Andy Z. Lehrer, PhD, (born May 16, 1930) is a Rumanian entomologist, having the titles of university professor, doctor of biology (1967), principal researcher of first degree and head of the Biological Laboratory of Entomoparasitologie of the Biological Research Institute of the Rumanian Academy, Wire of Jassy. From 1996 he works as researcher associated with the Laboratory of Zoology of the University of Tel Aviv and studies Dipterous Sarcophagidae, Calliphoridae and Bengaliidae of several zoogeographical areas of the world.
Dr. Lehrer is one of the world's leading specialists on Sarcophagidae1 and Calliphoridae.2 It published around 400 scientific work in much of international reviews and the first dipterologic review of Israel in French language, Fragmenta Dipterologica3.
Will Batchelor is a British radio personality, jornalist and columnist. He regularly makes contributions to the Liverpool Daily Post, as well as the Liverpool Echo, icLiverpool website and the North Wales Daily Post .
He is best known for his radio chat show on Friday and Saturday nights which are relayed throughout the radio stations BRMB, Mercia, Beacon and Wyvern, they are all stationed in the Midlands, his show airs from 10PM and ends at 1AM. The show alternates from "The Sanctuary" which is on Sunday to Thursday, hosted by Caroline Martin, which runs at the same times. Will also does occasional one-off stand ins for other local radio DJs, including Caroline Martin.
Both radio personalities follow a similar format in their programmes. The subjects are chosen before the programme starts and discussions are held on them. Caroline usually covers one subject a night and Will normally does two or three. They are the only shows on these stations that do not feature full length music.
During the last half hour of his show, Will normally holds an event called "The Friday Night Face Off" or "The Saturday Night Slamdown", depending on the day of the week. Both are the same in nature, two things are mentioned and listeners have to vote for the one they like best. Unlike the rest of the show they can not 'phone in. It has to be done by Facebook or SMS. The things mentioned are usually things which have a name sounds in common, such as The White Cliffs of Dover and Cliff Richard, Cher Lloyd and Shares in Lloyds, Joe McElderry or Elderberries. Sometimes they are things which are just opposites like Zippy and George from Rainbow as a tribute to Roy Skelton who had very recently passed away at the time.
Will describes himself as a "Facebook-slut" because he accepts anyone who invites him to be a friend. He has often said that he would like to end up with more friends than Michael Jackson.
Will is married and has two children.
He is best known for his radio chat show on Friday and Saturday nights which are relayed throughout the radio stations BRMB, Mercia, Beacon and Wyvern, they are all stationed in the Midlands, his show airs from 10PM and ends at 1AM. The show alternates from "The Sanctuary" which is on Sunday to Thursday, hosted by Caroline Martin, which runs at the same times. Will also does occasional one-off stand ins for other local radio DJs, including Caroline Martin.
Both radio personalities follow a similar format in their programmes. The subjects are chosen before the programme starts and discussions are held on them. Caroline usually covers one subject a night and Will normally does two or three. They are the only shows on these stations that do not feature full length music.
During the last half hour of his show, Will normally holds an event called "The Friday Night Face Off" or "The Saturday Night Slamdown", depending on the day of the week. Both are the same in nature, two things are mentioned and listeners have to vote for the one they like best. Unlike the rest of the show they can not 'phone in. It has to be done by Facebook or SMS. The things mentioned are usually things which have a name sounds in common, such as The White Cliffs of Dover and Cliff Richard, Cher Lloyd and Shares in Lloyds, Joe McElderry or Elderberries. Sometimes they are things which are just opposites like Zippy and George from Rainbow as a tribute to Roy Skelton who had very recently passed away at the time.
Will describes himself as a "Facebook-slut" because he accepts anyone who invites him to be a friend. He has often said that he would like to end up with more friends than Michael Jackson.
Will is married and has two children.
Penny Cula-Reid (born 2 February 1988) is an Australian Women's Footy player.
She plays for the St Kilda Sharks in the Victorian Women's Football League and is a multiple premiership player and also represented Victoria at the National Championships in the U-19 team.
She was involved in a sex discrimination case when she and two other girls challenged the Moorabbin Saints Junior Football League and Football Victoria Ltd's rules that forbid girls from playing in mixed sex teams after the age of twelve. The case changed the rule from restricting girls from playing in the under 12s to the under 15s, which still prevented Cula-Reid from playing in mixed sex teams.
She plays for the St Kilda Sharks in the Victorian Women's Football League and is a multiple premiership player and also represented Victoria at the National Championships in the U-19 team.
She was involved in a sex discrimination case when she and two other girls challenged the Moorabbin Saints Junior Football League and Football Victoria Ltd's rules that forbid girls from playing in mixed sex teams after the age of twelve. The case changed the rule from restricting girls from playing in the under 12s to the under 15s, which still prevented Cula-Reid from playing in mixed sex teams.
Anamorphic Development is a 2-stage process developed and revised by ionisis in 2008 whereby only initial and minimal planning, design, prototyping, and analysis occurs, as more of a framework for the general concept or direction. The website is then made live to alpha users—or "test users"-- by invite only, and from their usage and feedback, the functionality is built that will flesh out the project and its features, not to exceed the original scope or concept of the project. This allows for the final result to take its own shape which is tailored to the needs of the client and users, and be free of unnecessary functionality. The project is considered complete once its original concept or scope has been fulfilled.
Process
Development begins almost immediately after conceptualization. As development continues, the client has easy access to the current application state, which usually resides on development servers, or a non-publicized location on a publicly accessible server, and is able to provide feedback and guidance as the project evolves, to shape the direction and growth of the project. At this stage, the programming and coding of the framework is usually done in parallel with client feedback and testing. The developers work closely with the client, and have frequent contact with them.
After the framework is considered extensible or satisfactory to build upon, the project is made live on the internet as an "Alpha" System, and select members of the general public are invited to begin using the project and to provide feedback and reviews of the project. Public review, in addition to client review, adds to a clearer picture of the direction and shape of the project that is necessary for its success, as sometimes the end users may think of new ways to do things, new features to enhance the project, find problems in the functionality, or find bugs in the project, some of which the client or the development firm would not have come across with without them. At this stage, the programming and coding of functionality is usually done in parallel with feedback and testing. Features are developed more rapidly because a subset of features, defined by priority, are the sole focus of each iteration of planning, design, and development, as opposed to the entire system.
Distinguishing factors
The distinguishing factor of anamorphic development is that the project continually and rapidly evolves or "morphs" to fit the needs of the client and end users, while trying to maintain its original concept and scope. Other than the core framework, there is very minimal feature planning at the onset, giving the project the potential to change shape and take on new functionality as it is discovered to be a need or a benefit, as opposed to planning all features, and having a result with functionality that is not needed, and lacking functionality that is needed. This is a much more targeted and adaptive trait as it is free of unnecessary functionality, which adds clutter to the code and adds unnecessary overhead in planning, testing, and development; this method addresses only actual needs. This free-formed adaptive trait is considered anamorphism. This process is quite distinct from other Systems Development Life Cycles and methodologies, such as Agile Web Development.
It is very important to note a clear and concise separation of the framework development phase and the features development phase, how the latter is a layer that exists upon the former, and how they are mutually exclusive development phases; this is the biggest distinction of this method. By developing an extensible framework, features can be plugged in with little of no modification of existing code, which allows for faster and more targeted feature development, and for a horizontally scalable project. There are usually no "releases" or "versions" of the project, as it is an ongoing prototype until it is declared finished, which is usually when it satisfies the initial needs and concept of the client.
This methodology is not widely used or approved of, as it allows for many modifications; but since there is no hard plan, this is not thought of as modifications, but more as morphing to more closely suit the needs of the end users, to more completely satisfy the concept as a whole, and to provide a better product with higher end user satisfaction and usability. By this methodology, it is better to have a more generalized and dynamic concept which you can adapt to as you go, as opposed to starting out with a static idea and a rigid and thorough plan, as problems arise each time a need changes or is realized.
Benefits
* less time spent in planning, which saves more time later when plans change (and they always do)
* saves time wasted in documentation, which almost never goes through a project's life cycle without being almost completely rewritten
* saves time on requirements analysis and reassessment, as end users and clients direct this process as the project evolves
* saves time testing, as the client and end users are also testers (even if unknowingly) and contribute to the feedback
* coding and programming can be performed faster and more accurately, as there is less of a need to go back and take out or rewrite existing code when new needs and requirements change, because it is usually the case that coding is done in parallel with feedback and testing, after the initial framework is constructed
* ensures greater usability and end user satisfaction, as it is modelled to fit their needs, within the scope of the original concept
* anamorphic projects are usually billed incrementally (monthly, weekly, daily, or hourly), due to the nature of the methodology, which ensures that the client gets the best product for the money invested (as users and clients set the requirements, to an extent)
* if billed incrementally, the client can stop the development of further features or enhancements when they reach their budget
* if billed incrementally, it helps to protect the development firm from going over budget when there are many features added or enhanced
* development is much faster and much more targeted than conventional methods, as it is free from some of the most time consuming tasks, like documentation, thorough requirements planning, and major modifications, which gives the project powerful results for short timelines
* the time spent on planning and designing is much shorter, as these steps are targeted for specific features, be it new or an enhancement
* it almost completely eliminates inaccurate planning, inaccurate assessments, misunderstandings of goals, and misdirection, as there is little initial planning, and after the commencement of the functionality development stage, development is done in very small and narrow steps, at the direction of feedback
Setbacks
* it is easy for a project to expand beyond the scope of the initial concept, and requires that the project manager understands the fine lines that signify the concept's boundaries
* it is easy for a project to go over budget, as features are enhanced and new features are added frequently, which is why some companies prefer to bill incrementally (monthly, weekly, daily, or hourly) for anamorphic projects
* if not billed incrementally, the cost of such a project is difficult to estimate for the development company
* if the development firm bills incrementally, then it is hard for the client to estimate cost
* the duration of such a project is difficult to estimate
Developers
Developers who use this methodology are referred to as anamorphic developers, and the team is made up of as few specialists as possible, who work closely together with each other, with the client, and with the end users. Their roles overlap each other to ensure clearer communication, tighter integration of efforts, higher accuracy, better quality, greater efficiency, and more speed.
Process
Development begins almost immediately after conceptualization. As development continues, the client has easy access to the current application state, which usually resides on development servers, or a non-publicized location on a publicly accessible server, and is able to provide feedback and guidance as the project evolves, to shape the direction and growth of the project. At this stage, the programming and coding of the framework is usually done in parallel with client feedback and testing. The developers work closely with the client, and have frequent contact with them.
After the framework is considered extensible or satisfactory to build upon, the project is made live on the internet as an "Alpha" System, and select members of the general public are invited to begin using the project and to provide feedback and reviews of the project. Public review, in addition to client review, adds to a clearer picture of the direction and shape of the project that is necessary for its success, as sometimes the end users may think of new ways to do things, new features to enhance the project, find problems in the functionality, or find bugs in the project, some of which the client or the development firm would not have come across with without them. At this stage, the programming and coding of functionality is usually done in parallel with feedback and testing. Features are developed more rapidly because a subset of features, defined by priority, are the sole focus of each iteration of planning, design, and development, as opposed to the entire system.
Distinguishing factors
The distinguishing factor of anamorphic development is that the project continually and rapidly evolves or "morphs" to fit the needs of the client and end users, while trying to maintain its original concept and scope. Other than the core framework, there is very minimal feature planning at the onset, giving the project the potential to change shape and take on new functionality as it is discovered to be a need or a benefit, as opposed to planning all features, and having a result with functionality that is not needed, and lacking functionality that is needed. This is a much more targeted and adaptive trait as it is free of unnecessary functionality, which adds clutter to the code and adds unnecessary overhead in planning, testing, and development; this method addresses only actual needs. This free-formed adaptive trait is considered anamorphism. This process is quite distinct from other Systems Development Life Cycles and methodologies, such as Agile Web Development.
It is very important to note a clear and concise separation of the framework development phase and the features development phase, how the latter is a layer that exists upon the former, and how they are mutually exclusive development phases; this is the biggest distinction of this method. By developing an extensible framework, features can be plugged in with little of no modification of existing code, which allows for faster and more targeted feature development, and for a horizontally scalable project. There are usually no "releases" or "versions" of the project, as it is an ongoing prototype until it is declared finished, which is usually when it satisfies the initial needs and concept of the client.
This methodology is not widely used or approved of, as it allows for many modifications; but since there is no hard plan, this is not thought of as modifications, but more as morphing to more closely suit the needs of the end users, to more completely satisfy the concept as a whole, and to provide a better product with higher end user satisfaction and usability. By this methodology, it is better to have a more generalized and dynamic concept which you can adapt to as you go, as opposed to starting out with a static idea and a rigid and thorough plan, as problems arise each time a need changes or is realized.
Benefits
* less time spent in planning, which saves more time later when plans change (and they always do)
* saves time wasted in documentation, which almost never goes through a project's life cycle without being almost completely rewritten
* saves time on requirements analysis and reassessment, as end users and clients direct this process as the project evolves
* saves time testing, as the client and end users are also testers (even if unknowingly) and contribute to the feedback
* coding and programming can be performed faster and more accurately, as there is less of a need to go back and take out or rewrite existing code when new needs and requirements change, because it is usually the case that coding is done in parallel with feedback and testing, after the initial framework is constructed
* ensures greater usability and end user satisfaction, as it is modelled to fit their needs, within the scope of the original concept
* anamorphic projects are usually billed incrementally (monthly, weekly, daily, or hourly), due to the nature of the methodology, which ensures that the client gets the best product for the money invested (as users and clients set the requirements, to an extent)
* if billed incrementally, the client can stop the development of further features or enhancements when they reach their budget
* if billed incrementally, it helps to protect the development firm from going over budget when there are many features added or enhanced
* development is much faster and much more targeted than conventional methods, as it is free from some of the most time consuming tasks, like documentation, thorough requirements planning, and major modifications, which gives the project powerful results for short timelines
* the time spent on planning and designing is much shorter, as these steps are targeted for specific features, be it new or an enhancement
* it almost completely eliminates inaccurate planning, inaccurate assessments, misunderstandings of goals, and misdirection, as there is little initial planning, and after the commencement of the functionality development stage, development is done in very small and narrow steps, at the direction of feedback
Setbacks
* it is easy for a project to expand beyond the scope of the initial concept, and requires that the project manager understands the fine lines that signify the concept's boundaries
* it is easy for a project to go over budget, as features are enhanced and new features are added frequently, which is why some companies prefer to bill incrementally (monthly, weekly, daily, or hourly) for anamorphic projects
* if not billed incrementally, the cost of such a project is difficult to estimate for the development company
* if the development firm bills incrementally, then it is hard for the client to estimate cost
* the duration of such a project is difficult to estimate
Developers
Developers who use this methodology are referred to as anamorphic developers, and the team is made up of as few specialists as possible, who work closely together with each other, with the client, and with the end users. Their roles overlap each other to ensure clearer communication, tighter integration of efforts, higher accuracy, better quality, greater efficiency, and more speed.