 A nice hiking trail circles the lake.
Activities: Picnicking, hiking, fishing, boating, nature photography, wildlife viewing.
Facilities: Picnic tables and shelters, hiking trails, restrooms, boat launch for small boat, with a motor size limit of 10 horse power or less.
To see a wide variety of marine life such as Sand Shark, Grouper, Horseshoe Crab, and Seahorse, follow signs in Panacea to the Gulf Specimen Aquarium and Marine Lab.Existing superoptimization and synthesis approaches consider candidate instruction sequences of increasing length and use constraint solvers to check whether a candidate correctly implements the source code. This works well for optimizing short straight-line code. With the increase in length of the target sequence, the search space dramatically increases, posing a challenge for existing approaches.
We describe a new approach to code generation and optimization. Our approach uses an SMT solver in a novel way to generate efficient code for modern architectures and guarantee that the generated code correctly implements the source code. The distinguishing characteristic of our approach is that the size of the constraints does not depend on the length of the candidate sequence of instructions.
We implemented a preliminary prototype of the approach and applied it to optimize small but tricky examples used as standard benchmarks for other superoptimization and synthesis tools. Our implementation handles arbitrary loop-free code (not only basic blocks) as input and output. The quality of generated code compares favorably with production compilers and other superoptimization tools.I was a huge fan of randomizing everything - stats, HP, even the old in order roll of 3d6 for some low tier parties.

But I had this one campaign of 10+ players that changed my views: I had one player who's primary stat was 15-16 after all the adjustments, while another had 20 primary and a couple more 18 and 17. After that I got to re-thinking stat rolls for my games and I like either giving a bonus to point-buy or having everyone roll and use the best variant for all, with some points-trade if needed. But that depends entirely on the power level of campaign. I'm planning a new low-tier gritty game and stats are going to be slightly above base-line humans. Although I have some home-rules for stat change up and down outside of ASI.Today, we’re proud to share with you an all-new Schooltraq Support, designed to help you more effectively. After a good run with Tender, our previous support software, we’ve chosen to build our own solution.
The new support center includes an all-new documentation website that provides information you need more concisely and quickly. We’ve included the most popular articles on the main support page, but you can find them all on the documentation site. In addition to the updated design, we’ve rewritten many of the articles so that they’re more clear.
The largest change, however, is the removal of our community forums in lieu of one-to-one email support. With our community forums becoming unwieldy, it was difficult for our users to find previous conversations and contribute to them. The new one-to-one emails reaffirm our commitment to providing fast and reliable support, and we hope you’ll appreciate the changes.Consumers can be forgiven for being cynical about biotechnology. After all, it’s hard to know who to trust when there’s no clear line between the biotech industry, government and organizations that claim to be on the side of consumers.
Consider the government’s funding of biotechnology. A Statistics Canada report found that the federal government spent $314 million on biotechnology in 1998.
Many agencies make contributions to biotech industry coffers. The Canadian International Development Agency, for example, spent $280,000 to push genetically modified (GM) corn in China, and Industry Canada, from 1994 to 2000, gave the industry lobby group BIOTECanada $6 million to improve the image of biotechnology.
But nowhere is the government’s pro-biotech bias more evident than at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), which operates under Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. While the agency is charged with regulating biotech foods, it is also a major promoter and financial booster of the industry, placing itself in an untenable conflict of interest.
FBCN’s booklet, A Growing Appetite for Information, bills itself as a “bias-free zone” on biotech issues in Canada. It contains snapshots of new biotech products, espousing the benefits of each. When it comes to the issue of mandatory labelling — which would allow consumers to choose whether or not to consume GM foods — the booklet parrots industry messages, suggesting that voluntary labelling is the way to go.
The Growing Appetite publication was financed by CFIA, although there is no recognition of the public agency’s funding anywhere in the booklet. CFIA also funds FBCN’s 1-800 information line, web site and other promotional materials.
CFIA doesn’t always work through intermediaries. In June 2000, the agency paid $300,000 to insert a supplement asserting the safety of GM foods in two of Canada’s largest consumer magazines, Canadian Living and Coup de Pouce.
The industry line, so promoted by government, is completely out of sync with consumers, who have a great deal of mistrust for GM foods and simply want to know whether a product contains GM products or not. A Pollara/Earnscliffe poll earlier this year, for example, found 94 percent of Canadians favour mandatory labelling.
Liberal MP Charles Caccia hoped to do something about this concern. He initiated a Private Member’s Bill, C-287, which would have required mandatory labelling of GM foods. But as the bill began gaining support from all corners of Parliament, the biotech industry rallied powerful Liberal allies to quash the initiative.
As the bill approached its second-reading vote, a letter signed by Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief, Health Minister Allan Rock, Industry Minister Brian Tobin and Trade Minister Pierre Pettigrew requested the Commons Health Committee to hold hearings on “the best options for meeting consumers’ information needs with respect to genetically modified foods.” The letter was a clear attempt to head off Caccia’s bill, with the tried-and-true avoidance strategy of asking for further study of an issue.
When Liberal MPs showed up in the House to vote on the bill on Oct. 17, a pamphlet urging MPs to “Vote against Bill C-287 and support Canada’s Agri-food business” was waiting for them on each of their desks. The pamphlet was published by various food industry associations. No one seems to know how it ended up on MPs’ desks in the House of Commons Chamber.
The strategies of Team Biotech worked, and the bill was defeated.
When a regulated industry has the inside track with the government that regulates it, it is consumers who are left on the outs. But don’t look to the Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC) to expose this cosy relationship.
Growing Appetite was published jointly with CAC, which has been a leading opponent of mandatory labelling. Last year CAC head Jennifer Hillyard told a Commons committee that the CAC does “not take donations from industry, only from individuals.” But documents obtained by Canadian Health Coalition researcher Bradford Duplisea show that the group receives money from both Monsanto and the CFIA.
The CAC’s spokesperson on biotech until earlier this year was Lee Anne Murphy, who now works for Monsanto and is an FBCN board member.
CFIA bankrolls the CAC’s biotech efforts, including grants totaling $60,000 to cover such costs as consumer analysis of various legislative and regulatory efforts, and to pay for a full-time staff person to work on biotech. Agriculture Canada also gave CAC $20,000 to develop an information kit promoting biotech.
Both government and industry have invested huge sums on biotech. It’s a gamble they are hoping will pay off, but it won’t if consumers mistrust the technology and the players promoting it. Team Biotech hopes they can win through a massive PR initiative, but the revolving doors between watchdogs, regulators and the regulated will only serve to make consumers even more wary.
* Aaron Freeman is an Ottawa-based writer and a founding director of Democracy Watch, PO Box 821, Stn. B, Ottawa, Ont. K1P 5R1.
A number of research analysts recently commented on BILL shares. BMO Capital Markets upped their price target on shares of Bill.com from $209.00 to $258.00 in a research note on Friday, February 4th. BTIG Research decreased their price target on shares of Bill.com from $375.00 to $300.00 in a research note on Friday, May 6th. The Goldman Sachs Group downgraded shares of Bill.com to a buy rating and cut their price objective for the company from $320.00 to $216.00 in a report on Monday, May 9th. Oppenheimer cut their price objective on shares of Bill.com from $285.00 to $190.00 in a report on Friday, May 6th. Finally, Wells Fargo & Company began coverage on shares of Bill.com in a report on Monday, April 4th. They issued an overweight rating and a $284.00 price objective for the company. Three equities research analysts have rated the stock with a hold rating and seventeen have given a buy rating to the stock. According to MarketBeat, the company currently has a consensus rating of Buy and an average target price of $257.52.
NYSE:BILL traded