Datasets:
princeton-nlp
/
datasets-for-simcse

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
1
2.56k
As sun bears occur in tropical regions with year-round available foods, they do not hibernate.
Except for females with their offspring, they are usually solitary.
Male sun bears are primarily diurnal, but some are active at night for short periods.
Bedding sites consist mainly of fallen hollow logs, but they also rest in standing trees with cavities, in cavities underneath fallen logs or tree roots, and in tree branches high above the ground.
In captivity, they exhibit social behavior, and sleep mostly during the day.
Sun bears are known as very fierce animals when surprised in the forest.
Bees, beehives, and honey are important food items of sun bears.
They are omnivores, feeding primarily on termites, ants, beetle larvae, bee larvae and a large variety of fruit species, especially figs when available.
They have been observed eating fruits from the durian species "Durio graveolens".
Occasionally, growth shoots of certain palms and some species of flowers are consumed, but otherwise vegetative matter appears rare in the diet.
In the forests of Kalimantan, fruits of Moraceae, Burseraceae and Myrtaceae make up more than 50% of the fruit diet.
They are known to tear open trees with their long, sharp claws and teeth in search of wild bees and leave behind shattered tree trunks.
Sun bear scats collected in a forest reserve in Sabah contained mainly invertebrates such as beetles and their larvae, termites, and ants, followed by fruits and vertebrates.
They break open decayed wood in search of termites, beetle larvae, and earthworms, and use their claws and teeth to break the standing termite mound into a few pieces.
They quickly lick and suck the contents from the exposed mound, and also hold pieces of the broken mound with their front paws, while licking the termites from the surface of the mound.
They consume figs in large amounts and eat them whole.
Vertebrates consumed comprise birds, eggs, reptiles, turtles, deer and several unidentified small vertebrates.
Hair or bone remains are rarely found in sun bear scat.
They can crack open nuts with their powerful jaws.
Much of their food must be detected using their keen sense of smell.
Females are observed to mate at about 3 years of age.
During time of mating, the sun bear shows behaviours such as hugging, mock fighting, and head bobbing with its mate.
Gestation has been reported at 95 and 174 days.
Litters consist of one or two cubs weighing about each.
Cubs are born blind and hairless.
Initially, they are totally dependent on their mothers, and suckle for about 18 months.
After one to three months, the young can run, play, and forage near their mothers.
They reach sexual maturity after 3–4 years, and may live up to 30 years in captivity.
The two major threats to sun bears are habitat loss and commercial hunting.
These threats are not evenly distributed throughout their range.
In areas where deforestation is actively occurring, they are mainly threatened by the loss of forest habitat and forest degradation arising from clear-cutting for plantation development, unsustainable logging practices, illegal logging both within and outside protected areas, and forest fires.
The main predator of sun bears throughout its range by far is man.
Commercial poaching of bears for the wildlife trade is a considerable threat in most countries.
During surveys in Kalimantan between 1994 and 1997, interviewees admitted to hunting sun bears and indicated that sun bear meat is eaten by indigenous people in several areas in Kalimantan.
High consumption of bear parts was reported to occur where Japanese or Korean expatriate employees of timber companies created a temporary demand.
Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) shops in Sarawak and Sabah offered sun bear gallbladders.
Several confiscated sun bears indicated that live bears are also in demand for the pet trade.
Sun bears are among the three primary bear species specifically targeted for the bear bile trade in Southeast Asia, and are kept in bear farms in Laos, Vietnam, and Myanmar.
Bear bile products include raw bile sold in vials, gall bladder by the gram or in whole form, flakes, powder and pills.
The commercial production of bear bile from bear farming has turned bile from a purely traditional medicinal ingredient to a commodity with bile now found in non-TCM products like cough drops, shampoo, and soft drinks.
Tigers and other large cats are potential predators.
The loose skin, particularly around the neck, is an evolutionary trait and defense mechanism.
If caught by a predator, the loose skin would allow the sun bear to spin its head around to try and bite its attacker.
American Museum of Natural History naturalist and co-founder Albert S. Bickmore described a case in which a tiger-sun bear interaction resulted in a prolonged altercation and in the death of both animals.
A wild female sun bear was swallowed by a large reticulated python in a lowland dipterocarp forest in East Kalimantan.
The python possibly had come across the sleeping bear.
Other predators on mainland Southeast Asia and Sumatra could be the leopard and the clouded leopard, although the latter could be too small to kill an adult sun bear.
"Helarctos malayanus" has been listed on CITES Appendix I since 1979.
Killing of sun bears is strictly prohibited under national wildlife protection laws throughout their range.
However, little enforcement of these laws occurs.
The Malayan sun bear is part of an international captive-breeding program and has a Species Survival Plan under the Association of Zoos and Aquariums since late 1994.
Since that same year, the European breed registry for sun bears is kept in the Cologne Zoological Garden, Germany.
Comprehensive research about sun bear conservation and rehabilitation is the mission of the Bornean Sun Bear Conservation Centre in Sandakan, Sabah, founded in 2008 by wildlife biologist Wong Siew Te.
Kill the Poor
"Kill the Poor" was the third single by the Dead Kennedys.
The record was released in October 1980 on Cherry Red Records with "In-sight" as the b-side.
The title track was re-recorded for the band's first album, "Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables" (1980), although the single and album versions show little difference in comparison.
The b-side of this single is also additionally on the compilation album "Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death" (1987).
A special "disco version" was played and recorded on March 3, 1979 and released on their live album "Live at the Deaf Club"
"Kill the Poor" reached #49 in the UK Singles Chart, spending three weeks on the chart.
Reference Re Secession of Quebec
Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217 is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the legality, under both Canadian and international law, of a unilateral secession of Quebec from Canada.
Both the Quebec government and the Canadian government stated they were pleased with the Supreme Court's opinion, pointing to different sections of the ruling.
Following the election of a majority of Parti Québécois (PQ) Members of the National Assembly (MNAs) in the 1976 Quebec provincial election, the party formed a government and, in 1980, held an independence referendum.
The government of the Province of Quebec asked the province's population if it should seek a mandate to negotiate sovereignty for Quebec coupled with the establishment of a new political and economic union with Canada.
The referendum resulted in the defeat of the sovereignty option, with 59.6% voting no on sovereignty.
The PQ was nevertheless re-elected in 1981, this time promising not to hold a referendum.
In 1982, the federal government petitioned the Parliament of the United Kingdom in London to amend Canada's constitution so that, in the future, all further amendments would take place by means of a process of consent involving only the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the provinces (several provinces objected).
Up until this point, all amendments had taken place by means of Acts of the British Parliament, since the Canadian constitution was, strictly speaking, a simple statute of that Parliament.
Colloquially, the switch to a domestic amendment procedure was known as patriation.
The particular amending formula adopted in 1982 was opposed by the then-government of Quebec.
Other concomitant constitutional changes such as the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" were also opposed by Quebec, although not necessarily based on rejection of their content but to the manner of their adoption and lack of amendments specific to Quebec in the package.
(Also, at that time, Quebec had a more complete "Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms", which had been adopted in 1975.)
Subsequently, two attempts were made at amending the Canadian constitution (the Meech Lake Accord in 1987–1990 and the Charlottetown Accord in 1992) that, it was hoped, would have caused the Quebec legislature to adopt a motion supporting the revised constitution.
Following the failure of both of these to pass, there was a widespread sense in the mid-1990s that the Constitution of Canada was not fully legitimate because it had not yet received the formal approval of Quebec.
In 1994, the Parti Québécois was re-elected and announced that it would be initiating a second referendum to take place in 1995.
This time, the question was on sovereignty with an optional partnership with Canada.
The "no" side won by only a narrow margin.
Prior to this referendum, the National Assembly of Quebec had adopted a bill relating to the future of Quebec that laid out a plan if secession was approved in a referendum.
In response to the bill and the referendum result, several legal actions were initiated by opponents to the independence of Quebec questioning the legality of secession.
In 1996, Parti Québécois leader Lucien Bouchard announced his government would make plans to hold another referendum when he was confident that the "winning conditions" were there, pointing to the political cost of losing a third referendum.
In reaction to Bouchard's stated plans, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien initiated a reference on the legality of a unilateral declaration of independence by a Canadian province.
The Governor in Council (effectively, the Cabinet of Canada) submitted the request for an advisory opinion on the following three specific questions:
There were an unprecedented 15 interveners.
However, the Quebec government refused to take part and was not represented.
In its place the Court appointed André Jolicoeur as an to argue for the sovereigntist side.
The federal government's submission argued that the only way a province could secede from Canada would be through a constitutional amendment.
Only an amendment through section 45 (on the right of provincial legislatures to make laws amending their own constitutions) would allow for unilateral constitutional amendments, they argued, but that section would not apply to the question of secession.
To attempt to secede unilaterally would violate the constitution on two grounds.
First, it would violate the rule of law by ignoring the authority of the constitution as supreme law of the country, and second, it would violate Canadian federalism by acting with powers allocated only to the federal government.
The s submission argued several points.
First, it argued that the reference was invalid; the question is purely a political one and thus is outside the authority of the Court to answer under section 52 of the Supreme Court Act.
It attempted to analogize the use of the US political question doctrine to the Canadian constitution.
Furthermore, the question is speculative and premature as there are no substantive facts at question.
Second, it focused on the second question, claiming that the ability to separate comes from international law.
The submission argued that the "peoples of Quebec" had a right to self-determination under the Charter of the United Nations and thus can secede given the consent of a majority of the Quebec peoples.
It further claimed that since there is no international law barring separation then by convention there must be an implied right to do so.
The primary argument was that the doctrine of effectivity gave them authority to secede.
That is, recognition of a new state by other countries would validate the separation.
It further claimed that the doctrine of effectivity is part of the constitutional convention through its practice in other parts of the commonwealth.