Form 2015 Pdf: Fill & Download for Free

There is an interesting representation with all ps stations in the form of a map with classifications like ps-1 stations operating during summer, ps-2 stations that run round the year, government ps stations, public and private sector ps stations etc and their location. It will give a quick idea of the entire list of PS stations.You can refer to the linkuniverse.bits-pilani.ac.in/uploads/MAP-2015.pdf

Barack Obama was actually already a millionaire when he first entered the White House, with a net worth of between one and five million dollars, mostly from his books. His wealth has unsurprisingly increased over the past eight years, but not from any exotic moves. The vast majority of his income is from his $400k presidential salary, but he also receives some book royalties which amount to a relatively small percentage of his income, as well as some investment income from mutual funds, money markets, and treasury bills. Analysis of his 2015 government disclosure forms suggest his net worth is between two and seven million, though other estimates put it around twelve million.Once he leaves office, he’ll receive an annual presidential pension of ~$205k. He’ll most certainly write a memoir that some estimate could yield him $25-$45 million [post presidency update: The Obamas reportedly made a dual book deal for an estimated $65MM advance]. If he chooses to give paid speeches, he can easily make six figures for each, as both of his most recent predecessors do.Sources / Additional Reading, including some detailed breakouts of income by year and source, investment types, etc:Barack Obama’s net worth as he leaves the White House (2017 AOL article)Barack Obama’s Net Worth on His 55th Birthday (2016 Time/Money article)How Barack Obama Made His Fortune (2012 Yahoo Finance article)https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/oge_278_cy_2015_obama_051616.pdf (PDF of President Obama’s official financial disclosure form for 2015, released May 2016.)The President and Vice President’s 2015 Financial Disclosure Forms (includes links to previous years)

Background/TL;drBy way of explanation, this question refers to research on the history of the tree of life, and in particular the origins of multicellular “animals” — known as metazoans. Biologists build trees showing how organisms are related to each other, and how they likely evolved. Traditionally these trees have shown sponges (Porifera) as the first lineage to diverge from the rest of the metazoans (shown in the green figure B). Often Cnidarians are next, or Ctenophores and Cnidarians are grouped together as “Coelenterata”. (See Edgecombe et al 2011 for an overview.)More recently, there are several papers suggesting that Ctenophores (comb jellies) branched off first, then sponges (Scenario A and C). This result was controversial because sponges seem to be “simpler” organisms, and thus were assumed to diverge first. (I am omitting Placozoans from this discussion, but that is another can of worms.)UPDATE: A few new papers (late 2015) have come out with amusingly contradictory titles, supporting both views. Casey Dunn as written his view of these recent papers here: Who is our most distant animal relative?The question posed is about how widely accepted this scenario is among biologists.Before you form an opinion, there are several things to keep in mind when interpreting trees like this.The cyan and orange dots in B and C represent common ancestors between all animals and ctenophores or sponges. That organism was neither a ctenophore nor a sponge.The key difference between these hypotheses is what happened along the magenta segment of the tree. Was there a loss of traits or a gain of traits, and which traits does the orange ancestor or blue ancestor have?These events happened a long time ago, and many intervening lineages (evolutionary experiments) are not represented on the branches that exist now. The branches of the tree between the common ancestors are short relative to the full time-course of evolution.The evolutionary distance between that common ancestor (cyan dot) and humans or worms is the same as between that ancestor and ctenophores or sponges (blue curved arrows in panel B). Vertebrates are not the pinnacle of evolution, but rather a currently existing organism, just like sponges.It is sometimes easier to read the trees from right to left, imagining commonality shared between the organisms that are clustered together, rather than left-to-right as a march toward complexity. (See this PDF for an in-depth review of tree interpretation.)Acceptance levelRegarding the competing hypotheses, I would say it is still pretty controversial. There are "camps" which are pretty adamant both ways. The "early-diverging ctenophore camp" (disclaimer, I am a member) doesn't have an agenda, but are presenting the reproducible results of their analyses. It was a surprise to us originally too, and we just reported what the trees said. If the trees say something different, then that would get published. I don't understand why the scientific process should operate any differently. ("This just can't be true, so I'll bury these results.") Just show me the data!The initial results reported in Dunn, et al. in 2008 [PDF] based on EST data were subsequently supported by Hejnol et al. 2009 [PDF] (largely the same group of researchers). This was once again supported by the first genome by Ryan et al. at the end of 2013 [PDF], and also by the independent group of Moroz, et al., [PDF] when they published the second ctenophore genome in 2014.In the meantime, other authors (Philippe, Woerheide, etc) have stayed busy challenging the methods and details of the analyses and trying to show that ctenophores can't be sister to the rest of metazoans. Numerically I am not sure what the split would be, but since most people would not be up-to-date on the results, I would guess there are still more sponge-advocates than ctenophore advocates?[Update May 2015: A paper by Whelan et al. (2015) [PDF] has re-analyzed a bunch of different datasets with different methods to investigate the alternative hypotheses, and *still* came out with ctenophores as the sister group...]To me it is definitely a surprising result, and the continued support via different methods has always been a surprise as well. However it becomes easier if you think of sponges as the weirdos, which have lost traits we associate with animals. There is a tendency to think everything must become more complex, but things go both ways. In addition, even if ctenophores are not the first to diverge from the rest, they are somewhere in that first group, and have a lot of features that make them very different from other animals.Another thing to think about is taxon-sampling: With the first data set we had fairly shallow transcriptomes from 2 ctenophores and 2 sponges. Then another ctenophore was added. Then we thought if only we had the genome it would settle this. But the mysteries persist. Outgroups (and in-groups) are another issue that has a big effect on the results. Now I am working on a data set that has high-quality transcriptomes from 37 species of ctenophores and 67 other taxa including all kinds of outgroups besides choanoflagellates.We will see what results come of this, but the events we are looking for happened so far back that data may not be the limiting factor in the resolution of our "time-telescope". Norm Pace is adamantly against using concatenated data sets for looking at deep-tree questions (archaea, bacteria, eukaryotes) because a lot of the relevant signal are have become saturated as well as scrambled by horizontal gene transfer (common in bacteria, not so much in animals)...Amy Maxmen has written a couple of interesting essays on this: Evolution, You’re Drunk and Animal origins shift to comb jellies. And one behind the ScienceNews paywall: Evolutionary enigmas[I edited out the term "basal" because I think that sows confusion. Maybe I'll write more on that later, but it is probably better to think of existing groups — ctenophores, sponges, cnidarians, sea stars, for example — and work backwards to their shared common ancestor and see when they diverged. Calling a group "basal" can steer the conversation toward "living fossils" etc, when in fact they are all equally distant from the hypothetical ancestor.]