerbated by idiocy, convoluted details, and more. The counter has always been that you dont watch a giant monster movie for the humans, but while thats true, their ubiquitous presence has always been hard to shake. King of the Monsters came close, but its the fourth film in the franchise thats finally gotten the balance right as Godzilla vs. Kong focuses on the big brutes and leaves the people to fight for scraps of attention at their feet.

Its been five years since Godzilla declared himself king of the monsters, and these days he only pops up periodically to destroy high-tech laboratories. King Kong, meanwhile, is living a far more sheltered life as Monarch the shadowy organization overseeing titan activity has erected a dome over Skull Island to keep Kong in and Godzilla out. It cant last forever, though, so when an ex-scientist named Nathan Lind (Alexander Skarsgrd) comes asking if Kong can come out to play his keepers say yes. Nathan needs the great ape to help them find an ancient power source in the earths hollow core, and Ilene Andrews (Rebecca Hall) needs a new home for the big lug, so its a win-win. Well, in theory, as the two titans seem inexorably drawn towards each other, and both have bloodlust in their eyes.

Godzilla vs. Kong succeeds because it understands the very first rule of a giant monster movie is to focus on the damn giant monsters. There are plenty of humans scrambling around including a couple of returning characters Mark Russell (Kyle Chandler) and his daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown) and several new ones, but theyre thankfully and blissfully kept to a relative minimum in favor of Kong and Godzilla. Director Adam Wingard does fine work with his first blockbuster (and you just know hes to credit for the Lethal Weapon 2 nod), but its the CG spectacle, monster mayhem, and epic carnage that rule the screen.

While there are attractive visuals throughout, primarily in the hollow earth and Hong Kong, the films not quite the showcase for gorgeous shots that the two previous movies managed to be. Its still a movie best watched loudly and on the biggest screen at your disposal, though, as both Godzilla and Kong are beautifully rendered as is the destruction left in their wake. Cybernetic factories in Florida and Hong Kong are leveled, monstrous threats lurk in the hollow earth, and a face-off out at sea plays havoc with a naval fleet. Its thrilling stuff, and the action remains clear throughout keeping everything in understandable geography.

The one hiccup on that front, though, is an inconsistent scale between the two titans of Godzilla vs. Kong. Its acknowledged that Kong has grown since we last saw him, but ships and aircraft seem to give a fluctuating sense of size between the two as sometimes the ape looks smaller than Godzilla while they appear evenly matched elsewhere. Its far from a deal-breaker as the action and spectacle hold focus.

The script, by Eric Pearson and Max Borenstein, still manages plenty of the expected human silliness, but either through restraint or post-production editing, its never overwhelming or enough to drag down the films momentum. Fighter pilots still fly within arms reach of the giant beasts, theres still a weird bond between titans and little girls, and brilliant scientists capable of reaching the earths hollow-core inexplicably need Kong to find them a very obvious magic mountain for them, but the monsters take precedence. The desire to ensure human characters play a pivotal role does become laughable once or twice as the writers throw them a bone for a brief heroic moment or feeling of continuity seriously, remove both Madison and her father and not a single element would have played out differently here but Godzilla vs. Kong belongs to big guys.

This is the shortest of the four films, and the action and momentum keep things moving at a strong pace. Junkie XLs score adds to the adrenalized feeling, and the personable nature of the cast helps ensure an easy watch. The body count is high, like tens of thousands high, but the overwhelming majority are off-screen or as unseen specks within the CG devastation. We get the expected themes greed and a hunger for power are bad; working together is good; people are endlessly stupid but we also get an energetic action film featuring big, messy brawls, giant monsters, Kong scratching his bare ass on his way to the shower, and more. Honestly, what more could you want in a MonsterVerse movie? Now go see Godzilla vs. Kong so theyll make another one and we can finally get Godzillas adopted son, Minilla, back on the big screen where he belongs.

Continue reading here:
Godzilla vs. Kong Finds the Balance Between Monster and Human - Film School Rejects

TORONTO -- Scientists are warning about an unexplained neurological disorder found in black bear cubs in California that causes the animals to exhibit uncharacteristic and overly friendly behaviours.

But they aren't sure why this is happening.

According to a press release from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), four cubs in the past 12 months have shown "dog-like" behaviours, including being comfortable around humans.

The CDFW says it encountered one of these bears last month -- a small, female black bear in Pollock Pines, east of Sacramento.

The CDFW was alerted to the bear after it had moved into a residential backyard.

A biologist with the department reported that the bear was lethargic, underweight, and showed no fear of people, picking up apples and eating them in front of the residents on their backyard patio.

The CDFW said the bear did not respond to the people yelling or clapping, and at one point jumped into a housekeeper's open car trunk.

"Physically and mentally, the bear just didnt seem quite right, walking oddly, dull and not responsive like a normal bear should be," the department said in the release.

According to the release, the bear was taken to CDFWs Wildlife Investigations Laboratory for observation by veterinarians. They reported that the cub displayed "intermittent head tremors" and a subtle head tilt, which are "troubling signs of neurological abnormalities."

According to preliminary findings, scientists say the behaviours are linked to encephalitis, or inflammation in the brain.

However, the CDFW says the root cause of the inflammation "remains a mystery."

While scientists arent sure what's causing the encephalitis, theyve identified five new viruses in the sick bears, though the department says their relationship to the condition and the neurological disorders arent clear.

The CFDW previously told The Sacramento Bee that the viruses dont appear to be a risk to humans.

Officials in Nevada were first to notice the abnormal behaviours in bears, alerting wildlife colleagues in California in 2014 to growing human encounters in the Tahoe Basin with young black bears.

The CDFW says the situation has become more common elsewhere around the state.

One bear with these symptoms gained attention on social media in 2019 when it approached a snowboarder at the Northstar ski resort. In a video shared to Instagram, the bear is seen stepping onto the snowboard and sniffing the snowboarder's pant leg.

That bear, named Benji, was treated for the disorder at the San Diego Humane Society's Ramona Campus. He is now three-years-old and continues to live at the campus.

Despite this, the CFDW says Benji's story is "something of a cautionary tale" as he has never fully recovered and has required "significant veterinary care" over the years.

CDFW wildlife veterinarian Brandon Munk said in the release that it is "not possible" for these neurologically impaired bears to be released back into the wild, for fear of spreading the disease to other animals.

"At this point, we dont know what causes the encephalitis so we dont know what, if any, health risks these bears might pose to other animals," Munk explained.

Munk said that having the bears live the rest of their lives out at a zoo or wildlife sanctuary is a rare scenario, as care expenses are difficult for many wildlife facilities to take on and limit placement options.

"The few bears like this we have placed do not seem to fully recover, some requiring significant medical management for the life of the bear, which is a huge burden for these facilities that often operate on tight budgets," he said.

The female black bear found in Pollock Pines was euthanized. The CDFW says a post-mortem examination is underway.

Read more:
California bear cubs developing unexplained illness that makes them unafraid of humans - CTV News

Intergovernmental military alliance of Western states

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO, ; French: Organisation du trait de l'Atlantique nord, OTAN), also called the North Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance between 30 European and North American countries. The organization implements the North Atlantic Treaty that was signed on 4 April 1949.[3][4] NATO constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its independent member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party. NATO's Headquarters are located in Haren, Brussels, Belgium, while the headquarters of Allied Command Operations is near Mons, Belgium.

Since its founding, the admission of new member states has increased the alliance from the original 12 countries to 30. The most recent member state to be added to NATO was North Macedonia on 27 March 2020. NATO currently recognizes Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Ukraine as aspiring members.[5] An additional 20countries participate in NATO's Partnership for Peace program, with 15other countries involved in institutionalized dialogue programs. The combined military spending of all NATO members constitutes over 70% of the global total.[6] Members agreed that their aim is to reach or maintain the target defense spending of at least 2% of their GDP by 2024.[7][8]

On 4 March 1947, the Treaty of Dunkirk was signed by France and the United Kingdom as a Treaty of Alliance and Mutual Assistance in the event of a possible attack by Germany or the Soviet Union in the aftermath of World War II. In 1948, this alliance was expanded to include the Benelux countries, in the form of the Western Union, also referred to as the Brussels Treaty Organization (BTO), established by the Treaty of Brussels.[9] Talks for a new military alliance which could also include North America resulted in the signature of the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949 by the member states of the Western Union plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.[10]

The North Atlantic Treaty was largely dormant until the Korean War initiated the establishment of NATO to implement it, by means of an integrated military structure: This included the formation of Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in 1951, which adopted the Western Union's military structures and plans.[11] In 1952, the post of Secretary General of NATO was established as the organization's chief civilian. That year also saw the first major NATO maritime exercises, Exercise Mainbrace and the accession of Greece and Turkey to the organization.[12][13] Following the London and Paris Conferences, West Germany was permitted to rearm militarily, as they joined NATO in May 1955, which was, in turn, a major factor in the creation of the Soviet-dominated Warsaw Pact, delineating the two opposing sides of the Cold War.

The building of the Berlin Wall in 1962 marked a height in Cold War tensions, when 400,000U.S. troops were stationed in Europe.[14] Doubts over the strength of the relationship between the European states and the United States ebbed and flowed, along with doubts over the credibility of the NATO defense against a prospective Soviet invasion doubts that led to the development of the independent French nuclear deterrent and the withdrawal of France from NATO's military structure in 1966.[16] In 1982, the newly democratic Spain joined the alliance.

The Revolutions of 1989 in Europe led to a strategic re-evaluation of NATO's purpose, nature, tasks, and focus on that continent. In October 1990, East Germany became part of the Federal Republic of Germany and the alliance, and in November 1990, the alliance signed the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) in Paris with the Soviet Union. It mandated specific military reductions across the continent, which continued after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact in February 1991 and dissolution of the Soviet Union in that December, which removed the de facto main adversaries of NATO.[17] This began a draw-down of military spending and equipment in Europe. The CFE treaty allowed signatories to remove 52,000pieces of conventional armaments in the following sixteen years,[18] and allowed military spending by NATO's European members to decline by 28% from 1990 to 2015.[19]

In the 1990s, the organization extended its activities into political and humanitarian situations that had not formerly been NATO concerns.[20] During the break-up of Yugoslavia, the organization conducted its first military interventions in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995 and later Yugoslavia in 1999.[21] These conflicts motivated a major post-Cold War military restructuring. NATO's military structure was cut back and reorganized, with new forces such as the Headquarters Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps established. The changes brought about by the collapse of the Soviet Union on the military balance in Europe since the CFE treaty were recognized in the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, which was signed at the 1999 Istanbul summit.

Politically, the organization sought better relations with the newly autonomous Central and Eastern European nations, and diplomatic forums for regional cooperation between NATO and its neighbors were set up during this post-Cold War period, including the Partnership for Peace and the Mediterranean Dialogue initiative in 1994, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council in 1997, and the NATORussia Permanent Joint Council in 1998. At the 1999 Washington summit, Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic officially joined NATO, and the organization also issued new guidelines for membership with individualized "Membership Action Plans". These plans governed the addition of new alliance members: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia in 2004, Albania and Croatia in 2009, Montenegro in 2017, and North Macedonia in 2020. The election of French President Nicolas Sarkozy in 2007 led to a major reform of France's military position, culminating with the return to full membership on 4 April 2009, which also included France rejoining the NATO Military Command Structure, while maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent.[16][22][23]

Article5 of the North Atlantic treaty, requiring member states to come to the aid of any member state subject to an armed attack, was invoked for the first and only time after the September 11 attacks,[24] after which troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF. The organization has operated a range of additional roles since then, including sending trainers to Iraq, assisting in counter-piracy operations[25] and in 2011 enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1973. Article 4, which merely invokes consultation among NATO members, has been invoked five times following incidents in the Iraq War, Syrian Civil War, and annexation of Crimea.[26] This annexation and larger Russo-Ukrainian War led to strong condemnation by NATO nations and the creation of a new "spearhead" force of 5,000 troops at bases in Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria.[27] At the subsequent 2014 Wales summit, the leaders of NATO's member states formally committed for the first time to spend the equivalent of at least 2% of their gross domestic products on defence by 2024, which had previously been only an informal guideline.[28]

No military operations were conducted by NATO during the Cold War. Following the end of the Cold War, the first operations, Anchor Guard in 1990 and Ace Guard in 1991, were prompted by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Airborne early warning aircraft were sent to provide coverage of southeastern Turkey, and later a quick-reaction force was deployed to the area.[29]

The Bosnian War began in 1992, as a result of the break-up of Yugoslavia. The deteriorating situation led to United Nations Security Council Resolution 816 on 9 October 1992, ordering a no-fly zone over central Bosnia and Herzegovina, which NATO began enforcing on 12 April 1993 with Operation Deny Flight. From June 1993 until October 1996, Operation Sharp Guard added maritime enforcement of the arms embargo and economic sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. On 28 February 1994, NATO took its first wartime action by shooting down four Bosnian Serb aircraft violating the no-fly zone.

On 10 and 11 April 1994, the United Nations Protection Force called in air strikes to protect the Gorade safe area, resulting in the bombing of a Bosnian Serb military command outpost near Gorade by two US F-16 jets acting under NATO direction. In retaliation, Serbs took 150U.N. personnel hostage on 14 April.[32][33] On 16 April a British Sea Harrier was shot down over Gorade by Serb forces.

In August 1995, a two-week NATO bombing campaign, Operation Deliberate Force, began against the Army of the Republika Srpska, after the Srebrenica genocide.[35] Further NATO air strikes helped bring the Yugoslav wars to an end, resulting in the Dayton Agreement in November 1995.[35] As part of this agreement, NATO deployed a UN-mandated peacekeeping force, under Operation Joint Endeavor, named IFOR. Almost 60,000 NATO troops were joined by forces from non-NATO nations in this peacekeeping mission. This transitioned into the smaller SFOR, which started with 32,000 troops initially and ran from December 1996 until December 2004, when operations were then passed onto European Union Force Althea. Following the lead of its member nations, NATO began to award a service medal, the NATO Medal, for these operations.[37]

In an effort to stop Slobodan Miloevi's Serbian-led crackdown on KLA separatists and Albanian civilians in Kosovo, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1199 on 23 September 1998 to demand a ceasefire. Negotiations under US Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke broke down on 23 March 1999, and he handed the matter to NATO,[38] which started a 78-day bombing campaign on 24 March 1999.[39] Operation Allied Force targeted the military capabilities of what was then the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. During the crisis, NATO also deployed one of its international reaction forces, the ACE Mobile Force (Land), to Albania as the Albania Force (AFOR), to deliver humanitarian aid to refugees from Kosovo.[40]

Though the campaign was criticized for high civilian casualties, including bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Miloevi finally accepted the terms of an international peace plan on 3 June 1999, ending the Kosovo War. On 11 June, Miloevi further accepted UN resolution 1244, under the mandate of which NATO then helped establish the KFOR peacekeeping force. Nearly one million refugees had fled Kosovo, and part of KFOR's mandate was to protect the humanitarian missions, in addition to deterring violence.[40][41] In AugustSeptember 2001, the alliance also mounted Operation Essential Harvest, a mission disarming ethnic Albanian militias in the Republic of Macedonia.[42] As of 1December2013[update], 4,882KFOR soldiers, representing 31countries, continue to operate in the area.[43]

The US, the UK, and most other NATO countries opposed efforts to require the UN Security Council to approve NATO military strikes, such as the action against Serbia in 1999, while France and some others claimed that the alliance needed UN approval.[44] The US/UK side claimed that this would undermine the authority of the alliance, and they noted that Russia and China would have exercised their Security Council vetoes to block the strike on Yugoslavia, and could do the same in future conflicts where NATO intervention was required, thus nullifying the entire potency and purpose of the organization. Recognizing the post-Cold War military environment, NATO adopted the Alliance Strategic Concept during its Washington summit in April 1999 that emphasized conflict prevention and crisis management.[45]

The September 11 attacks in the United States caused NATO to invoke Article5 of the NATO Charter for the first time in the organization's history. The Article states that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all. The invocation was confirmed on 4 October 2001 when NATO determined that the attacks were indeed eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty.[46] The eight official actions taken by NATO in response to the attacks included Operation Eagle Assist and Operation Active Endeavour, a naval operation in the Mediterranean Sea designed to prevent the movement of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction, and to enhance the security of shipping in general, which began on 4 October 2001.[47]

The alliance showed unity: On 16 April 2003, NATO agreed to take command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which included troops from 42 countries. The decision came at the request of Germany and the Netherlands, the two nations leading ISAF at the time of the agreement, and all nineteen NATO ambassadors approved it unanimously. The handover of control to NATO took place on 11 August, and marked the first time in NATO's history that it took charge of a mission outside the north Atlantic area.[48]

ISAF was initially charged with securing Kabul and surrounding areas from the Taliban, al Qaeda and factional warlords, so as to allow for the establishment of the Afghan Transitional Administration headed by Hamid Karzai. In October 2003, the UN Security Council authorized the expansion of the ISAF mission throughout Afghanistan,[49] and ISAF subsequently expanded the mission in four main stages over the whole of the country.[50]

On 31 July 2006, the ISAF additionally took over military operations in the south of Afghanistan from a US-led anti-terrorism coalition.[51] Due to the intensity of the fighting in the south, in 2011 France allowed a squadron of Mirage 2000 fighter/attack aircraft to be moved into the area, to Kandahar, in order to reinforce the alliance's efforts.[52] During its 2012 Chicago Summit, NATO endorsed a plan to end the Afghanistan war and to remove the NATO-led ISAF Forces by the end of December 2014.[53] ISAF was disestablished in December 2014 and replaced by the follow-on training Resolute Support Mission.[54]

In August 2004, during the Iraq War, NATO formed the NATO Training Mission Iraq, a training mission to assist the Iraqi security forces in conjunction with the US-led MNF-I.[55] The NATO Training Mission-Iraq (NTM-I) was established at the request of the Iraqi Interim Government under the provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546. The aim of NTM-I was to assist in the development of Iraqi security forces training structures and institutions so that Iraq can build an effective and sustainable capability that addresses the needs of the nation. NTM-I was not a combat mission but is a distinct mission, under the political control of the North Atlantic Council. Its operational emphasis was on training and mentoring. The activities of the mission were coordinated with Iraqi authorities and the US-led Deputy Commanding General Advising and Training, who was also dual-hatted as the Commander of NTM-I. The mission officially concluded on 17 December 2011.[56]

Turkey invoked the first Article 4 meetings in 2003 at the start of the Iraq War. Turkey also invoked this article twice in 2012 during the Syrian Civil War, after the downing of an unarmed Turkish F-4 reconnaissance jet, and after a mortar was fired at Turkey from Syria,[57] and again in 2015 after threats by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to its territorial integrity.[58]

Beginning on 17 August 2009, NATO deployed warships in an operation to protect maritime traffic in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean from Somali pirates, and help strengthen the navies and coast guards of regional states. The operation was approved by the North Atlantic Council and involves warships primarily from the United States though vessels from many other nations are also included. Operation Ocean Shield focuses on protecting the ships of Operation Allied Provider which are distributing aid as part of the World Food Programme mission in Somalia. Russia, China and South Korea have sent warships to participate in the activities as well.[59][60] The operation seeks to dissuade and interrupt pirate attacks, protect vessels, and abetting to increase the general level of security in the region.[61]

During the Libyan Civil War, violence between protesters and the Libyan government under Colonel Muammar Gaddafi escalated, and on 17 March 2011 led to the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which called for a ceasefire, and authorized military action to protect civilians. A coalition that included several NATO members began enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya shortly afterwards, beginning with Opration Harmattan by the French Air Force on 19 March.

On 20 March 2011, NATO states agreed on enforcing an arms embargo against Libya with Operation Unified Protector using ships from NATO Standing Maritime Group1 and Standing Mine Countermeasures Group1,[62] and additional ships and submarines from NATO members.[63] They would "monitor, report and, if needed, interdict vessels suspected of carrying illegal arms or mercenaries".[62]

On 24 March, NATO agreed to take control of the no-fly zone from the initial coalition, while command of targeting ground units remained with the coalition's forces.[64][65] NATO began officially enforcing the UN resolution on 27 March 2011 with assistance from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.[66] By June, reports of divisions within the alliance surfaced as only eight of the 28 member nations were participating in combat operations,[67] resulting in a confrontation between US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and countries such as Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Germany to contribute more, the latter believing the organization has overstepped its mandate in the conflict.[68][69][70] In his final policy speech in Brussels on 10 June, Gates further criticized allied countries in suggesting their actions could cause the demise of NATO.[71] The German foreign ministry pointed to "aconsiderable [German] contribution to NATO and NATO-led operations" and to the fact that this engagement was highly valued by President Obama.[72]

While the mission was extended into September, Norway that day announced it would begin scaling down contributions and complete withdrawal by 1 August.[73] Earlier that week it was reported Danish air fighters were running out of bombs.[74][75] The following week, the head of the Royal Navy said the country's operations in the conflict were not sustainable.[76] By the end of the mission in October 2011, after the death of Colonel Gaddafi, NATO planes had flown about 9,500 strike sorties against pro-Gaddafi targets.[77][78] A report from the organization Human Rights Watch in May 2012 identified at least 72 civilians killed in the campaign.[79]Following a coup d'tat attempt in October 2013, Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan requested technical advice and trainers from NATO to assist with ongoing security issues.[80]

NATO has thirty members, mainly in Europe and North America. Some of these countries also have territory on multiple continents, which can be covered only as far south as the Tropic of Cancer in the Atlantic Ocean, which defines NATO's "area of responsibility" under Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty. During the original treaty negotiations, the United States insisted that colonies such as the Belgian Congo be excluded from the treaty.[82] French Algeria was however covered until their independence on 3 July 1962.[83] Twelve of these thirty are original members who joined in 1949, while the other eighteen joined in one of eight enlargement rounds.

From the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, France pursued a military strategy of independence from NATO under a policy dubbed "Gaullo-Mitterrandism". Nicolas Sarkozy negotiated the return of France to the integrated military command and the Defence Planning Committee in 2009, the latter being disbanded the following year. France remains the only NATO member outside the Nuclear Planning Group and unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, will not commit its nuclear-armed submarines to the alliance.[16][22] Few members spend more than two percent of their gross domestic product on defence,[85] with the United States accounting for three quarters of NATO defence spending.[86]

New membership in the alliance has been largely from Central and Eastern Europe, including former members of the Warsaw Pact. Accession to the alliance is governed with individual Membership Action Plans, and requires approval by each current member. NATO currently has one candidate country that is in the process of joining the alliance: Bosnia and Herzegovina. North Macedonia signed an accession protocol to become a NATO member state in February 2019, and became a member state on 27 March 2020.[87][88] Its accession had been blocked by Greece for many years due to the Macedonia naming dispute, which was resolved in 2018 by the Prespa agreement.[89] In order to support each other in the process, new and potential members in the region formed the Adriatic Charter in 2003.[90] Georgia was also named as an aspiring member, and was promised "future membership" during the 2008 summit in Bucharest,[91] though in 2014, US President Barack Obama said the country was not "currently on a path" to membership.[92]

Russia continues to politically oppose further expansion, seeing it as inconsistent with informal understandings between Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and European and US negotiators that allowed for a peaceful German reunification.[93] NATO's expansion efforts are often seen by Moscow leaders as a continuation of a Cold War attempt to surround and isolate Russia,[94] though they have also been criticized in the West.[95] A June 2016 Levada poll found that 68% of Russians think that deploying NATO troops in the Baltic states and Polandformer Eastern bloc countries bordering Russiais a threat to Russia.[96] In contrast 65% of Poles surveyed in a 2017 Pew Research Center report identified Russia as a "major threat", with an average of 31% saying so across all NATO countries,[97] and 67% of Poles surveyed in 2018 favour US forces being based in Poland.[98] Of non-CIS Eastern European countries surveyed by Gallup in 2016, all but Serbia and Montenegro were more likely than not to view NATO as a protective alliance rather than a threat.[99] A 2006 study in the journal Security Studies argued that NATO enlargement contributed to democratic consolidation in Central and Eastern Europe.[100]

Ukraine's relationship with NATO and Europe has been politically controversial, and improvement of these relations was one of the goals of the "Euromaidan" protests that saw the ousting of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. In March 2014, Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk reiterated the government's stance that Ukraine is not seeking NATO membership.[101] Ukraine's president subsequently signed a bill dropping his nation's nonaligned status in order to pursue NATO membership, but signalled that it would hold a referendum before seeking to join.[102] Ukraine is one of eight countries in Eastern Europe with an Individual Partnership Action Plan. IPAPs began in 2002, and are open to countries that have the political will and ability to deepen their relationship with NATO.[103]

The Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme was established in 1994 and is based on individual bilateral relations between each partner country and NATO: each country may choose the extent of its participation.[105] Members include all current and former members of the Commonwealth of Independent States.[106] The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) was first established on 29 May 1997, and is a forum for regular coordination, consultation and dialogue between all fifty participants.[107] The PfP programme is considered the operational wing of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership.[105] Other third countries also have been contacted for participation in some activities of the PfP framework such as Afghanistan.[108]

The European Union (EU) signed a comprehensive package of arrangements with NATO under the Berlin Plus agreement on 16 December 2002. With this agreement, the EU was given the possibility of using NATO assets in case it wanted to act independently in an international crisis, on the condition that NATO itself did not want to act the so-called "right of first refusal".[109] For example, Article 42(7) of the 1982 Treaty of Lisbon specifies that "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power". The treaty applies globally to specified territories whereas NATO is restricted under its Article 6 to operations north of the Tropic of Cancer. It provides a "double framework" for the EU countries that are also linked with the PfP programme.[citation needed]

Additionally, NATO cooperates and discusses its activities with numerous other non-NATO members. The Mediterranean Dialogue was established in 1994 to coordinate in a similar way with Israel and countries in North Africa. The Istanbul Cooperation Initiative was announced in 2004 as a dialogue forum for the Middle East along the same lines as the Mediterranean Dialogue. The four participants are also linked through the Gulf Cooperation Council.[110] In June 2018, Qatar expressed its wish to join NATO.[111] However, NATO declined membership, stating that only additional European countries could join according to Article 10 of NATO's founding treaty.[112] Qatar and NATO have previously signed a security agreement together in January 2018.[113]

Political dialogue with Japan began in 1990, and since then, the Alliance has gradually increased its contact with countries that do not form part of any of these cooperation initiatives.[114] In 1998, NATO established a set of general guidelines that do not allow for a formal institutionalization of relations, but reflect the Allies' desire to increase cooperation. Following extensive debate, the term "Contact Countries" was agreed by the Allies in 2000. By 2012, the Alliance had broadened this group, which meets to discuss issues such as counter-piracy and technology exchange, under the names "partners across the globe" or "global partners".[115][116] Australia and New Zealand, both contact countries, are also members of the AUSCANNZUKUS strategic alliance, and similar regional or bilateral agreements between contact countries and NATO members also aid cooperation. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated that NATO needs to "address the rise of China," by closely cooperating with Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea.[117] Colombia is the NATO's latest partner and Colombia has access to the full range of cooperative activities NATO offers to partners; Colombia became the first and only Latin American country to cooperate with NATO.[118]

All agencies and organizations of NATO are integrated into either the civilian administrative or military executive roles. For the most part they perform roles and functions that directly or indirectly support the security role of the alliance as a whole.

The civilian structure includes:

The military structure includes:

The organizations and agencies of NATO include:

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO PA) is a body that sets broad strategic goals for NATO, which meets at two session per year. NATO PA interacts directly with the parliamentary structures of the national governments of the member states which appoint Permanent Members, or ambassadors to NATO. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly is made up of legislators from the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance as well as thirteen associate members. It is however officially a different structure from NATO, and has as aim to join together deputies of NATO countries in order to discuss security policies on the NATO Council.

See the article here:
NATO - Wikipedia

The United Nations announced on Thursday that Syria is set to be elected to a senior post on a UN decolonization committee charged with upholding human rights including the subjugation, domination and exploitation of people.

The Syrian regime headed by dictator Bashar Assad has waged a bloody civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people since it started in 2011. The regime is believed to have committed widespread war crimes, including by using chemical weapons and barrel bombs against civilians.

Also on Thursday, the UN released a report that said actions by the regime during the war likely constituted crimes against humanity, war crimes and other international crimes, including genocide.

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email and never miss our top storiesFree Sign Up

Syria will be elected to the UNs Special Committee on Decolonization, a 24-nation body that aims to decolonize the US Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa, and other areas, according to the UN Watch NGO, which reported Syrias election to the forum.

Syrias new UN envoy, Bassam al-Sabbagh, is set to join the forum in June, the UN announced at its opening session.

The Special Committee will take up, at a later date, the election of the Special Rapporteur of the Committee pending the arrival in New York of His Excellency Ambassador Bassam al-Sabbagh, nominated by the Syrian Arab Republic, said Keisha McGuire, permanent representative of Grenada to the UN.

Al-Sabbagh was unable to attend the opening session of the forum, McGuire said.

A Syrian representative at the meeting said, My country has always supported the proceedings of the special committee, as well as the efforts of the committee to reinforce the right to self-determination.

The UN has brought up violence perpetrated by both sides of the civil war in Syria, but Russia, an ally to Damascus, has blocked many efforts to target the regime.

I'm proud to work at The Times of Israel

Ill tell you the truth: Life here in Israel isnt always easy. But it's full of beauty and meaning.

I'm proud to work at The Times of Israel alongside colleagues who pour their hearts into their work day in, day out, to capture the complexity of this extraordinary place.

I believe our reporting sets an important tone of honesty and decency that's essential to understand what's really happening in Israel. It takes a lot of time, commitment and hard work from our team to get this right.

Your support, through membership in The Times of Israel Community, enables us to continue our work. Would you join our Community today?

Thank you,

Sarah Tuttle Singer, New Media Editor

Youre serious. We appreciate that!

Were really pleased that youve read X Times of Israel articles in the past month.

Thats why we come to work every day - to provide discerning readers like you with must-read coverage of Israel and the Jewish world.

So now we have a request. Unlike other news outlets, we havent put up a paywall. But as the journalism we do is costly, we invite readers for whom The Times of Israel has become important to help support our work by joining The Times of Israel Community.

For as little as $6 a month you can help support our quality journalism while enjoying The Times of Israel AD-FREE, as well as accessing exclusive content available only to Times of Israel Community members.

Read more:
Syria set to be elected to top post in UN human rights forum - The Times of Israel

Frys Electronics, a big-box retailer that nurtured a generation of do-it-yourself tech fans and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, announced on Wednesday that it was shutting down operations, effective immediately.

The company, which is based in San Jose, Calif., replaced the contents of its website with a statement that said it had ceased operations and had begun winding down. The retailer, which built a cult following on the West Coast but was unable to compete with the rise of Amazon, blamed the shutdown on changes in the retail industry and the challenges posed by the Covid-19 pandemic.

It is hoped that undertaking the wind-down through this orderly process will reduce costs, avoid additional liabilities, minimize the impact on our customers, vendors, landlords and associates, and maximize the value of the companys assets for its creditors and other stakeholders, the statement said.

The pandemic has taken a heavy toll on retailers, with restrictions meant to reduce the spread of the coronavirus causing foot traffic to nosedive. Several large retail chains, including Brooks Brothers, Neiman Marcus and JCPenney, have filed for bankruptcy since the pandemic hit. Macys, the department store chain with more than 700 stores, said on Tuesday that its sales last year plummeted 29 percent and that it posted a net loss of $3.9 billion, compared with a $564 million profit the prior year.

Frys has 31 stores across nine states and has been in business for nearly 36 years, according to the statement. Founded in 1985 by the three Fry brothers, the business was intended to provide a one-stop-shopping environment for the high-tech professional, the company wrote on its LinkedIn profile. The stores ranged in size from 50,000 square feet to more than 180,000 square feet, each stocked with an eclectic assortment of gadgets and parts.

The chain was famous for its elaborate store themes. Its location in Phoenix had an Aztec temple, for instance; its store in Burbank, Calif., was inspired by 1950s science fiction movies; and the Frys in Woodland Hills, Ca., was a page out of Alice in Wonderland, decorated with figurines as tall as 15 feet of the storys characters.

The retailer was particularly beloved by Silicon Valley executives, who found the stores to be a nostalgic haven and source of creative inspiration.

Going to a Frys store is entertainment in itself; for a geek, it could be recuperative, Jean-Louis Gasse, a former Apple executive, wrote in a blog post in 2019.

Fans took to Twitter on Wednesday to mourn the stores closing.

RIP Frys Electronics, wrote one user. u were my favorite Aztec-themed electronics superstore with a random movie theatre, and I will always cherish the memories of loitering there so me & my friends could play rock band after school.

It was a piece of heaven for me, wrote another fan. I was there for hours.

More here:
Fry's Electronics Is Closing, Another Retail Victim of Pandemic - The New York Times

Press Trust of IndiaFeb 24, 2021 19:29:20 IST

While Indian tigers have the highest genetic variation compared to other subspecies of the feline across the world, their populations continue to be fragmented by loss of habitat, leading to inbreeding and potential loss of this diversity, says a new study that may inform conservation strategies. "As human population started expanding, so also their signatures on the land. We know that some of these signatures would result in disrupting the ability of tigers to move," Uma Ramakrishnan, co-author of the research, published in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution, told PTI.

According to Ramakrishnan, molecular ecologist and assistant professor at the National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bangalore, this habitat loss from human activities leads to tigers being "hemmed into their own protected area."

"Now, they can only mate with the other tigers in their own population. Over time, this will result in inbreeding, they will end up mating with their relatives," she explained. "Whether this inbreeding compromises their fitness, their ability to survive, we do not yet know," the molecular ecologist added.

While genetic diversity across a population improves their chances of survival in the future, the study said population fragmentation of tigers can decrease this variation, and endanger them further.

Although tigers have received significant conservation attention, the scientists said very little is known about their evolutionary history and genomic variation, especially for Indian tigers.

With 70 percent of the world's tigers living in India, the researchers said understanding the genetic diversity of tigers in the country is critical to the feline's conservation worldwide.

The results of their three-year long study offer insights into genomic variation in tigers and the processes that have sculpted it.

Based on the results, the scientists believe there have been relatively recent divergences between subspecies, and intense population bottlenecks that may have contributed to inbred individuals.

According to the NCBS scientist, maintaining structural connectivity, enabling tigers to move between protected areas can help overcome these bottlenecks.

"This would require the right types of habitat between protected areas, for example having densely populated human settlements would not work. Further, there also needs to be functional connectivity, that tigers do actually move," Ramakrishnan added.

In the study, the scientists sequenced whole genomes from 65 individual tigers from four subspecies of the feline, and conducted a variety of population genomic analyses that quantify genetic variability.

They investigated the partitioning of genetic variation, possible impacts of inbreeding, and demographic history, and possible signatures of local adaptation.

Tiger roaming grasslands in the Bandhavgarh National Park.

While the total genomic variation in Indian tigers was higher than in other subspecies, the study found that several individual tigers in the country had low variation, suggesting possible inbreeding.

According to the research, tigers from northeast India were the most different from other populations in India

"Given our results, it is important to understand why some Bengal tigers appear inbred and what the consequences of this are," said Anubhab Khan, co-first author of the research.

The study showed recent divergences between tiger subspecies, within the last 20,000 years, which the scientists believe is concordant with increasing human impacts across Asia and a transition from glacial to interglacial climate change in the continent.

However, the scientists believe this finding needs to be investigated further with expanded data and analyses of more tiger genomes.

"Most studies focusing on species of conservation concern use limited numbers of specimens to try to gain understanding into how genomic variation is partitioned," said Ellie Armstrong, co-first and co-corresponding author of the study from Stanford University in the US.

"It is clear from our work here, and a growing number of other studies, that it is crucial to increase our sampling efforts and use caution when interpreting results from limited sample sizes," Armstrong added.

According to Ramakrishnan, the genomic variation of Indian tigers continues to be shaped by the ongoing loss of connectivity.

"Population management and conservation action must incorporate information on genetic variation. I hope doing so will help India maintain the gains in tiger conservation achieved so far," Ramakrishnan added.

See original here:
Indian tigers losing their rich genetic variation, habitat loss and inbreeding to blame: Study - Firstpost