["[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-01 00:00]\n<User>I have some interesting updates for you:\nThe Wayback Machine is a digital archive of the World Wide Web and other information on the Internet created by the Internet Archive, a nonprofit organization, based in San Francisco, California, United States. It was set up by Brewster Kahle and Bruce Gilliat, and is maintained with content from Alexa Internet. The service enables users to see archived versions of web pages across time, which the archive calls a \"three dimensional index.\"\n\nSince 1996, they have been archiving cached pages of web sites onto their large cluster of Linux nodes. They revisit sites every few weeks or months and archive a new version if the content has changed. Sites can also be captured on the fly by visitors who are offered a link to do so. The intent is to capture and archive content that otherwise would be lost whenever a site is changed or closed down. Their grand vision is to archive the entire Internet.\n\nThe name Wayback Machine was chosen as a droll reference to a plot device in an animated cartoon series, The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. In one of the animated cartoon's component segments, Peabody's Improbable History, lead characters Mr. Peabody and Sherman routinely used a time machine called the \"WABAC machine\" (pronounced way-back) to witness, participate in, and, more often than not, alter famous events in history.\n\nIn 1996 Brewster Kahle, with Bruce Gilliat, developed software to crawl and download all publicly accessible World Wide Web pages, the Gopher hierarchy, the Netnews (Usenet) bulletin board system, and downloadable software. The information collected by these \"crawlers\" does not include all the information available on the Internet, since much of the data is restricted by the publisher or stored in databases that are not accessible. These \"crawlers\" also respect the robots exclusion standard for websites whose owners opt for them not to appear in search results or be cached. To overcome inconsistencies in partially cached web sites, Archive-It.org was developed in 2005 by the Internet Archive as a means of allowing institutions and content creators to voluntarily harvest and preserve collections of digital content, and create digital archives.\n\nInformation had been kept on digital tape for five years, with Kahle occasionally allowing researchers and scientists to tap into the clunky database. When the archive reached its fifth anniversary, it was unveiled and opened to the public in a ceremony at the University of California, Berkeley.\n\nSnapshots usually become available more than six months after they are archived or, in some cases, even later; it can take twenty-four months or longer.  The frequency of snapshots is variable, so not all tracked web site updates are recorded. Sometimes there are intervals of several weeks or years between snapshots.\n\nAfter August 2008 sites had to be listed on the Open Directory in order to be included. According to Jeff Kaplan of the Internet Archive in November 2010, other sites were still being archived, but more recent captures would become visible only after the next major indexing, an infrequent operation.\n\nAs of 2009[update], the Wayback Machine contained approximately three petabytes of data and was growing at a rate of 100 terabytes each month; the growth rate reported in 2003 was 12 terabytes/month. The data is stored on PetaBox rack systems manufactured by Capricorn Technologies.\n\nIn 2009, the Internet Archive migrated its customized storage architecture to Sun Open Storage, and hosts a new data center in a Sun Modular Datacenter on Sun Microsystems' California campus.\n\nIn 2011 a new, improved version of the Wayback Machine, with an updated interface and fresher index of archived content, was made available for public testing.\n<Assistant>Thank you for sharing. I've noted this information.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-02 00:00]\n<User>The following are some new knowledge:\nIn March 2011, it was said on the Wayback Machine forum that \"The Beta of the new Wayback Machine has a more complete and up-to-date index of all crawled materials into 2010, and will continue to be updated regularly. The index driving the classic Wayback Machine only has a little bit of material past 2008, and no further index updates are planned, as it will be phased out this year\".\n\nIn October 2013, the company announced the \"Save a Page\" feature which allows any Internet user to archive the contents of a URL. This became a threat of abuse by the service for hosting malicious binaries.\n\nIn a 2009 case, Netbula, LLC v. Chordiant Software Inc., defendant Chordiant filed a motion to compel Netbula to disable the robots.txt file on its web site that was causing the Wayback Machine to retroactively remove access to previous versions of pages it had archived from Nebula's site, pages that Chordiant believed would support its case.\n\nNetbula objected to the motion on the ground that defendants were asking to alter Netbula's web site and that they should have subpoenaed Internet Archive for the pages directly. An employee of Internet Archive filed a sworn statement supporting Chordiant's motion, however, stating that it could not produce the web pages by any other means \"without considerable burden, expense and disruption to its operations.\"\n\nMagistrate Judge Howard Lloyd in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, rejected Netbula's arguments and ordered them to disable the robots.txt blockage temporarily in order to allow Chordiant to retrieve the archived pages that they sought.\n\nIn an October 2004 case, Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite, No. 02 C 3293, 65 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 673 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2004), a litigant attempted to use the Wayback Machine archives as a source of admissible evidence, perhaps for the first time. Telewizja Polska is the provider of TVP Polonia and EchoStar operates the Dish Network. Prior to the trial proceedings, EchoStar indicated that it intended to offer Wayback Machine snapshots as proof of the past content of Telewizja Polska's web site. Telewizja Polska brought a motion in limine to suppress the snapshots on the grounds of hearsay and unauthenticated source, but Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys rejected Telewizja Polska's assertion of hearsay and denied TVP's motion in limine to exclude the evidence at trial. At the trial, however, district Court Judge Ronald Guzman, the trial judge, overruled Magistrate Keys' findings,[citation needed] and held that neither the affidavit of the Internet Archive employee nor the underlying pages (i.e., the Telewizja Polska website) were admissible as evidence. Judge Guzman reasoned that the employee's affidavit contained both hearsay and inconclusive supporting statements, and the purported web page printouts were not self-authenticating.[citation needed]\n\nProvided some additional requirements are met (e.g. providing an authoritative statement of the archivist), the United States patent office and the European Patent Office will accept date stamps from the Internet Archive as evidence of when a given Web page was accessible to the public. These dates are used to determine if a Web page is available as prior art for instance in examining a patent application.\n\nThere are technical limitations to archiving a web site, and as a consequence, it is possible for opposing parties in litigation to misuse the results provided by web site archives. This problem can be exacerbated by the practice of submitting screen shots of web pages in complaints, answers, or expert witness reports, when the underlying links are not exposed and therefore, can contain errors. For example, archives such as the Wayback Machine do not fill out forms and therefore, do not include the contents of non-RESTful e-commerce databases in their archives.\n\nIn Europe the Wayback Machine could be interpreted as violating copyright laws. Only the content creator can decide where their content is published or duplicated, so the Archive would have to delete pages from its system upon request of the creator. The exclusion policies for the Wayback Machine may be found in the FAQ section of the site. The Wayback Machine also retroactively respects robots.txt files, i.e., pages that currently are blocked to robots on the live web temporarily will be made unavailable from the archives as well.\n\nIn late 2002, the Internet Archive removed various sites that were critical of Scientology from the Wayback Machine. An error message stated that this was in response to a \"request by the site owner.\" Later, it was clarified that lawyers from the Church of Scientology had demanded the removal and that the site owners did not want their material removed.\n\nIn 2003, Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey defended a client from a trademark dispute using the Archive's Wayback Machine. The attorneys were able to demonstrate that the claims made by the plaintiff were invalid, based on the content of their web site from several years prior. The plaintiff, Healthcare Advocates, then amended their complaint to include the Internet Archive, accusing the organization of copyright infringement as well as violations of the DMCA and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Healthcare Advocates claimed that, since they had installed a robots.txt file on their web site, even if after the initial lawsuit was filed, the Archive should have removed all previous copies of the plaintiff web site from the Wayback Machine. The lawsuit was settled out of court.\n\nRobots.txt is used as part of the Robots Exclusion Standard, a voluntary protocol the Internet Archive respects that disallows bots from indexing certain pages delineated by its creator as off-limits. As a result, the Internet Archive has rendered unavailable a number of web sites that now are inaccessible through the Wayback Machine. Currently, the Internet Archive applies robots.txt rules retroactively; if a site blocks the Internet Archive, such as Healthcare Advocates, any previously archived pages from the domain are rendered unavailable as well. In cases of blocked sites, only the robots.txt file is archived.\n\nThe Internet Archive states, however, \"Sometimes a website owner will contact us directly and ask us to stop crawling or archiving a site. We comply with these requests.\" In addition, the web site says: \"The Internet Archive is not interested in preserving or offering access to Web sites or other Internet documents of persons who do not want their materials in the collection.\"\n<Assistant>Perfect. I've stored this information in my memory.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-03 00:00]\n<User>I just discovered some interesting information:\nIn December 2005, activist Suzanne Shell filed suit demanding Internet Archive pay her US $100,000 for archiving her web site profane-justice.org between 1999 and 2004. Internet Archive filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 20, 2006, seeking a judicial determination that Internet Archive did not violate Shell's copyright. Shell responded and brought a countersuit against Internet Archive for archiving her site, which she alleges is in violation of her terms of service. On February 13, 2007, a judge for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed all counterclaims except breach of contract. The Internet Archive did not move to dismiss copyright infringement claims Shell asserted arising out of its copying activities, which would also go forward.\n\nOn April 25, 2007, Internet Archive and Suzanne Shell jointly announced the settlement of their lawsuit. The Internet Archive said it \"...has no interest in including materials in the Wayback Machine of persons who do not wish to have their Web content archived. We recognize that Ms. Shell has a valid and enforceable copyright in her Web site and we regret that the inclusion of her Web site in the Wayback Machine resulted in this litigation.\" Shell said, \"I respect the historical value of Internet Archive's goal. I never intended to interfere with that goal nor cause it any harm.\"\n\nIn 2013\u201314 a pornographic actor was trying to remove archived images of himself, first by sending multiple DMCA requests to the Archive and then in the Federal Court of Canada.\n\nThe Dutch Republic, also known as the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Nederlanden), Republic of the United Netherlands or Republic of the Seven United Provinces (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Provinci\u00ebn), was a republic in Europe existing from 1581, when part of the Netherlands separated from Spanish rule, until 1795. It preceded the Batavian Republic, the Kingdom of Holland, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, and ultimately the modern Kingdom of the Netherlands. Alternative names include the United Provinces (Verenigde Provinci\u00ebn), Federated Dutch Provinces (Foederatae Belgii Provinciae), and Dutch Federation (Belgica Foederata).\n\nUntil the 16th century, the Low Countries \u2013 corresponding roughly to the present-day Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg \u2013 consisted of a number of duchies, counties, and Prince-bishoprics, almost all of which were under the supremacy of the Holy Roman Empire, with the exception of the county of Flanders, which was under the Kingdom of France.\n\nMost of the Low Countries had come under the rule of the House of Burgundy and subsequently the House of Habsburg. In 1549 Holy Roman Emperor Charles V issued the Pragmatic Sanction, which further unified the Seventeen Provinces under his rule. Charles was succeeded by his son, King Philip II of Spain. In 1568 the Netherlands, led by William I of Orange, revolted against Philip II because of high taxes, persecution of Protestants by the government, and Philip's efforts to modernize and centralize the devolved-medieval government structures of the provinces. This was the start of the Eighty Years' War.\n\nIn 1579 a number of the northern provinces of the Low Countries signed the Union of Utrecht, in which they promised to support each other in their defence against the Spanish army. This was followed in 1581 by the Act of Abjuration, the declaration of independence of the provinces from Philip II.\n\nIn 1582 the United Provinces invited Francis, Duke of Anjou to lead them; but after a failed attempt to take Antwerp in 1583, the duke left the Netherlands again. After the assassination of William of Orange (10 July 1584), both Henry III of France and Elizabeth I of England declined the offer of sovereignty. However, the latter agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy. The Union of Utrecht is regarded as the foundation of the Republic of the Seven United Provinces, which was not recognized by the Spanish Empire until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.\n\nThe Republic of the United Provinces lasted until a series of republican revolutions in 1783\u20131795 created the Batavian Republic. During this period, republican forces took several major cities of the Netherlands. After initially fleeing, the monarchist forces came back with British, Austrian, and Prussian troops and retook the Netherlands. The republican forces fled to France, but then successfully re-invaded alongside the army of the French republic. After the French Republic became the French Empire under Napoleon, the Batavian Republic was replaced by the Napoleonic Kingdom of Holland.\n\nThe Netherlands regained independence from France in 1813. In the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1814 the names \"United Provinces of the Netherlands\" and \"United Netherlands\" were used. In 1815 it was rejoined with the Austrian Netherlands, Luxembourg and Li\u00e8ge (the \"Southern provinces\") to become the Kingdom of the Netherlands, informally known as the Kingdom of the United Netherlands, to create a strong buffer state north of France. After Belgium and Luxembourg became independent, the state became unequivocally known as the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as it remains today.\n\nDuring the Dutch Golden Age in the late 16th century onward, the Dutch Republic dominated world trade in the 17th century, conquering a vast colonial empire and operating the largest fleet of merchantmen of any nation. The County of Holland was the wealthiest and most urbanized region in the world.\n\nThe free trade spirit of the time received a strong augmentation through the development of a modern, effective stock market in the Low Countries. The Netherlands has the oldest stock exchange in the world, founded in 1602 by the Dutch East India Company. While Rotterdam has the oldest bourse in the Netherlands, the world's first stock exchange \u2013 that of the Dutch East-India Company \u2013 went public in six different cities. Later, a court ruled that the company had to reside legally in a single city, so Amsterdam is recognized as the oldest such institution based on modern trading principles. While the banking system evolved in the Low Countries, it was quickly incorporated by the well-connected English, stimulating English economic output.\n\nBetween 1590\u20131712 the Dutch also possessed one of the strongest and fastest navies in the world, allowing for their varied conquests including breaking the Portuguese sphere of influence on the Indian Ocean and in the Orient, as well as a lucrative slave trade from Africa and the Pacific.\n\nThe republic was a confederation of seven provinces, which had their own governments and were very independent, and a number of so-called Generality Lands. The latter were governed directly by the States General (Staten-Generaal in Dutch), the federal government. The States General were seated in The Hague and consisted of representatives of each of the seven provinces. The provinces of the republic were, in official feudal order:\n\nIn fact, there was an eighth province, the County of Drenthe, but this area was so poor it was exempt from paying federal taxes and as a consequence was denied representation in the States General. Each province was governed by the Provincial States, the main executive official (though not the official head of state) was a raadspensionaris. In times of war, the stadtholder, who commanded the army, would have more power than the raadspensionaris.\n\nIn theory, the stadtholders were freely appointed by and subordinate to the states of each province. However, in practice the princes of Orange of the House of Orange-Nassau, beginning with William the Silent, were always chosen as stadtholders of most of the provinces. Zeeland and usually Utrecht had the same stadtholder as Holland.\n\nThere was a constant power struggle between the Orangists, who supported the stadtholders and specifically the princes of Orange, and the Republicans, who supported the States General and hoped to replace the semi-hereditary nature of the stadtholdership with a true republican structure.\n\nAfter the Peace of Westphalia, several border territories were assigned to the United Provinces. They were federally-governed Generality Lands (Generaliteitslanden). They were Staats-Brabant (present North Brabant), Staats-Vlaanderen (present Zeeuws-Vlaanderen), Staats-Limburg (around Maastricht) and Staats-Oppergelre (around Venlo, after 1715).\n\nThe States General of the United Provinces were in control of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and the Dutch West India Company (WIC), but some shipping expeditions were initiated by some of the provinces, mostly Holland and/or Zeeland.\n\nThe framers of the US Constitution were influenced by the Constitution of the Republic of the United Provinces, as Federalist No. 20, by James Madison, shows. Such influence appears, however, to have been of a negative nature, as Madison describes the Dutch confederacy as exhibiting \"Imbecility in the government; discord among the provinces; foreign influence and indignities; a precarious existence in peace, and peculiar calamities from war.\" Apart from this, the American Declaration of Independence is similar to the Act of Abjuration, essentially the declaration of independence of the United Provinces, but concrete evidence that the former directly influenced the latter is absent.\n<Assistant>Noted. I'll remember these details.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-04 00:00]\n<User>I just discovered some interesting information:\nIn the Union of Utrecht of 20 January 1579, Holland and Zeeland were granted the right to accept only one religion (in practice, Calvinism). Every other province had the freedom to regulate the religious question as it wished, although the Union stated every person should be free in the choice of personal religion and that no person should be prosecuted based on religious choice. William of Orange had been a strong supporter of public and personal freedom of religion and hoped to unite Protestants and Catholics in the new union, and, for him, the Union was a defeat. In practice, Catholic services in all provinces were quickly forbidden, and the Reformed Church became the \"public\" or \"privileged\" church in the Republic.\n\nDuring the Republic, any person who wished to hold public office had to conform to the Reformed Church and take an oath to this effect. The extent to which different religions or denominations were persecuted depended much on the time period and regional or city leaders. In the beginning, this was especially focused on Roman Catholics, being the religion of the enemy. In 17th-century Leiden, for instance, people opening their homes to services could be fined 200 guilders (a year's wage for a skilled tradesman) and banned from the city. Throughout this, however, personal freedom of religion existed and was one factor \u2013 along with economic reasons \u2013 in causing large immigration of religious refugees from other parts of Europe.\n\nIn the first years of the Republic, controversy arose within the Reformed Church, mainly around the subject of predestination. This has become known as the struggle between Arminianism and Gomarism, or between Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants. In 1618 the Synod of Dort tackled this issue, which led to the banning of the Remonstrant faith.\n\nBeginning in the 18th century, the situation changed from more or less active persecution of religious services to a state of restricted toleration of other religions, as long as their services took place secretly in private churches.\n\nSymbiosis (from Greek \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd \"together\" and \u03b2\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \"living\") is close and often long-term interaction between two different biological species. In 1877 Albert Bernhard Frank used the word symbiosis (which previously had been used to depict people living together in community) to describe the mutualistic relationship in lichens. In 1879, the German mycologist Heinrich Anton de Bary defined it as \"the living together of unlike organisms.\"\n\nThe definition of symbiosis has varied among scientists. Some believe symbiosis should only refer to persistent mutualisms, while others believe it should apply to any type of persistent biological interaction (in other words mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic). After 130 years of debate, current biology and ecology textbooks now use the latter \"de Bary\" definition or an even broader definition (where symbiosis means all species interactions), with the restrictive definition no longer used (in other words, symbiosis means mutualism).\n\nSome symbiotic relationships are obligate, meaning that both symbionts entirely depend on each other for survival. For example, many lichens consist of fungal and photosynthetic symbionts that cannot live on their own. Others are facultative (optional): they can, but do not have to live with the other organism.\n\nSymbiotic relationships include those associations in which one organism lives on another (ectosymbiosis, such as mistletoe), or where one partner lives inside the other (endosymbiosis, such as lactobacilli and other bacteria in humans or Symbiodinium in corals). Symbiosis is also classified by physical attachment of the organisms; symbiosis in which the organisms have bodily union is called conjunctive symbiosis, and symbiosis in which they are not in union is called disjunctive symbiosis.\n\nEndosymbiosis is any symbiotic relationship in which one symbiont lives within the tissues of the other, either within the cells or extracellularly. Examples include diverse microbiomes, rhizobia, nitrogen-fixing bacteria that live in root nodules on legume roots; actinomycete nitrogen-fixing bacteria called Frankia, which live in alder tree root nodules; single-celled algae inside reef-building corals; and bacterial endosymbionts that provide essential nutrients to about 10%\u201315% of insects.\n\nEctosymbiosis, also referred to as exosymbiosis, is any symbiotic relationship in which the symbiont lives on the body surface of the host, including the inner surface of the digestive tract or the ducts of exocrine glands. Examples of this include ectoparasites such as lice, commensal ectosymbionts such as the barnacles that attach themselves to the jaw of baleen whales, and mutualist ectosymbionts such as cleaner fish.\n\nMutualism or interspecies reciprocal altruism is a relationship between individuals of different species where both individuals benefit. In general, only lifelong interactions involving close physical and biochemical contact can properly be considered symbiotic. Mutualistic relationships may be either obligate for both species, obligate for one but facultative for the other, or facultative for both. Many biologists restrict the definition of symbiosis to close mutualist relationships.\n\nA large percentage of herbivores have mutualistic gut flora that help them digest plant matter, which is more difficult to digest than animal prey. This gut flora is made up of cellulose-digesting protozoans or bacteria living in the herbivores' intestines. Coral reefs are the result of mutualisms between coral organisms and various types of algae that live inside them. Most land plants and land ecosystems rely on mutualisms between the plants, which fix carbon from the air, and mycorrhyzal fungi, which help in extracting water and minerals from the ground.\n\nAn example of mutual symbiosis is the relationship between the ocellaris clownfish that dwell among the tentacles of Ritteri sea anemones. The territorial fish protects the anemone from anemone-eating fish, and in turn the stinging tentacles of the anemone protect the clownfish from its predators. A special mucus on the clownfish protects it from the stinging tentacles.\n<Assistant>Noted. I'll remember these details.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-05 00:00]\n<User>Here's some valuable information I collected:\nA further example is the goby fish, which sometimes lives together with a shrimp. The shrimp digs and cleans up a burrow in the sand in which both the shrimp and the goby fish live. The shrimp is almost blind, leaving it vulnerable to predators when outside its burrow. In case of danger the goby fish touches the shrimp with its tail to warn it. When that happens both the shrimp and goby fish quickly retreat into the burrow. Different species of gobies (Elacatinus spp.) also exhibit mutualistic behavior through cleaning up ectoparasites in other fish.\n\nAnother non-obligate symbiosis is known from encrusting bryozoans and hermit crabs that live in a close relationship. The bryozoan colony (Acanthodesia commensale) develops a cirumrotatory growth and offers the crab (Pseudopagurus granulimanus) a helicospiral-tubular extension of its living chamber that initially was situated within a gastropod shell.\n\nOne of the most spectacular examples of obligate mutualism is between the siboglinid tube worms and symbiotic bacteria that live at hydrothermal vents and cold seeps. The worm has no digestive tract and is wholly reliant on its internal symbionts for nutrition. The bacteria oxidize either hydrogen sulfide or methane, which the host supplies to them. These worms were discovered in the late 1980s at the hydrothermal vents near the Galapagos Islands and have since been found at deep-sea hydrothermal vents and cold seeps in all of the world's oceans.\n\nDuring mutualistic symbioses, the host cell lacks some of the nutrients, which are provided by the endosymbiont. As a result, the host favors endosymbiont's growth processes within itself by producing some specialized cells. These cells affect the genetic composition of the host in order to regulate the increasing population of the endosymbionts and ensuring that these genetic changes are passed onto the offspring via vertical transmission (heredity).\n\nAdaptation of the endosymbiont to the host's lifestyle leads to many changes in the endosymbiont\u2013the foremost being drastic reduction in its genome size. This is due to many genes being lost during the process of metabolism, and DNA repair and recombination. While important genes participating in the DNA to RNA transcription, protein translation and DNA/RNA replication are retained. That is, a decrease in genome size is due to loss of protein coding genes and not due to lessening of inter-genic regions or open reading frame (ORF) size. Thus, species that are naturally evolving and contain reduced sizes of genes can be accounted for an increased number of noticeable differences between them, thereby leading to changes in their evolutionary rates. As the endosymbiotic bacteria related with these insects are passed on to the offspring strictly via vertical genetic transmission, intracellular bacteria goes through many hurdles during the process, resulting in the decrease in effective population sizes when compared to the free living bacteria. This incapability of the endosymbiotic bacteria to reinstate its wild type phenotype via a recombination process is called as Muller's ratchet phenomenon. Muller's ratchet phenomenon together with less effective population sizes has led to an accretion of deleterious mutations in the non-essential genes of the intracellular bacteria. This could have been due to lack of selection mechanisms prevailing in the rich environment of the host.\n\nCommensalism describes a relationship between two living organisms where one benefits and the other is not significantly harmed or helped. It is derived from the English word commensal used of human social interaction. The word derives from the medieval Latin word, formed from com- and mensa, meaning \"sharing a table\".\n\nCommensal relationships may involve one organism using another for transportation (phoresy) or for housing (inquilinism), or it may also involve one organism using something another created, after its death (metabiosis). Examples of metabiosis are hermit crabs using gastropod shells to protect their bodies and spiders building their webs on plants.\n\nA parasitic relationship is one in which one member of the association benefits while the other is harmed. This is also known as antagonistic or antipathetic symbiosis. Parasitic symbioses take many forms, from endoparasites that live within the host's body to ectoparasites that live on its surface. In addition, parasites may be necrotrophic, which is to say they kill their host, or biotrophic, meaning they rely on their host's surviving. Biotrophic parasitism is an extremely successful mode of life. Depending on the definition used, as many as half of all animals have at least one parasitic phase in their life cycles, and it is also frequent in plants and fungi. Moreover, almost all free-living animals are host to one or more parasite taxa. An example of a biotrophic relationship would be a tick feeding on the blood of its host.\n<Assistant>I understand. I'll keep this in mind.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-06 00:00]\n<User>I want to share some knowledge I just acquired:\nAmensalism is the type of relationship that exists where one species is inhibited or completely obliterated and one is unaffected. This type of symbiosis is relatively uncommon in rudimentary reference texts, but is omnipresent in the natural world.[citation needed] There are two types of amensalism, competition and antibiosis. Competition is where a larger or stronger organisms deprives a smaller or weaker one from a resource. Antibiosis occurs when one organism is damaged or killed by another through a chemical secretion. An example of competition is a sapling growing under the shadow of a mature tree. The mature tree can begin to rob the sapling of necessary sunlight and, if the mature tree is very large, it can take up rainwater and deplete soil nutrients. Throughout the process the mature tree is unaffected. Indeed, if the sapling dies, the mature tree gains nutrients from the decaying sapling. Note that these nutrients become available because of the sapling's decomposition, rather than from the living sapling, which would be a case of parasitism.[citation needed] An example of antibiosis is Juglans nigra (black walnut), secreting juglone, a substance which destroys many herbaceous plants within its root zone.\n\nAmensalism is an interaction where an organism inflicts harm to another organism without any costs or benefits received by the other. A clear case of amensalism is where sheep or cattle trample grass. Whilst the presence of the grass causes negligible detrimental effects to the animal's hoof, the grass suffers from being crushed. Amensalism is often used to describe strongly asymmetrical competitive interactions, such as has been observed between the Spanish ibex and weevils of the genus Timarcha which feed upon the same type of shrub. Whilst the presence of the weevil has almost no influence on food availability, the presence of ibex has an enormous detrimental effect on weevil numbers, as they consume significant quantities of plant matter and incidentally ingest the weevils upon it.\n\nSynnecrosis is a rare type of symbiosis in which the interaction between species is detrimental to both organisms involved. It is a short-lived condition, as the interaction eventually causes death. Because of this, evolution selects against synnecrosis and it is uncommon in nature. An example of this is the relationship between some species of bees and victims of the bee sting. Species of bees who die after stinging their prey inflict pain on themselves (albeit to protect the hive) as well as on the victim. This term is rarely used.\n\nWhile historically, symbiosis has received less attention than other interactions such as predation or competition, it is increasingly recognized as an important selective force behind evolution, with many species having a long history of interdependent co-evolution. In fact, the evolution of all eukaryotes (plants, animals, fungi, and protists) is believed under the endosymbiotic theory to have resulted from a symbiosis between various sorts of bacteria. This theory is supported by certain organelles dividing independently of the cell, and the observation that some organelles seem to have their own nucleic acid.\n\nThe biologist Lynn Margulis, famous for her work on endosymbiosis, contends that symbiosis is a major driving force behind evolution. She considers Darwin's notion of evolution, driven by competition, to be incomplete and claims that evolution is strongly based on co-operation, interaction, and mutual dependence among organisms. According to Margulis and Dorion Sagan, \"Life did not take over the globe by combat, but by networking.\"\n<Assistant>I've successfully recorded all of this data.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-07 00:00]\n<User>I've gathered some additional data to share:\nSymbiosis played a major role in the co-evolution of flowering plants and the animals that pollinate them. Many plants that are pollinated by insects, bats, or birds have highly specialized flowers modified to promote pollination by a specific pollinator that is also correspondingly adapted. The first flowering plants in the fossil record had relatively simple flowers. Adaptive speciation quickly gave rise to many diverse groups of plants, and, at the same time, corresponding speciation occurred in certain insect groups. Some groups of plants developed nectar and large sticky pollen, while insects evolved more specialized morphologies to access and collect these rich food sources. In some taxa of plants and insects the relationship has become dependent, where the plant species can only be pollinated by one species of insect.\n\nThe Canadian Armed Forces (CAF; French: Forces arm\u00e9es canadiennes, FAC), or Canadian Forces (CF) (French: les Forces canadiennes, FC), is the unified armed force of Canada, as constituted by the National Defence Act, which states: \"The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces.\"\n\nThis unified institution consists of sea, land, and air elements referred to as the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), Canadian Army, and Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF). Personnel may belong to either the Regular Force or the Reserve Force, which has four sub-components: the Primary Reserve, Supplementary Reserve, Cadet Organizations Administration and Training Service, and the Canadian Rangers. Under the National Defence Act, the Canadian Armed Forces are an entity separate and distinct from the Department of National Defence (the federal government department responsible for administration and formation of defence policy), which also exists as the civilian support system for the Forces.\n\nThe Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces is the reigning Canadian monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, who is represented by the Governor General of Canada. The Canadian Armed Forces is led by the Chief of the Defence Staff, who is advised and assisted by the Armed Forces Council.\n\nDuring the Cold War, a principal focus of Canadian defence policy was contributing to the security of Europe in the face of the Soviet military threat. Toward that end, Canadian ground and air forces were based in Europe from the early 1950s until the early 1990s.\n\nHowever, since the end of the Cold War, as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has moved much of its defence focus \"out of area\", the Canadian military has also become more deeply engaged in international security operations in various other parts of the world \u2013 most notably in Afghanistan since 2002.\n\nCanadian defence policy today is based on the Canada First Defence Strategy, introduced in 2008. Based on that strategy, the Canadian military is oriented and being equipped to carry out six core missions within Canada, in North America and globally. Specifically, the Canadian Armed Forces are tasked with having the capacity to:\n\nConsistent with the missions and priorities outlined above, the Canadian Armed Forces also contribute to the conduct of Canadian defence diplomacy through a range of activities, including the deployment of Canadian Defence Attach\u00e9s, participation in bilateral and multilateral military forums (e.g. the System of Cooperation Among the American Air Forces), ship and aircraft visits, military training and cooperation, and other such outreach and relationship-building efforts.\n\nPrior to Confederation in 1867, residents of the colonies in what is now Canada served as regular members of French and British forces and in local militia groups. The latter aided in the defence of their respective territories against attacks by other European powers, Aboriginal peoples, and later American forces during the American Revolutionary War and War of 1812, as well as in the Fenian raids, Red River Rebellion, and North-West Rebellion. Consequently, the lineages of some Canadian army units stretch back to the early 19th century, when militia units were formed to assist in the defence of British North America against invasion by the United States.\n\nThe responsibility for military command remained with the British Crown-in-Council, with a commander-in-chief for North America stationed at Halifax until the final withdrawal of British Army and Royal Navy units from that city in 1906. Thereafter, the Royal Canadian Navy was formed, and, with the advent of military aviation, the Royal Canadian Air Force. These forces were organised under the Department of Militia and Defence, and split into the Permanent and Non-Permanent Active Militias\u2014frequently shortened to simply The Militia. By 1923, the department was merged into the Department of National Defence, but land forces in Canada were not referred to as the Canadian Army until November 1940.\n\nThe first overseas deployment of Canadian military forces occurred during the Second Boer War, when several units were raised to serve under British command. Similarly, when the United Kingdom entered into conflict with Germany in the First World War, Canadian troops were called to participate in European theatres. The Canadian Crown-in-Council then decided to send its forces into the Second World War, as well as the Korean War.\n\nSince 1947, Canadian military units have participated in more than 200 operations worldwide, and completed 72 international operations. Canadian soldiers, sailors, and aviators came to be considered world-class professionals through conspicuous service during these conflicts and the country's integral participation in NATO during the Cold War, First Gulf War, Kosovo War, and in United Nations Peacekeeping operations, such as the Suez Crisis, Golan Heights, Cyprus, Croatia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Libya. Canada maintained an aircraft carrier from 1957 to 1970 during the Cold War, which never saw combat but participated in patrols during the Cuban Missile Crisis.\n\nBattles which are particularly notable to the Canadian military include the Battle of Vimy Ridge, the Dieppe Raid, the Battle of Ortona, the Battle of Passchendaele, the Normandy Landings, the Battle for Caen, the Battle of the Scheldt, the Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Atlantic, the strategic bombing of German cities, and more recently the Battle of Medak Pocket, in Croatia.\n\nAt the end of the Second World War, Canada possessed the fourth-largest air force and fifth-largest naval surface fleet in the world, as well as the largest volunteer army ever fielded. Conscription for overseas service was introduced only near the end of the war, and only 2,400 conscripts actually made it into battle. Originally, Canada was thought to have had the third-largest navy in the world, but with the fall of the Soviet Union, new data based on Japanese and Soviet sources found that to be incorrect.\n<Assistant>Thank you for sharing. I've noted this information.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-08 00:00]\n<User>Here's some more information I came across:\nThe current iteration of the Canadian Armed Forces dates from 1 February 1968, when the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, and Royal Canadian Air Force were merged into a unified structure and superseded by elemental commands. Its roots, however, lie in colonial militia groups that served alongside garrisons of the French and British armies and navies; a structure that remained in place until the early 20th century. Thereafter, a distinctly Canadian army and navy was established, followed by an air force, that, because of the constitutional arrangements at the time, remained effectively under the control of the British government until Canada gained legislative independence from the United Kingdom in 1931, in part due to the distinguished achievement and sacrifice of the Canadian Corps in the First World War.\n\nAfter the 1980s, the use of the \"Canadian Armed Forces\" name gave way to \"Canadian Forces\";[citation needed] The \"Canadian Armed Forces\" name returned in 2013.\n\nLand Forces during this period also deployed in support of peacekeeping operations within United Nations sanctioned conflicts. The nature of the Canadian Forces has continued to evolve. They have been deployed in Afghanistan until 2011, under the NATO-led United Nations International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), at the request of the Government of Afghanistan.\n\nThe Armed Forces are today funded by approximately $20.1 billion annually and are presently ranked 74th in size compared to the world's other armed forces by number of total personnel, and 58th in terms of active personnel, standing at a strength of roughly 68,000, plus 27,000 reservists, 5000 Rangers, and 19,000 supplementary reserves, bringing the total force to approximately 119,000. The number of primary reserve personnel is expected to go up to 30,000 by 2020, and the number of active to at least 70,000. In addition, 5000 rangers and 19,000 supplementary personnel will be serving. If this happens the total strength would be around 124,000. These individuals serve on numerous CF bases located in all regions of the country, and are governed by the Queen's Regulations and Orders and the National Defence Act.\n<Assistant>Sure I will remember them.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-09 00:00]\n<User>I want to tell you about some new discoveries:\nIn 2008 the Government of Canada made efforts, through the Canada First Defence Strategy, to modernize the Canadian Armed Forces, through the purchase of new equipment, improved training and readiness, as well as the establishment of the Canadian Special Operations Regiment. More funds were also put towards recruitment, which had been dwindling throughout the 1980s and '90s, possibly because the Canadian populace had come to perceive the CAF as peacekeepers rather than as soldiers, as shown in a 2008 survey conducted for the Department of National Defence. The poll found that nearly two thirds of Canadians agreed with the country's participation in the invasion of Afghanistan, and that the military should be stronger, but also that the purpose of the forces should be different, such as more focused on responding to natural disasters. Then CDS, Walter Natynczyk, said later that year that while recruiting has become more successful, the CF was facing a problem with its rate of loss of existing members, which increased between 2006 and 2008 from 6% to 9.2% annually.\n\nThe 2006 renewal and re-equipment effort has resulted in the acquisition of specific equipment (main battle tanks, artillery, unmanned air vehicles and other systems) to support the mission in Afghanistan. It has also encompassed initiatives to renew certain so-called \"core capabilities\" (such as the air force's medium range transport aircraft fleet \u2013 the C-130 Hercules \u2013 and the army's truck and armoured vehicle fleets). In addition, new systems (such as C-17 Globemaster III strategic transport aircraft and CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopters) have also been acquired for the Armed Forces. Although the viability of the Canada First Defence Strategy continues to suffer setbacks from challenging and evolving fiscal and other factors, it originally aimed to:\n\nIn the 1950s, the recruitment of women was open to roles in medicine, communication, logistics, and administration. The roles of women in the CAF began to expand in 1971, after the Department reviewed the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, at which time it lifted the ceiling of 1,500 women personnel, and gradually expanded employment opportunities into the non-traditional areas\u2014vehicle drivers and mechanics, aircraft mechanics, air-traffic controllers, military police, and firefighters. The Department further reviewed personnel policies in 1978 and 1985, after Parliament passed the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result of these reviews, the Department changed its policies to permit women to serve at sea in replenishment ships and in a diving tender, with the army service battalions, in military police platoons and field ambulance units, and in most air squadrons.\n\nIn 1987, occupations and units with the primary role of preparing for direct involvement in combat on the ground or at sea were still closed to women: infantry, armoured corps, field artillery, air-defence artillery, signals, field engineers, and naval operations. On 5 February 1987, the Minister of National Defence created an office to study the impact of employing men and women in combat units. These trials were called Combat-Related Employment of Women.\n\nAll military occupations were open to women in 1989, with the exception of submarine service, which opened in 2000. Throughout the 1990s, the introduction of women into the combat arms increased the potential recruiting pool by about 100 percent. It also provided opportunities for all persons to serve their country to the best of their abilities. Women were fully integrated in all occupations and roles by the government of Jean Chretien, and by 8 March 2000, even allowed to serve on submarines.\n\nAll equipment must be suitable for a mixed-gender force. Combat helmets, rucksacks, combat boots, and flak jackets are designed to ensure women have the same level of protection and comfort as their male colleagues. The women's uniform is similar in design to the men's uniform, but conforms to the female figure, and is functional and practical. Women are also provided with an annual financial entitlement for the purchase of brassiere undergarments.\n\nThe following is the hierarchy of the Canadian Armed Forces. It begins at the top with the most senior-ranking personnel and works its way into lower organizations.\n\nThe Canadian constitution determines that the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces is the country's sovereign, who, since 1904, has authorized his or her viceroy, the governor general, to exercise the duties ascribed to the post of Commander-in-Chief and to hold the associated title since 1905. All troop deployment and disposition orders, including declarations of war, fall within the royal prerogative and are issued as Orders in Council, which must be signed by either the monarch or governor general. Under the Westminster system's parliamentary customs and practices, however, the monarch and viceroy must generally follow the advice of his or her ministers in Cabinet, including the prime minister and minister of national defence, who are accountable to the elected House of Commons.\n\nThe Armed Forces' 115,349 personnel are divided into a hierarchy of numerous ranks of officers and non-commissioned members. The governor general appoints, on the advice of the prime minister, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) as the highest ranking commissioned officer in the Armed Forces and who, as head of the Armed Forces Council, is in command of the Canadian Forces. The Armed Forces Council generally operates from National Defence Headquarters (NDHQ) in Ottawa, Ontario. On the Armed Forces Council sit the heads of Canadian Joint Operations Command and Canadian Special Operations Forces Command, the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, and the heads of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Air Force and other key Level 1 organizations. The sovereign and most other members of the Canadian Royal Family also act as colonels-in-chief, honorary air commodores, air commodores-in-chief, admirals, and captains-general of Canadian Forces units, though these positions are ceremonial.\n\nCanada's Armed forces operate out of 27 Canadian Forces bases (CFB) across the country, including NDHQ. This number has been gradually reduced since the 1970s with bases either being closed or merged. Both officers and non-commissioned members receive their basic training at the Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. Officers will generally either directly enter the Canadian Armed Forces with a degree from a civilian university, or receive their commission upon graduation from the Royal Military College of Canada. Specific element and trade training is conducted at a variety of institutions throughout Canada, and to a lesser extent, the world.\n\nThe Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), headed by the Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, includes 33 warships and submarines deployed in two fleets: Maritime Forces Pacific (MARPAC) at CFB Esquimalt on the west coast, and Maritime Forces Atlantic (MARLANT) at Her Majesty's Canadian Dockyard in Halifax on the east coast, as well as one formation: the Naval Reserve Headquarters (NAVRESHQ) at Quebec City, Quebec. The fleet is augmented by various aircraft and supply vessels. The RCN participates in NATO exercises and operations, and ships are deployed all over the world in support of multinational deployments.\n\nThe Canadian Army is headed by the Commander of the Canadian Army and administered through four divisions\u2014the 2nd Canadian Division, the 3rd Canadian Division, the 4th Canadian Division and the 5th Canadian Division\u2014the Canadian Army Doctrine and Training System and the Canadian Army Headquarters.\n\nCurrently, the Regular Force component of the Army consists of three field-ready brigade groups: 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group, at CFB Edmonton and CFB Shilo; 2 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group, at CFB Petawawa and CFB Gagetown; and 5 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group, at CFB Valcartier and Quebec City. Each contains one regiment each of artillery, armour, and combat engineers, three battalions of infantry (all scaled in the British fashion), one battalion for logistics, a squadron for headquarters/signals, and several smaller support organizations. A tactical helicopter squadron and a field ambulance are co-located with each brigade, but do not form part of the brigade's command structure.\n<Assistant>I understand. I'll keep this in mind.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-10 00:00]\n<User>Let me provide you with some new details:\nThe 2nd, 3rd and 4th Canadian Divisions each has a Regular Force brigade group, and each division except the 1st has two to three Reserve Force brigades groups. In total, there are ten Reserve Force brigade groups. The 5th Canadian Division and the 2nd Canadian Division each have two Reserve Force brigade groups, while the 4th Canadian Division and the 3rd Canadian Division each have three Reserve Force brigade groups. Major training and support establishments exist at CFB Gagetown, CFB Montreal and CFB Wainwright.\n<Assistant>I understand. I'll keep this in mind."]
[{"question": "What location does the National Defense operate out of?", "answer": "Ottawa, Ontario"}, {"question": "What type of organism did Frank apply the term \"symbiosis\" to?", "answer": "lichens"}, {"question": "What was the wealthiest and most urbanized region in the world during the 17th century?", "answer": "The County of Holland"}, {"question": "In what manner are the described genetic alternations given to future generations?", "answer": "vertical transmission"}, {"question": "How many brigades does the Army consist of?", "answer": "three"}, {"question": "In what year did the Netherlands gain independence from France?", "answer": "1813"}, {"question": "How long did it take for scientists to stop using the narrow definition of symbiosis?", "answer": "130 years"}, {"question": "Who agrees with Margulis' cooperative view of evolution?", "answer": "Dorion Sagan"}, {"question": "Who stated that sites not on Open Directory were still being saved but would not be released until the Archive was reindexed?", "answer": "Jeff Kaplan"}, {"question": "What was the functionality called that gave users the ability to save a snapshot of a site?", "answer": "Save a Page"}, {"question": "What medical group is present at all Brigades but not part of it?", "answer": "a field ambulance"}, {"question": "What was forbidden in all provinces?", "answer": "Catholic services"}, {"question": "What kinds of amensalism are there?", "answer": "competition and antibiosis"}, {"question": "What is one of the activities the CAF works on with other countries?", "answer": "military training"}, {"question": "When were details of the test version of the updated Wayback Machine released?", "answer": "March 2011"}, {"question": "What is one of the threats that faced them?", "answer": "European powers"}, {"question": "Name a biotrophic organism.", "answer": "a tick"}, {"question": "What does the article say could be the reason for the buildup of harmful mutations?", "answer": "lack of selection mechanisms"}, {"question": "What is the minimum amount of time that elapses before most snapshots are released for viewing?", "answer": "six months"}, {"question": "Who currently is the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces?", "answer": "Queen Elizabeth II"}, {"question": "What does the bacteria give the worm?", "answer": "nutrition"}, {"question": "Who stated that they had no wish to violate individuals' copyrights?", "answer": "Internet Archive"}, {"question": "Which company thought that Wayback Machine data was important for its argument?", "answer": "Chordiant"}, {"question": "What American war threatened Canada?", "answer": "the American Revolutionary War"}, {"question": "How common is synnecrosis in the natural world?", "answer": "uncommon"}, {"question": "What military occupation wasn't opened to women until the 2000s?", "answer": "submarine service"}, {"question": "What other European war were the Canadian Forces involved in?", "answer": "Second World War"}, {"question": "What prevented Canada from fully having their own army at the start?", "answer": "the British government"}, {"question": "What was the machine used by Mr. Peabody and Sherman named?", "answer": "WABAC machine"}, {"question": "What type of relationship harms both organisms?", "answer": "Synnecrosis"}, {"question": "The omission of what element in screenshots can make them unreliable as evidence?", "answer": "underlying links"}, {"question": "The older version of Wayback Machine did not have much new data past what year?", "answer": "2008"}, {"question": "How are the Canadian forces ranked in size compared to other military?", "answer": "74th in size"}, {"question": "Where does the information stored on the Wayback Machine come from?", "answer": "World Wide Web"}, {"question": "Who does the Commander-in-Chief authorize to make decision regarding the Armed Forces for them?", "answer": "the governor general"}, {"question": "Who were sometimes permitted to use the Archive's database?", "answer": "researchers and scientists"}, {"question": "What large transport plane is part of the CAF mission?", "answer": "C-130 Hercules"}, {"question": "Under what command did they serve?", "answer": "British command"}, {"question": "How many divisions are there in the Canadian Army?", "answer": "four divisions"}, {"question": "How many operations have been completed by the Canadian Military Internationally?", "answer": "72"}, {"question": "What is it called when parasites need their host to live?", "answer": "biotrophic"}, {"question": "Which platform did Internet Archive adopt in 2009?", "answer": "Sun Open Storage"}, {"question": "Why do bees sting even though it will kill them?", "answer": "to protect the hive"}, {"question": "Who did Healthcare advocates change their case to include as a defendant?", "answer": "Internet Archive"}, {"question": "What proportion of animals go through a parasitic stage?", "answer": "as many as half"}, {"question": "Antagonistic or antipathetic symbiosis are alternate names for what?", "answer": "A parasitic relationship"}, {"question": "What medium was originally used to keep Internet Archive's data?", "answer": "digital tape"}, {"question": "What type of relationship is it when arachnids attach webs to dead plants?", "answer": "metabiosis"}, {"question": "In what year did the United Provinces invite Francis, Duke of Anjou to lead them?", "answer": "1582"}, {"question": "What did the Union state that every person should be free to choose?", "answer": "personal religion"}, {"question": "How many sub components are there?", "answer": "four"}, {"question": "What is it called when organisms are lethal to their host?", "answer": "necrotrophic"}, {"question": "When did the unification complete of all the Canadian forces to be called the Canadian Army?", "answer": "November 1940"}, {"question": "Name a parasitic ectosymbiont.", "answer": "lice"}, {"question": "The forces of what countries did people serve before the unification?", "answer": "French and British forces"}, {"question": "In what year did the United Provinces become a confederacy?", "answer": "1588"}, {"question": "When did Internet Archive chance its platform for data storage?", "answer": "2009"}, {"question": "What country was the latest Canadian Military effort?", "answer": "Croatia"}, {"question": "How big a part did symbiosis have in the development of flowering plants and their pollinators?", "answer": "a major role"}, {"question": "Which city in the Netherlands has the oldest stock exchange?", "answer": "Rotterdam"}, {"question": "What is a term used for programs that automatically visit websites and record the data they find?", "answer": "crawlers"}, {"question": "The newer version of the Wayback Machine included date up to and including what year?", "answer": "2010"}, {"question": "What rule do crawlers abide by when determining which sites to record?", "answer": "robots exclusion standard"}, {"question": "When were Canadian Troops called upon to assist in Europe?", "answer": "the First World War"}, {"question": "At what milestone was the archive made public?", "answer": "fifth anniversary"}, {"question": "What type of fungus draws liquid and minerals out of the earth?", "answer": "mycorrhyzal"}, {"question": "When was the Canadian Armed Forces name reintroduced?", "answer": "2013"}, {"question": "When did Canada gain independence from the United Kingdom?", "answer": "1931"}, {"question": "The Dutch Republic consisted of how many provinces?", "answer": "seven"}, {"question": "What act defines the CAF?", "answer": "the National Defence Act"}, {"question": "What is the name of a bacteria inside of tree roots?", "answer": "Frankia"}, {"question": "Who stated that they did not want to cause damage to the Internet Archive?", "answer": "Suzanne Shell"}, {"question": "The Dutch East-India Company inhabited how many cities?", "answer": "six"}, {"question": "Who wanted to replace the stadtholders with a republican structure?", "answer": "Republicans"}, {"question": "What war aided Canadian legislative independence?", "answer": "the First World War"}, {"question": "Who described the Dutch confederacy as exhibiting \"Imbecility in the government; discord among the provinces; foreign influence and indignities; a precarious existence in peace, and peculiar calamities from war.\"", "answer": "James Madison"}, {"question": "By what date is the primary reserve personnel estimated to go up by 30,000?", "answer": "2020"}, {"question": "In what year did Francis, Duke of Anjou leave the Netherlands?", "answer": "1583"}, {"question": "How many Canadian Forces bases are there in Canada?", "answer": "27"}, {"question": "In what jurisdiction where counterclaims nullified by the court?", "answer": "District of Colorado"}, {"question": "The Dutch Republic dominated world trade during what time?", "answer": "the Dutch Golden Age"}, {"question": "Who sued Internet Archive in 2005?", "answer": "Suzanne Shell"}, {"question": "Who did Netbula believe was the entity that should be responsible for the availability of its snapshots?", "answer": "Internet Archive"}, {"question": "What term characterizes the rate at which snapshots are made of websites?", "answer": "variable"}, {"question": "Where was the commander-in-chief stationed?", "answer": "Halifax"}, {"question": "When did Kaplan make comments about the status of non-Open Directory sites?", "answer": "November 2010"}, {"question": "What diplomatic effort does the CAF perform as part of it's duties?", "answer": "relationship-building efforts"}, {"question": "When was an upgrade of the Wayback Machine released for testing?", "answer": "2011"}, {"question": "What was the goal of the CAF during the cold war?", "answer": "the security of Europe"}, {"question": "What does Telewizja Polska operate?", "answer": "TVP Polonia"}, {"question": "When was the renewal and re-equipment effort started?", "answer": "2006"}, {"question": "What other air force does the CAF cooperate with?", "answer": "the American Air Forces"}, {"question": "Who was a strong supporter of freedom of religion and wanted to unite Protestants and Catholics in the new union?", "answer": "William of Orange"}, {"question": "What is the term used by Internet Archive to describe the Wayback Machine?", "answer": "three dimensional index"}, {"question": "Who makes PetaBox rack systems?", "answer": "Capricorn Technologies"}, {"question": "What organisms is the ibex in an amensalistic relationship with?", "answer": "weevils"}, {"question": "What site was created to mitigate issues with incomplete copies of websites?", "answer": "Archive-It.org"}, {"question": "Who was the actual party that requested the critical sites be taken down?", "answer": "Church of Scientology"}, {"question": "Which party did Internet Archive side with?", "answer": "Chordiant"}, {"question": "The armed forces has approximately how many members?", "answer": "115,349"}]