Harry Nelson Pillsbury was a leading American chess player. At the age of 22, he won one of the strongest tournaments of the time but his illness and early death prevented him from challenging for the World Chess Championship. Pillsbury was born in Somerville, moved to New York City in 1894 to Philadelphia in 1898. By 1890, having only played chess for two years, he beat. In April 1892, Pillsbury won a match two games to one against World Champion Wilhelm Steinitz, who gave him odds of a pawn. Pillsbury's rise was meteoric, there was soon no one to challenge him in the New York chess scene; the Brooklyn chess club sponsored his journey to Europe to play in the Hastings 1895 chess tournament, in which all the greatest players of the time participated. The 22-year-old Pillsbury became a celebrity in the United States and abroad by winning the tournament, finishing ahead of reigning world champion Emanuel Lasker, former world champion Wilhelm Steinitz, recent challengers Mikhail Chigorin and Isidor Gunsberg, future challengers Siegbert Tarrasch, Carl Schlechter and Dawid Janowski.

The dynamic style that Pillsbury exhibited during the tournament helped to popularize the Queen's Gambit during the 1890s, including his famous win over Siegbert Tarrasch. His next major tournament was the Saint Petersburg 1895-96 chess tournament, a six-round round-robin tournament between four of the top five finishers at Hastings. Pillsbury appears to have contracted syphilis prior to the start of the event. Although he was in the lead after the first half of the tournament, he was affected by severe headaches and scored only 1½/9 in the second half finishing third, he lost a critical fourth cycle encounter to Lasker, Garry Kasparov has suggested that had he won, he could well have won the tournament and forced a world championship match against Lasker. In spite of his ill health, Pillsbury beat American champion Jackson Showalter in 1897 to win the U. S. Chess Championship, a title he held until his death in 1906. Poor mental and physical health, the result of a syphilis infection, prevented him from realizing his full potential throughout the rest of his life.

He succumbed to the illness in a Philadelphia hospital in 1906. Pillsbury is buried in Laurel Hill Cemetery in Massachusetts. Pillsbury had an record against Lasker, a feat matched or surpassed by few, he beat Lasker with the black pieces at Saint Petersburg in 1895 and at Augsburg in 1900: Emanuel Lasker vs. Pillsbury, Augsburg 1900 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 e4 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Qe2 Bd6 6.d3 0-0 7.dxe4 Nxe4 8. Nxe4 Re8 9. Bd2 Bf5 10.0-0-0 Bxe4 11. Qg4 f5 12. Qg3 Nd7 13. Bc3 Nf6 14. Nh3 Ng4 15. Be2 Be7 16. Bxg4 Bh4 17. Bxf5 Bxg3 18. Be6+ Rxe6 19.dxe6 Qe8 20.hxg3 Bxg2 21. Rhe1 Bxh3 22. Rd7 Qg6 23.b3 Re8 24. Re5 Bxe6 25. Rxc7 Qxg3 26. Kb2 h6 27. Rxb7 Rc8 28. Bd4 Qg2 29. Rxa7 Rxc2+ 30. Kb1 Qd2 0–1Pillsbury had an score against Steinitz, but a slight minus against Chigorin and against Joseph Henry Blackburne, while he beat David Janowski and Géza Maróczy and had a significant edge over Carl Schlechter. Pillsbury was a strong blindfold chess player, could play checkers and chess while playing a hand of whist, reciting a list of long words.

His maximum was 22 simultaneous blindfold games at Moscow 1902. However, his greatest feat was 21 simultaneous games against the players in the Hannover Hauptturnier of 1902—the winner of the Hauptturnier would be recognized as a master, yet Pillsbury scored +3−7=11; as a teenager, Edward Lasker played Pillsbury in a blindfold exhibition in Breslau, against the wishes of his mother, recalled in Chess Secrets I learned from the Masters : But it soon became evident that I would have lost my game if I had been in the calmest of moods. Pillsbury gave a marvellous performance, winning 13 of the 16 blindfold games, drawing two, losing only one, he made no mistakes. The picture of Pillsbury sitting calmly in an armchair, with his back to the players, smoking one cigar after another, replying to his opponents' moves after brief consideration in a clear, unhesitating manner, came back to my mind 30 years when I refereed Alekhine's world record performance at the Chicago World's Fair, where he played 32 blindfold games simultaneously.

It was quite an astounding demonstration, but Alekhine made quite a number of mistakes, his performance did not impress me half as much as Pillsbury's in Breslau. Before his simultaneous chess exhibitions, Pillsbury would entertain his audience with feats of memory that involved recalling long lists of words after hearing or looking at them just once. One such list, which Pillsbury repeated forward and backward, performing the same feat the next day, was: Antiphlogistine, takadiastase, ambrosia, streptococcus, micrococcus, Mississippi, Philadelphia, athletics, no war, American, philosophy, Piet Potgelter's Rost, Oomisillecootsi, Schlechter's Nek, theosophy, Madjesoomalops Irving Chernev and Fred Reinfeld, in the Fireside Book of Chess, state that this list was devised by H. Threkeld-Edwards, a surgeon, Prof. Mansfield Merriman, teacher of civil engineering at Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, who challenged Pillsbury in Philadelphia, PA

The civil liability of a recreational diver may include a duty of care to another diver during a dive. Breach of this duty, a proximate cause of injury or loss to the other diver may lead to civil litigation for damages in compensation for the injury or loss suffered. Participation in recreational diving implies acceptance of the inherent risks of the activity Diver training includes training in procedures known to reduce these risks to a level considered acceptable by the certification agency, issue of certification implies that the agency accepts that the instructor has assessed the diver to be sufficiently competent in these skills at the time of assessment and to be competent to accept the associated risks. Certification relates to a set of skills and knowledge defined by the associated training standard, which specifies the limitations on the scope of diving activities for which the diver is deemed competent; these limitations involve depth and equipment that the diver has been trained to use.

Intentionally diving beyond the scope of certified competence is at the diver's risk, may be construed as negligence if it puts another person at risk. Recommendations suggest that extending the scope should be done and preferably under the guidance of a diver experienced in similar conditions; the training agencies specify that any extension of scope should only be done by further training under a registered instructor, but this is not always practicable, or possible, as there can always be circumstances that differ from those experienced during training. Retention of skills requires exercise of those skills, prolonged periods between dives will degrade skills by unpredictable amounts. A recreational diver may have a duty of care to another diver if one of these conditions occurs: The diver is the instructor of the other diver; this is established by a contract or other agreement to teach the other diver how to dive, or some part of the skills and knowledge required for certification as a competent diver.

The diver is divemaster to the other diver. This may be a formal arrangement where the divemaster is paid to lead a dive, or less formal where the divemaster leads a group from a club or a group of acquaintances. Giving the divers instructions regarding the dive plan may be construed as establishing a dive leader relationship. Informing them of the known geography, expected conditions and a maximum time limit for the dive should not; the diver accepts the other diver as a dive buddy for a dive. If no limitations are stated, it may reasonably be assumed that buddy responsibilities are as specified in the training standards for the certification of each diver; this can be problematic if the divers have different training and certification if one is a registered instructor or divemaster, as it may be claimed that this implies a greater duty of care based on competence. In the absence of any record of an agreement that the dive will be conducted to a different set of protocols, the default assumption may be that protocols of the training organisations at the time of certification will be followed, or should have been followed.

The existence of a duty of care between two persons depends on the relationship between them. Dive buddies who depend on each other to perform tasks such as equipment checks and provide assistance in an emergency are obliged to act reasonably and not increase the risks of the activity, but may be excluded from liability by assumption of the risk or waiver. Where relevant, the dive operator is responsible for: ensuring that the vessel is suitable and carries the necessary safety equipment, the crew are competent and carry out the necessary procedures on the surface to support a safe experience for a certified diver. Safely transporting the divers to dive sites that are suitable based on the certification of the divers and the expected conditions, assessing the site conditions on arrival, conducting a dive briefing informing the divers of the known and reasonably foreseeable conditions and hazards of the site, recalling divers to the surface in an emergency, recovering a distressed or incapacitated diver on the surface into the boat, alerting the emergency services in the event of an accident, ensuring that no-one is left behind after the dive.

In a number of US cases, the failure of a charter operator to assign a buddy has been ruled a breach of the industry standard of care. It is not clear what competence or certification is required to allocate buddy pairs, whether this duty would apply to a boat operator, not a divemaster or instructor. Defendants have argued that a person who dived without an allocated buddy was contributorily negligent as they did not meet the appropriate standard of care. Waivers and release The waiver is intended as a legal defense against lawsuits claiming ordinary negligence by the operator; the diver acknowledges acceptance of the risks inherent to scuba diving. The waiver may require the diver to follow recognised safe diving practices. By signing the waiver the diver agrees not to sue the operator for injuries and damage due to ordinary negligence relating to the diving activity, it will not be enforceable for gross negligence and events beyond the normal scope of diving. Medical statement The medical statement is intended to draw the diver's attention to the range of medical conditions that may increase the risk of injury during a dive.

Failure to disclose a known medical condition, the cause of an injury will disqualify the diver from legal compensation, may void an insurance claim. It transfers responsibility for establishing fitness to dive from the operator to the diver; the certified diver is respon

Sociorobotics is a field of research studying the implications and subsequent design of artificial social, spatial and haptic behaviours and interactions of robots with each other and with humans in equal measure. Intrinsically taking into account the structured and unstructured spaces of habitation, including industrial, healthcare and domestic environments; this emergent perspective to robotic research encompasses and surpasses the conventions of Social robotics and Artificial society/social systems research. Which do not appear to acknowledge that numerous robots and humans are inhabiting the same spaces which require similar performances and agency of social behaviour regarding the commercial emergence of workplace and companion robotics. Robots in the near future will be required to behave and spatially intelligent in all contexts of artificial social interaction, recognising sophisticated cues from both humans and other robots alike, similar in some respects to the required social awareness and expected social behaviour of our animal companions.

Furthermore, sociorobotics as a research platform fully accepts that robots can be modular hardware, controlled by pre-programmed disembodied software agency or even'Wizard of Oz' style teleoperation requiring the same social intelligence and protocols. Sociorobotics attempts to go further by observing and incorporating the aesthetic assemblages and intricacies of social, cultural & haptic complexities to study the creation of artificial social behaviours and the subsequent protocol design considerations for contemporary and future robotics. Sociorobotics recognises the critical interdisciplinarity of contemporary and future robot design; these foundations bring together intimate concepts of space and social/cultural criteria of heterogeneous human-robot interactions, engendering a more comprehensive and cognizant research approach to successful robot design. Professor Arvin Agah first coined the term'sociorobotics' in 1993/4 to describe the study of robot team and colony behaviours but omitted to include himself and his colleagues as members and legitimate study subjects or actants of these sociorobotic assemblages.

His and all roboticist's interactions with robot teams or colony members, including human controllers/creators/programmers and indeed, robot to robot, constitute this undefined term of study that optimally represents and describes this emergent field of research of the implications and design of spatial/social protocols and interactions of multiple robots, both with humans and each other. "So, pulling the strings? Well, the puppets do in addition to their puppeteers, it does not mean that puppets are controlling their handlers – this would be reversing the order of causality – and of course no dialectic will do the trick either. It means that the interesting question at this point is not to decide, acting and how but to shift from a certainty about action to an uncertainty about action – but to decide what is acting and how.", Bruno Latour Social Robots Artificial society Human geography Cultural geography Social Psychology Interaction Design Human Robot Interaction Actor-network theory Toward the Human–Robot Co-Existence Society: On Safety Intelligence for Next Generation Robots Sociorobotics.com Sociorobotics BLOG

Hanna Jensen is a Faroese high school teacher and a liberal politician. After finishing high school she studied Faroese language and literature at the University of the Faroe Islands and French language and literature at the University of Copenhagen as well as Jurisprudence and Pedagogy and finished with a Cand.mag. Degree. Jensen has been teaching and working as a school counsellor at the high school in Kambsdalur, Fuglafjørður since 2005. Before that she was teaching at The Technical college in Klaksvík, she has been teaching in Faroese literature at the Faroese Teachers School in Tórshavn. She lives in Norðragøta. Jensen has been the French Consul General of the Faroe Islands since 2010. Jensen's political career started in 2007 when she was elected for the local council of Gøta Municipality, where she was a member for one year from 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2008, continued being a member of the new merged council of Eystur Municipality, a merger between Leirvík and Gøta. Since 2009 she has been member of Eystur Municipality, she was the chairperson for the Culture and Social committee from 2009-2012 and the chairperson for the Culture committee since 2013.

Jensen represented People's Party until 2011, when she together with Poul Michelsen established the political party Progress. Since Jensen has been the deputy leader of Progress and was the parties vice member to the parliament from 2011 until 2015, where she took seat in parliament on several occasions for Michelsen and Janus Rein. Jensen was elected for the Løgting at the general election in 2015. On 24 September 2015 Hanna Jensen along with the independent member of the Løgting Sonja Jógvansdóttir, Social Democratic member Kristianna Winther Poulsen and Republic member Bjørt Samuelsen, submitted a same-sex marriage bill to the Parliament Secretariat; the bill entered Parliament on 17 November 2015. If approved, the law would be scheduled to go into effect on 1 July 2016; the first reading took place 24 November 2015. The second reading is expected to take place in the week that starts on 7 March 2016

The 1872 cricket season was the second in which Derbyshire County Cricket Club played first-class matches. The team was captained by Samuel Richardson. Two matches were arranged against Lancashire County Cricket Club and Derbyshire lost both. Derbyshire played a match against Prince's Club at their ground in Chelsea, which ended in a draw. Samuel Richardson was captain in his second season; the season saw the arrival of three Wirksworth players Joseph Flint, George Frost and Richard Allsop. Frost and Allsop were both joiners. William Curgenven, a doctor, party to the club's foundation made his debut. George Cammell, Old Etonian of Brookfield Manor made his single appearance for Derbyshire in the match against Prince's Club; the season was the last in which Derbyshire's star bowler Dove Gregory played before his death the following February. In the first match Lancashire set up a score of 201, Derbyshire managed 75 in their first innings and 51 in the follow-on. In the match against Queen's Club, Queens opened with 85 and Derbyshire responded with 173.

Queens were on 54 for 9 needing 34 to avoid an innings defeat when the two-day match ended in a draw. In this match, Derbyshire player John Burnham played for Prince's Club. In the second Lancashire match Lancashire set up a score of 137 and Derbyshire responded with 42 and 69 in the follow-on. Lancashire's William McIntyre took 22 Derbyshire wickets in the two matches. Thomas Attenborough scored most first class runs for Derbyshire, Dove Gregory took most wickets. Richard Allsop took most catches. S Richardson catches 1, stumping 0 Derbyshire County Cricket Club seasons 1872 English cricket season