text:
Bridge/How to Play

Contract bridge, usually known simply as Bridge, is a trick-taking card game for four players who form two partnerships, or "sides". The partners on each side sit opposite one another. Game play is in two phases: bidding and playing.

Dealing
The game is played with one complete deck of 52 cards; one player is the dealer.

In rubber bridge, after the shuffle, the dealer hands out all the cards clockwise one at a time, starting with his left-hand opponent and ending with himself. At the same time, for convenience, the dealer's partner is usually shuffling a second deck, ready for use on the following deal. The deal rotates clockwise, so the dealer's left-hand opponent will deal next.

In duplicate, one player is designated as "dealer" on each particular board, but this is only for purposes of the auction and does not affect the actual dealing. The cards may be manually shuffled and dealt as in rubber bridge, but by any player; if this is done, it happens only once at the start of a session or match. Where computer-dealt hands are used, dealing machines (which may read either the standard markings, or bar codes added to each card) may be used to assemble the hands ready to be placed in the boards. It is also common for the movement to be arranged so that none of the players play all the boards; then at the start of play, each one may be given to players who will not play it, together with a printed record of the deal, and they assemble the hands.

The auction
The dealer makes the first call, and the bidding continues clockwise until three players in rotation have passed after any call. A call is any bid, a pass, a double or a redouble. (However, the word "bid" is often used informally in place of "call".)

When a player has the turn to bid, he may do any one of the following:

 * 1) Make a new bid,
 * 2) Pass,
 * 3) Double if the last preceding bid was made by the opponents, or
 * 4)   Redouble a bid that has been doubled by the opponent.

A bid must include a number of odd tricks (from one to seven) and a denomination. Odd tricks are the tricks that a partnership proposes to take in excess of six (known as book). A denomination is any suit or notrump specified in a bid.

Each bid must supersede the last preceding bid by naming a greater number of tricks in any denomination, or by naming the same number of tricks in a higher ranking denomination. The rank of the denominations in descending order is notrump, spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs.

The auction ends when there have been three passes following a bid (or double or redouble). The last bid becomes the contract. The player in the partnership that made this final bid who first bid the denomination of that bid (suit or notrump) will be the declarer.

When, in a deal, all four players have passed without there being a bid, the deal is scored as a zero and the cards are passed on to the next dealer.

The play of the hand
The player from the pair that won the bidding (that is, the pair that is going to play the contract), who was the first to make a bid in the suit of the final contract (who is thus either the player bidding the final contract or his partner), is called the declarer. His partner is called the dummy.

Play to the first trick starts with the player to the left of the declarer. After the first card has been played, the dummy lays his cards open on the table. These cards are from then on played by the declarer, who tells the dummy which card is to be played whenever it is the dummy's turn to play on a trick.

Apart from this, the play is just like other trick-taking games - the player who took the previous trick leads to the next one (if the declarer took the trick in dummy, he has to play from dummy on the next trick, if he took the trick in his own hand, he has to play from his own hand). Whether there is a trump suit, and if so, which suit it is, has been decided during bidding.

During the play, each player must follow suit--that is, play the same suit as that led. If a player cannot follow suit (has no more cards of the suit led), he may discard a card of another suit, or, in a suit contract, play a trump. Trumping is optional. Failure to follow suit can result in penalties for a 'revoke.' The player who contributes the highest card from the lead suit wins, except that if any player plays a trump, the highest trump card wins.

Duplicate Bridge
Like all other card games, the score in bridge depends on one's cards. To diminish this effect, and increase the element of skill, in clubs and tournaments one's score is not looked at on its own, but compared to that of others who played the same deals. There are two major systems: Pairs and teams games.

With Pairs games, two person teams (pairs) compete. Depending on the rotation, the pairs may be grouped as 'North/South' and 'East/West' or may rotate between north/south and east/west seating. In each case, a team receives a point for each team they beat and half a point for each team they tie. At the end of the session, points are added and the team with the highest point total is the winning team. Only half the teams (or less) will play any particular hand (the other half will play the opposing hands in the four-hand deal).

With team games, four-person teams divide into pairs. A 'North/South' pair plays the 'East/West' pairs from the other team(s). The 'East/West' pair plays the 'North/South' pair of the opposing team(s). At the end of team play, teams compare their overall scores.

Scoring - Rubber Bridge
In friendly play, one generally plays rubber bridge. In rubber bridge, extra points are scored for winning a rubber, which means getting to a game (100 points) twice. There are two types of points: Points below the line and points above the line. Only points below the line count towards a game.

Score for making
If the declarer makes his contract, the number bid, multiplied by a suit-dependent multiplier, is scored below the line. Any overtricks, again multiplied by the suit-dependent multiplier, are scored above the line.

The multiplier is 20 for clubs and diamond (the minor suits), and 30 for hearts and spades (the major suits). For No Trump, the multiplier is also 30, but with an added 10 points below the line for the first trick (made) only.

Examples:

 * bid: 2 clubs, made 9 tricks: 40 (2×20) points below, 20 (1×20) above the line.
 * bid: 4 hearts, made 10 tricks: 120 (4×30) points below, 0 (0×30) above the line.
 * bid: 4 no trump, made 11 tricks: 130 (4×30+10) points below, 30 (1×30) above the line.

Game and rubber
If the score of a partnership below the line equals or exceeds 100 points (either at once or taken together with what already was below the line), the partnership is said to have scored a game, and all scores below the line are turned into scores above the line. Thus making game takes five tricks in a minor suit, four in a major suit, or three in No Trump (or some combination of partial scores).

The first partnership that wins two games wins the rubber. They score a 700 point bonus if they won in two games, or 500 points if their opponents also made a game.

Vulnerability and slam bonus
A partnership that has already made a game is called vulnerable, which is of importance for the slam bonus and for the downtricks.

If a player bids and makes a contract of 6 in something (i.e. wins all but one trick), he is said to have made a small slam. This gives a bonus (above the line) of 500 points when not vulnerable, and 750 points when vulnerable. If a player bids and makes a contract of 7 in something (thus scoring all the tricks), he is said to have made a grand slam. This gives a bonus of 1000 points when not vulnerable, and 1500 points when vulnerable.

Undertricks
If a pair fails to achieve their contract, they 'go down'. In such cases, their opponents score points above the line. If the pair is not vulnerable, their opponents get 50 points per undertrick, if it is vulnerable 100 points per undertrick.

Doubled
If a pair is doubled, and makes their contract, they get double points for all tricks bid (below the line), while overtricks score extra - 100 points per overtrick if not vulnerable, 200 points if vulnerable (above the line). Furthermore, the pair gets 50 points bonus (above the line) 'for the insult'. All these values are doubled again if the contract was redoubled. The slam bonuses are not influenced by a double, nor are the rubber bonuses - although the latter are of course influenced by the fact that there are more scores below the line, and thus games are reached faster.

If a pair is doubled and goes down, the penalty (points to the other pair) are as follows:
 * If the pair is not vulnerable, 100 for the first downtrick, 200 for the second and third, and 300 for each subsequent downtrick.
 * If the pair is vulnerable, 200 for the first downtrick, and 300 for each following one.

These scores are also doubled again if the contract was redoubled.

Footnote - Recent scoring changes
If you read old Bridge books, you may notice some differences in the scoring rules.

The undertrick penalty when doubled, not vulnerable, used to be 100 for the first undertrick and 200 for each subsequent. This was changed because it was too easy to sacrifice against a grand slam. A vulnerable grand slam is worth 1500 (slam bonus) + 500 (game bonus) + 210 (major suit trick score) = 2210. Down 11, doubled not vulnerable, used to be 2100, a profitable sacrifice.

Also, the "insult bonus" for making a redoubled contract used to be only 50. This was changed to 100, so that playing 5 of a minor, redoubled, making an overtrick, is always worth more than an undoubled small slam.

Scoring - Duplicate Bridge
In duplicate bridge, which is what is normally played in a club or tournament, each hand is scored by itself, and not as part of a rubber. This changes (and simplifies) the scoring as described above.

In duplicate bridge, if the required number of tricks for the contract has been made, the pair gets a number of points for the tricks bid and the overtricks as described above (20 per trick above the book of six tricks in clubs/diamonds, 30 per trick in hearts/spades, 30 per trick plus 10 bonus in No Trump, possibly doubled or redoubled). If the number actually bid is enough to score 100 points or more, a game has been made, which scores 300 when not vulnerable and 500 when vulnerable. If it is lower, the score is not carried over to the next hand, but there is a 'part score' bonus of 50 points.

The bonus for slam, the bonus 'for the insult' and the scores for downtricks and doubled overtricks are the same as described above.

In duplicate bridge, in every series of four deals, the vulnerabilities of 'all vulnerable', 'none vulnerable', 'vulnerable against not vulnerable' and 'not vulnerable against vulnerable' will all occur once, in a predetermined order.

 * Bidding boxes and bidding screens
 * Bidding box
 * Enlarge
 * Bidding box

In tournaments, "bidding boxes" are frequently used. A bidding box is a box of cards, each bearing the name of one of the legal calls in bridge. A player wishing to make a call displays the appropriate card from the box, rather than making a verbal declaration. This prevents unauthorized information from being conveyed via voice inflection. In top national and international events, "bidding screens" are used. These are diagonal screens which are placed across the table, preventing a player from seeing his partner during the game.

title: Bridge/How to Play


text:
Bridge/Bidding Techniques

Before resorting to any specific technique, it is recommended to decide on a bidding system that will be used by the partnership.

Bidding systems and conventions

A pair is allowed to try to pass information about their hands, but this is restricted in two ways:

 * Information may only be passed by the calls made and later by the cards played, and not by any other means.
 * All information passed must be available to the opponents. At a minimum, a player must fully explain a call or play made by her partner upon being asked by an opponent. In club and tournament play, additional disclosure mechanisms including partnership convention cards and the alert procedure usually must be used.

Thus, one may have all kinds of meanings for bids, as long as they are told to the opponents. However, the meanings that one can have for various bids are sometimes restricted at tournaments.

The meaning of the various bids in a partnership are called that partnership's bidding system. A number of different bidding systems exist, such as Goren, Acol, Standard American, and Precision Club. Many experts today use a system called Two Over One (2/1).

Bids, Doubles, Redoubles, and even Passes can be either natural or conventional.

A natural suit bid is one that implies some length in the suit bid. For example, an opening bid of one spade, showing at least 5 cards in spades (and nothing about any other suit lengths), would be natural.

A conventional suit bid provides information unrelated to the suit named. For example, an opening bid of one club, showing 16 or more points, but saying nothing about how many clubs are held, would be conventional.

A natural notrump bid is one that implies a balanced distribution of cards among all suits (no particularly long suit, although many experts will bid no trump with up to five cards in one suit as long as the bidder has no singletons or voids and at most one doubleton) and a certain number of points as agreed upon by the partnership.

A conventional notrump bid says none of these things. The most common examples of conventional notrump bids are the Unusual notrump (showing length in 2 unbid suits) and the Blackwood convention.

A natural double (also called penalty) is one that implies an intent to defend and defeat the current contract.

A conventional double is one that conveys some other meaning. The most common example of a conventional double is the Takeout double of a low-level bid, implying support for the unbid suits and asking partner to choose one of them.

There are many conventions. Some of the most famous are Stayman, Jacoby transfers and Blackwood.

/Hand Evaluation/
The decision as to how high and what suit to bid is fundamental to the game, but broadly it will depend on how highly one values one's hand. There are a number of techniques used for this. The most basic is the Milton Work point count. This can be augmented by other guidelines such as losing trick count, law of total tricks or Zar Points (http://public.aci.on.ca/~zpetkov/TheAnnotation.html).

Bidding Systems
Each bidding system can be either very detailed or very basic. Here are three common bidding systems. Until such time as you can find adequate description of these systems here, just search for the names. There are descriptions of these systems elsewhere on the web.

 * 1) Standard American (see also 2/1 variation)
 * 5 card majors, strong 1NT, min. 3 card minors, Stayman, Blackwood, take-out doubles
 * 1) Acol (popular in the UK)
 * 4 card majors
 * 1) Precision or Strong Club
 * 1st bid shows points, not suit. (1C=16-20pts; 1D=11-15pts)

On choosing and applying a bidding system.

If you look up Richard Pavlicek, you will see that the guy invented a bidding system No, actually he invented four bidding systems. On wait, he actually invented four flavors of one bidding system.

Suppose you and your partner decide the Richard Pavilcek's system is the best system in the world, and you want to play it. Which flavor should you choose?

Even if you do choose a flavor, you will run into several kind of mishaps:
 * 1) Forgetting the conventions you are actually playing.
 * 2) Bidding more or less according to the system, and bidding bad contracts (bad contracts are the ones that are below average in any competitive bridge hand)
 * 3) You think that you partner, or you opponent play more often than you.

These three problems will arise no matter what bidding system you and your partner choose, unless you understand bidding in a deeper way, and not just by rote learning.

In order to properly understand bidding you have to first understand, really fully understand the play of the hand, both on the defender and on the declarer side.

From now on, I shall assume that you do.

You take any bridge hand, and play it double dummy. You play it in several contracts: for example by NS, three notrump by EW/ After you play the hand several time you will realize, that playing double dummy, with competent play by declarer and defenders, some contracts can be made, and other cannot be.

Of all the NS contracts possible to make, one will get the NS partnership most points, let's suppose that this is 3H by north. The same goes for EW, let's suppose that their optimal contract is 3S. the proper result for this hand is by EW.

That means that any good bidding system should lead EW to, or a better result. Ho do we accomplish this? that takes some doing, but for now, just make sure you get yo the proper results, if you do not, ask yourself why not.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Bridge/Bidding Techniques


text:
Bridge/Playing Techniques

Techniques as declarer
Techniques in the play of the hand

Terence Reese, a prolific author of bridge books, points out that there are only four ways of taking a trick, and two of these are very easy

 * playing a high card that no one else can beat
 * trumping an opponent's card
 * establishing long cards (the last cards in a suit will take tricks if the opponents don't have the suit and are unable to trump)
 * playing for the opponents' high cards to be in a particular position (if their ace is in front of your king, your king may take a trick)

All trick-taking techniques in bridge can be reduced to one of these four methods.

The optimum play of the cards can require much thought and experience, and is too complicated to describe in a short article. However, some basic ideas of probability may be considered:

Some of the most important probabilities have to do with the position of high cards.

 * The probability that a given opponent holds one particular card, e.g. the king: 50%
 * The probability that a given opponent holds two particular cards, e.g. the king and the queen: approximately 25%
 * The probability that a given opponent holds at least one of two particular cards, e.g. the king or the queen: approximately 75%

When developing long cards, it is important to know the likelihood that the opponents' cards in the suit are evenly divided between them. Generally speaking, if they hold an even number of cards, they are unlikely to be exactly divided; if the opponents have an odd number in the suit, the cards will probably be divided as evenly as possible. For example, if declarer and dummy have eight trumps between them, the opponents' trumps are probably (68% chance) divided 3-2 (one opponent with three trumps, the other with two) and trumps can be drawn in three rounds. If declarer is trying to play with a seven card trump suit, it is more likely that the outstanding trumps are divided 4-2 (48%) than that the cards are evenly divided 3-3 between the opponents (36%).

Basic techniques by declarer
When new to the game, a player should be familiar with these strategies for playing the hand:

 * trumping
 * crossruff
 * establishing long suits
 * finesse
 * General suit management
 * holdup (mostly at NT contracts)
 * managing entries
 * when to draw trumps

Drawing trumps
When playing as declarer in a trump contract, you should hopefully have chosen a trump suit in which you have the majority of the trumps—ideally 8 or more trumps between your two hands. Even so, your opponents will have at least some trumps between them, and they can disrupt your contract by ruffing cards you were hoping to win. It's therefore often wise to lead trumps for a few rounds early in the hand. Since your opponents are forced to follow suit, you can exhaust them of trumps and play the rest of the hand safe from being ruffed. This is called drawing trumps.

Drawing trumps prevents you from losing otherwise winning cards that get ruffed by your opponents, but it also exhausts your own trumps, which means you can't use them for ruffing. The key question is to look at the length of the trump suits in your two hands: you can generally reckon to score one trick for each trump in the hand with the longer trump suit (minus any missing trump honors). However, if you draw trumps then the trumps in the hand with the shorter trump suit don't score, since they have to be used to follow the led suit. If instead you lead a card from one hand in which the other is void, you can use the short trump suit for ruffing, gaining extra tricks.

In general you will want to draw trumps as soon as you can, unless you can see a specific reason not to. Good reasons to delay drawing trumps are:

 * You need to score extra trump tricks by using the trumps in the hand with the shorter trump suit to ruff.
 * You need to use trumps to provide extra entries to one of the hands (usually dummy)
 * You need to discard losing cards quickly.

The finesse
If you have all the top cards in a suit, you can make them score however you play them (provided your opponents are unable to ruff). If you hold the Ace and Queen and your opponents have the King, it may seem like you can't make two tricks with them. However, if you lead correctly you can score with the queen 50% of the time.

Suppose you are declarer (South) and dummy (North) has. If you play the ace then the queen, the opponent holding the king will take the trick (unless the king is singleton). On the other hand, if you lead a low heart from your hand (South), then you may be able to win the queen. Suppose West holds the king. If West plays the king on your low heart, you play the ace and the queen is a guaranteed winner in the next round. If West doesn't play the king, you play the queen and win it. Of course, if the king lies with East then things won't work out so well. You'll play the queen and lose.

This is the basic concept of a finesse. Note that whether the finesse works depends entirely on which hand holds the missing card. Once you play for the finesse, there's nothing your opponents can do about it if West holds the king, and nothing you can do to win if East holds the king.

How do you know whether to play a finesse? Occasionally there will be a clue in the bidding (say East has already shown he has ace and king in another suit, but his bidding rules out him having 10 points or more). More often though, it's a straight 50% gamble.

Even if you can't tell whether a finesse is going to win you a trick, it often pays to consider how bad the situation will be if the finesse doesn't work out and you lose the lead. Often there is one defender that represents more of a threat than the other, perhaps because they have a suit with lots of winners that the other opponent is void in and can't lead. A finesse into the "safe" hand will lose at most a single trick, while a finesse into the "danger" hand might lose three or four.

The hold up
Suppose your opponents hold strength in a particular suit and you're worried that they can make enough tricks in that suit to defeat your contract. In such a situation, it's often to your advantage to deliberately lose one or two tricks in the suit before you play a winner. Hopefully this means that one defender will have no more cards in this suit, so if they get the lead later on they can't make any tricks: though their partner has winners, they can't lead to them.

Suppose spades are trumps, and you have the following hearts:

West leads the (top of a doubleton), East playing the Queen. You win with your Ace. If West regains the lead before you've drawn all the trumps (for example, by playing the ), West will be able to play the to East's King. East can then return the for West to ruff. Two heart tricks have been lost.

If instead of playing the Ace on the first round you duck, East will return a that you can win. It doesn't matter if West later gains the lead, since the third round of hearts can only be ruffed if it is led by East.

Advanced techniques by declarer
Someone who plays regularly in tournaments should be familiar with these concepts:

 * counting the hand (tracking the distribution of suits and high cards in the opponents' hands using inferences from the bidding and play)
 * coups and elimination
 * duck
 * dummy reversal
 * endplay
 * safety play
 * squeezes

Basic techniques by defenders

 * opening lead
 * when to lead trump
 * suit management
 * discarding

Advanced techniques by defenders

 * avoiding an endplay or squeeze
 * counting the hand (tracking the distribution of suits and high cards in the unseen hands using inferences from the bidding and play)
 * opening lead - using information from auction
 * signaling
 * uppercut

The best explanation for various bridge playing techniques, is to first explain a playing technique, as used by the declareer, and then explaining a defender technique used to thwart that particular declarer technique.

The most basic technique is using long suits.

Suppose you are playing 3NT and you are holding the following two hands:

Dummy:

Declarer:

West starts by cashing his heart and diamond aces. He now plays another heart, and you have to plan the play. You can immediately see two heart tricks, and two diamond tricks, no matter what you chose to discard on west's two aces (you probably discarded the two jacks, which is not always optimal, but that's deception, so we shall deal with it later, for this hand, it makes no difference.)

So, counting four tricks is good. you can also see another four in dummy, so that's almost the nine you need. Where are you going to get more tricks from?

Let's see. there are only thirteen spades, and you are holding eight of them. that means that you opponent are holding only five. Chances are they are divided 3-2 between the two of them. but you can make you contract even if they are divided 4-1, providing that you play carefully enough. you should cash all your hearts and diamonds from the declarer hnd, than cash the spade jack, which would hold the trick. You then play a small spade to the AKQxx left in dummy. You play the high cards first, and unless you are very unfortunate, the low spades will take tricks too. the opponents will have no spades left by that stage. Oh, don't forget to take the club ace too. You will end up with two overtricks.

title: Bridge/Playing Techniques


text:
Talk:C Programming/Program flow control

Mistakes
(e.g.: you reset the lesser of a and b to 0 after the comparison) should be greater

(when EITHER a or b is 1) should be not zero or true

CONCEPT USED BEFORE INTRODUCTION
==

The `enum` type is used in this chapter, but has not been introduced yet. (In the chapter on data types, only the `char`, `int`, `float`, `double`, `short`, `long`, and `unsigned` are introduced.)

"breaking outside of deeply nested loops can be done without the use of the goto statement." How can this be done without using goto? Did you mean changing the conditions in the outer loops to see if we've used a break in an inner loop?

No, it's simpler than that.

The 'continue' keyword can be used to jump to the top of the loop. The 'break' keyword will jump to the first executable statement after the loop. Both keywords can only modify the thread of control in the current loop, that is, a 'break' inside loop A, nested in another loop B will only move control to B, the outer loop.

A more obscure (opaque?) technique uses the setjump/longjump keyword pair, but setjump/longjump is normally way scary.

 * Yeah, so, you can't do it. Don't be so afraid of goto. Linux 2.6.11.11 uses it 29751 times in 4693521 lines of code. (the *.c files, not *.h files) That's 1 out of every 156 lines or 0.6338 percent, and I'm not excluding comments or blank lines. If I look only at lines containing a { or ; character, I find that 1 out of every 67 lines have a goto, which is 1.48 percent. The reason is error handling with proper clean-up, freeing memory allocations and releasing locks without massive overhead and/or unnessesary state variables. AlbertCahalan 23:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

goto
Here you can see the relative popularity of various control keywords in the Linux 2.6.11.11 kernel. Remember that this represents a large number of contributers producing a highly-regarded piece of software that people are betting their businesses on.

KEYWORD COUNT PERCENT do      2679  0.6728 switch 11314  2.8414 while  12358  3.1036 for    27180  6.8259 goto   29107  7.3099 else   35416  8.8943 if    280134 70.3522

Yes folks, the goto is second only to if and else. Your professor lied.

AlbertCahalan 04:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * As seen in the Linux kernel, goto is a rather popular mechanism for primitive exception handling. So much so that if state machines merit a mention then this should, too. Of course being that the main wikipedia has a NPOV policy, perhaps this wikibook should follow something similar, i.e. neutrality to what constitutes a good indent style, goto policy and so forth? 85.76.93.185 12:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

getchar
Edited the While section of this page because getchar reads the next character from stdin, not necessarily the next character from the keyboard. On most systems stdin is populated only when the Enter key is pressed, so multiple prompts appear (getchar gets called more than once for each input).

TRUE and FALSE
C does not define these. Because truth is not represented by any one single value, it is considered very bad style to define these. People sometimes do of course, leading to all sorts of horrid bugs. When I'm faced with fixing up C code that defines these, my immediate thought is that the code will be riddled with bugs because the author did not accept the C way of doing things. The C way might be gross by modern tastes, but you're far better off just learning to accept it. AlbertCahalan 23:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

interesting bit of code
I'm not sure how to write about this for a beginner, but some mention should be made:

// this example assumes a 32-bit size_t int main(int argc, char *argv[]){ long long t = (argc) ? -1 : sizeof argv; long long i;  if(argc) i = -1; else    i = sizeof argv; return printf("t:%llx i:%llx\n",t,i); }
 * 1) include

I get this:

t:ffffffff i:ffffffffffffffff

This has to do with type promotion. The tertiary operator version is definitely not an exact substitute for the if...else version.

Perhaps just say "mixing signed and unsigned can be bad, and remember that sizeof returns a size_t"?

AlbertCahalan 03:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

C programme to find the area of the Triangle: -

main (void) { float Base,Height,Area; printf("Base:"); scanf("%Base'\"); printf("Height:");
 * 1) include

Example at end of page
What is the example at the end of the page in aid of? It seems it should be demonstrating use of goto; or at least the topic of the chapter. However, I fail to see its relevance. I suggest it be deleted.

V-a-xvi (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

for loop image
Hi. I have found this image : File:C language for.png. Is it bad image ? ( increment should be done also after last check of condition ) Am I right ? Regards --Adam majewski (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:C Programming/Program flow control


text:
Talk:Poker

I suppose I should have included this site in my due diligence for setting up PokerWiki. What is the consensus for the appopriate scope of PokerWiki versus Wikibooks:Poker? While I'm hoping PW grows into more than a manual for playing -- and indeed, the earliest traffic has been heaviest in our Casinos section, documenting what games are available where -- I also realize there's some potential for overlap, and I wouldn't want to duplicate efforts. Thoughts, anyone?

Cheers, PhilipR - 63.81.205.21 18:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Apparently no one else is bothered by duplication so I guess I won't worry about it. - PhilipR.   71.192.214.166 22:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the goals of the two projects are somewhat different. Plus, some people might feel that they'd rather work with the Wikimedia Foundation.  -- bkuhn 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Contributors to this book may be interested in making Transwiki:Four Corners Solitaire into a book (or part of one). – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 03:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of poker variants?
At the moment this book seems to be a combination of a strategy guide with a compendium of different (and often extremely rare) variants of poker. This feels to me like two books, or perhaps one book with the description of rare variants belonging in another wiki. Does anyone else have a view on this? Personally, I think a strategy guide to poker where variants are documented only to illuminate discussions within the text seems like a coherent book. --Fishpi (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Poker


text:
Body Hair Removal

This book gives a beginner's introduction to shaving and trimming body hair, as well as tips and tricks for advanced shavers.

Table of Contents
Ihokarvojen ajaminen

title: Body Hair Removal


text:
Talk:Body Hair Removal

The claim that talc has been linked to cancer requires a citation.

usage
We should have a fool proof detailed usage chapter for each tool and a detailed shaving description for each part of the body. Separate (sub)chapters for non-unisex parts. Pick your favourite and write.

Name of the book
It was suggested on the talk page of the Finnish version that the books should be moved under name "Removal of bodyhair" or alike, because e.g. waxing is not shaving. I don't know, if this is the case for the English words. Give your comments on this anyway. --Easyas12c 10:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree the precise definition of shaving is the removal of hair by use of a razor as opposed to waxing or laser or plucking. Depilation refers to the removal of hair and would include all forms of hair removal.  --Psychofarm 23:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good ideas here. Perhaps the name of the book could also be something like Hairless skin how-to – to avoid using unfamiliar words and on the other hand long dull names. Dilaudid 10:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Usage of shaving cream
According to an article I read once, using shaving cream in the genitial area causes it's PH value to be disturbed. This is because the PH in this area differs to the rest of the body. You also shouldn't wash this area with soap. I don't know what you should use to shave there though. I use a lot of water.

Chemical Removal?
Should there be a section discussing Creams] and other forms of chemical hair removal?129.64.200.43 18:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I think the scope of the book should definitely be extended to cover all forms of depilation – from temporary to permanent. Dilaudid 10:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Organization
It seems to me that the subsections could do with more "superheadings": for example, all the different types of razors could be grouped together under "Razors". Dropping the heading level of all the razors, though, seems unacceptable. Perhaps someone more Wikibooks (or just plain Wiki) experienced than I could consider popping the section headings out to their own pages as chapters, and creating appropriate sections (Razors, Lather-producers, Other for Equipment, for example)? Jay W. 10:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

transwiki
You may be able to use Transwiki:About hair growth and silkyness. – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 00:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the Book or Expanding its Scope
I see merits in either splitting off the non-shaving material or changing the title. "Removal of Body Hair" does not work for me; I think most American speakers of English would not consider facial hair to be body hair. "Hair Removal" works better, IMO, and shaving is a kind of hair removal, but I am not sure that shaving would immediately come to my mind if I saw that title.

If the scope is expanded to include epilation, etc., should it also include haircutting (with the title "Hair Removal and Trimming"? That seems like a logical part of the broader topic, but it differs from the rest in that there is no direct contact between the cutting agent and the skin, hair follicles, etc. Peter Chastain (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Body Hair Removal


text:
Radiation Oncology/Epidemiology/Most commons

 * See also: Epidemiology in USA and Worldwide epidemiology

By demographic

 * Men age 15-35: most common is testicular

Gynecologic

 * Most common gynecologic malignancy: 1) endometrial (46%), 2) ovarian, 3) cervical (16%)
 * Endometrial makes up only 6.3% of malignancies in women.

 * Deaths: Endometrial, 6500/yr (24%)
 * In 1930s, cervical was the most common cause of cancer death in women.

Gastrointestinal

 * 6% - Esophagus - 14,550 cases, 13,770 deaths (in 2006)
 * ?% - Gastric - 21,700 cases, 12,800 deaths (in 2001).
 * 1 - 4% - Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
 * 0.1 - 3% - GIST

Pediatric cancers
12,000 cases/yr
 * 6th most common (under age 15) - osteosarcoma - 400/yr

 * Bone tumors: 1st - osteosarcoma, 2nd - Ewing's
 * Most common extracranial solid malignancy - Neuroblastoma
 * Most common malignancy of infants - Neuroblastoma

 * 4% (of pediatric malignancies) - Rhabdomyosarcoma


text:
User talk:81.176.116.242

Please do not add link spam to Wikibooks. It is considered to be vandalism (yes, even in the sandbox), and will not be tolerated. If you continue, then you risk being blocked from contributing. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 04:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:81.176.116.242


text:
Basic Computer Security/Malware/Viruses

=Chapter 1: Combating Viruses= In this chapter you will get a good understanding about computer viruses including what they are, how they are written, what do they do, and how to fight back.

What is a computer virus?
A computer virus is a program which mutates/infects other trusted programs. Usually, this is done to ensure the virus is run when the trusted program is run, and it is one of the earliest ways viruses hid themselves. A computer virus usually consists of 2 main modules: an infector, and a payload. For a program to be considered a virus, only the first module need be present. The payload can be null; even then the program would be considered a virus. This, in effect, means a program may be doing no harm, but the fact that it is attaching itself to trusted programs makes it a virus. Just as with a biological virus, the ability to replicate itself is the most important aspect of the survival of a computer virus. As such, most computer viruses today have a payload module that, at the very least, tries to spread itself.

Say there's a program which deletes all the files when run, the simple action you would take to get rid of it is do a search and delete all copies of it from your disk.

But a real computer virus works a little differently, it has got first the "Spread" stage, in which it infects other trusted programs by adding copies of its Replication module (so that these in turn can affect others) and Payload module. During this time, Payload module will not do anything but stay silent. Only when this "spread" stage is over by meeting "Virii Coders" criteria, like "Have we infected 10,000 files?", if yes, then its showtime. So when it's in showtime stage, it would have already infected all your favorite programs like Notepad, media player etc. Well, you know when a person is bitten by Dracula you see teeth marks on his/her neck, but there's no such easy identification way here. One needs to study the virus to come with such identification mechanisms known as Virus' Digital Signature, which is nothing but a byte patter that helps Anti-Virus programs identify it.

By the way, existence of FIRST virus program was demonstrated by Fred Cohen in 1983.

How is a computer virus written?
So for all of you who think that a program which deletes all the files when run is a VIRUS, think again. Here's a tiny-winy C program which can delete all the files on a computer, and I repeat: this program cannot be considered a VIRUS. Compile it and when you get the .exe extension, scan it many times with any of the Anti-Virus programs you have, be it Norton, McAfee or any other, they just won't report it as a VIRUS. Do you know why? Because it's not a virus, that's why.

//Source code for program which deletes all the files when run and is not a virus, but a Trojan. int main { system("del *.*"); return 0 ;} //Source code ends Writing a real virus takes effort 100 times more than that. One needs to understand the machine and a lot about the targeted Operating System. So will you ever be able to write a virus or understand its working to save the universe? The answer is YES, if you spend at least 12+ hours a day on computer doing some hardcore programming and reading about your machine, like Intel manuals, etc.
 * 1) include
 * 2) include

You might on the other hand find some virus source code floating around somewhere, but you will never be able to understand it or innovate upon it until the answer to above question is YES.

What is an anti-Virus?
An anti-virus is a program specifically written to examine all the programs installed on your computer looking for the known malicious programs (viruses). The anti-virus software is no longer effective after approximately 30 days unless you download the updates, therefore the new updates tell the program about newly found viruses since the last update.

Do I need an anti-virus?
This largely depends on your operating system. If you are running Windows, then it's probably not a bad idea. That said, it is possible to stay safe without installing anti-virus software if you are careful (this means not going to porn sites, avoiding illegal downloads, etc. etc.) about your online activities.

If you're using a Unix or Unix-like OS (such as Linux, BSD, Solaris, Mac OS X, and so fourth) then viruses are not a substantial threat to you. Malware does exist on these platforms, and has done for quite some time, however due to the design of these operating systems, as well as the culture of their user bases, malware does not pose a threat to users of these systems. You'll be fine just so long as you don't do anything foolish whilst logged in as root.

Where can I get an anti-virus program, and how much will it cost me?
There are many options out there for users looking for Anti-Virus programs, both paid and free services. Some of the major brands for Anti-Virus are McAfee, Norton/Symantec, and Kaspersky; several companies offer security suites, such as Zone Alarm, McAfee, and Norton, which offer Antivirus, Firewall, and Anti-Spyware programs in a single bundle. Many of these products have free trials available, but will require you to subscribe to their update service. Free (for personal users) products exist, like AVG Free edition and Avast! Home; there is also the open source ClamAV. There is a port of ClamAV on Windows known as ClamWin. Microsoft Windows users can also use web-based free security scan services, like the one available at safety.live.com.

What are signature files? Is it important to update my software?
It is very important to update anti-virus software. Every day, new viruses are released, putting your computer at risk. As a result, it is very important to update your product. The most important aspect of updating your anti-virus software is updating signature files. Every virus contains a unique signature, a string generated based on the contents of its files (after all, a virus is just a program on your computer). When scanning, an anti-virus program will check the signatures of scanned files to see if they match any of the virus signatures. Signature files are provided by the anti-virus companies.

title: Basic Computer Security/Malware/Viruses


text:
User:Hans-AC~enwikibooks

Hello :-)
Welcome to my user page! - I appreciate any entry to my user talk page.

Die deutsche Version dieser Seite findest du hier. · The German version of this page can be found here.

--Hans

Babel
English templates: de · en-3 · fr-1 · it-1 · nl-1 · sv-1

title: User:Hans-AC~enwikibooks


text: Template:User de

title: Template:User de


text:
PHP Programming/Daemonization

A daemon is an application that runs in the background, as opposed to being directly operated by the user. Examples of daemons are Cron and MySQL.

Daemonizing a process with PHP is very easy, and requires PHP 4.1 or higher compiled with --enable-pcntl.

Building a Daemon
We'll start with set_time_limit(0) to let our script run indefinitely. Next, we fork the PHP process with pcntl_fork. Finally, we use posix_setsid to tell the child process to run in the background as a session leader.

The code inside the while statement will run in the background until exit or die is explicitly called.

Applications
While daemonizing a script can be useful, it is not appropiate for every script. If a script only needs to be executed at a certain time, it can take advantage of Cron for scheduled execution.

title: PHP Programming/Daemonization


text:
Wikijunior talk:Solar System/Comets

References for Comets
Plese list below any reference works used to create the content of this wikibook module for comets:

 * comet
 * Comet (1985); Sagan, Carl and Druyan, Ann; ISBN 0-394-54908-2; Random House, Inc.

Umm....
Well, sorry to break up the process a bit but a few of these articles just simply needed to be re-written. I have done that and am in the process of placeing them. Please understand that the articles where neither 1) Age-apropriate or 2) Well written (i.e. not consice, clear, well flowing)

But a lot of the original writing is intact

Please understand that this article was still under construction when it was nominated for proofreading and was not ready for this step. This has been fixed and the organization is complete. Thank You!!

-Basejumper123 20:40 (UTC) October 31, 2005

I think you have done this in precisely the right order. You did the reorganization and rewriting and the reorganization phase and are now working on fact-checking. I think the article had reached the point when I nominated it for proofreading where it did not need any more material added. It did need reorganization after several hands had touched it. I think you are making good progress, though certain portions are still a little awkward. And, of course, the language will have to be brought down to grade level. It will probably get more concise in that step, as well, because redundancy causes run-on sentences and higher grade-level scores (and lower readability scores).

As for the fact-checking, please follow the fact-checking guidelines referenced in the proofreading plan and put in citations for each fact you check. This will make it easier for everyone who needs to review the work later, when we finally gather the whole thing up and print it.

As always, if you have suggestions for ways to improve the whole proofreading process, please make them.

Thanks

--SV Resolution 00:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

References and Sources
Great Comet Resource: Solar Views.com

Good Info Here, but slightly advanced Comet Quarterly Website

As always, great info from wikipedia! Wikipedia Comet Article

On a comet's structure Encyclopedia.com

On a comet's origin Encyclopedia.com

Good Kid's Refrence Starchild.com

Good Comet Descriptions

Acctually A Comet site for kids! Comets And Meteor Showers

For Kids Beginner's Comet Info

-Basejumper123 2:20 (UTC) November 1, 2005

Having started some copyediting...
Hello. Having come to take up Basejumper123's plea for help, I've begun some copyediting, but, as the comments I've hidden in the text indicate, I'm wondering whether some concepts such as orbits and gravity need to be cross-referenced and/or mentioned. Please advise.

Thanks, David Kernow 06:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

SOHO and the number of comets
I think this section is very misleading and gets the wrong point across. SOHO wasn't even designed to explore and identify comets, but instead was strictly for solar observations. That some comets were seen with this instrument is more a side effect that has its own group of hobbyists that monitor image updates from this probe with almost religious fervor.

There are only 160 comets that have been identified to have a regular orbit around the sun. The original wording of this paragraph makes this clear, but the attempt to simplify this paragraph has butchered the meaning so far that the meaning has changed significantly. There are thousands, perhaps millions of comets going around the sun. SOHO has detected over 1000, most of which either burned up by crashing into the sun or went on a hyperbolic orbit that caused them to leave the solar system entirely. Those that orbit with a regular pattern are a part of the 160 mentioned earlier, not the 1000 that were seemingly identified by SOHO.

I've stayed out of this edit cycle because I feel that other similar manglings of the meanings of these sections have occured. This is just close to an extreme. I'm also having a tough time trying to simplify the wording I've used earlier, so I'm leaving that to others who want to do this work. I know it isn't easy, and I'm also willing to "wait and see" what the results will be. I am curious as well why the close-up of Hailey's Comet was removed from this module, although that is easy to add back in. --Rob Horning 16:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Seeing Comets In The Sky
I changed this section as well. Some background material:

The last "Great Comet" was actually "The Great January Comet", which appear about the same time that Hailey's Comet also appeared in the sky. Because of the news media attention on Hailey's Comet, many people alive at that time thought they were seeing Hailey's Comet instead, including many people in the popular news media (they havn't changed much, have they?) The most recent return of Hailey's Comet in 1986 was so disappointing in terms of what you could see from the Earth that most people weren't even aware that it came by. Unless you were born a few years before 1911, you have never seen a Great Comet before except in photographs or paintings.

Edmund Hailey and even Kepler had the good fortunes of being around when several major Great Comets appeared in the sky, and formed the basis for some of the current scientific theories about the motion of the planets. The story about how Hailey disovered that the comet named after him was a recurring comet is even more interesting.

The issue of the roughly one Great Comet every hundred years has nothing to do with orbits (except for Hailey's Comet that has a period of 76 years... it is getting dimmer however with every pass near the Sun and is no longer considered a Great Comet by this standard.) There are thousands of chunks of ice (the core of a Comet) that are falling toward the Sun all of the time, and using a statistical average about one of these every century gets close enough to the sun to become a spectacular comet. The Great January Comet was visible on Times Square in New York City, so stictly speaking you don't need a telescope to see one of these.

The 20th Century was pretty much devoid of Great Comets, and there are no current candidates for any future ones at the moment either. In 1974 it was thought that Comet Kohoutek might become a Great Comet due to its very large orbit (period of about 13,000 years) and the fact that during the initial observations it appeared to be much brighter than other similar objects at the same distance. As it came close to the Sun, however, it turned out to be a disappointment and was only visible through telescopes. Its peak as a comet also happened when it was on the opposite side of the Sun from the Earth, so it was very difficult to see as well because of how close to the sun it was visually. This is not considered a Great Comet either, although it is an interesting one and does count as one of the 160 regular period comets that have been named and discovered.

On Great Comets, usually you can see both tails, dust and gas. In fact, there have been some comets with even more than two tails. One comet that Chinese astronomers recorded is thought to have four tails and the tails were visually shaped like a swastika in the sky. It is thought this may have been the orgin of this symbol as well. A good thing that didn't happen during the middle of WWII.

I need to go back to the public library where I got the book, but Carl Sagan's book titled "Comets" is an excellent reference book about this topic. The ISBN number is listed at the top of this discussion page. All of this information is explained in that book in much more detail. --Rob Horning 04:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Back!
Hi there, im back from a rather tough couple months at school and im ready to finish this section off! -Basejumper123 3 Feburary, 2006

Finished
This Page is more or less clean as of 10 may, 2006 I just performed a final spelling and grammar check and it appears to be done, if you edit this page further, please spell-check your own work before submitting, thank you Basejumper123 22:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

title: Wikijunior talk:Solar System/Comets


text:
Talk:FHSST Physics/Units/Introduction

moles
clarkfreifeld: In the table of base units, I changed "amount of substance" to "countable amount of substance" for the definition of the mole, so as to distinguish from mass, which, to me would be more aptly defined as "amount of substance." I don't know if that's now more confusing and just getting ahead of the game.

 * I actually think it adds too much detail. When discussing moles in the context of using them, I would suggest going into depth, making sure student's know that a mole is just a number (~6.022e23), just like a dozen (12) or a score (20) or a ream (500) is a number. A mole makes sense when counting 10^23 atoms. I think "countable amount" only confuses things for students who don't yet know what a mole is.

 * On the other hand, mass is not an amount of substance. It is defined by two equations: Inertia (F=ma) and Gravity (F=m1*m2/G/r2). (As an aside, the fact that these two definitions of mass are equivalent to the precision people have been able to measure is actually quite astonishing, and the subject of ongoing research.) The fact that mass is often used to measure the amount of a substance is just an application of the nearly constant acceleration due to gravity on Earth's surface.

 * Thus, both grams and moles measure quantities that necessitate detailed discussion to understand completely. This is the first page of the first chapter of a student's first real physics class! I suggest leaving the definitions vague, and let student's inquiry guide them to the answers they are interested in for now. Otherwise, bring up detailed discussion of grams and moles when appropriate in the context of the text.
 * Zolot 17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Units" versus "Measurements and Units"
I'd like to suggest a change to the general theme of this chapter. It currently does a good job teaching about units in an abstract sense. However, I feel it is also important to emphasize that all of science, and particularly the use of "units", is based on measurement. I am new to this wiki, so I have not started editing this existing text. My inclination is to go so far as to change the chapter title to "measurement and uhits." This change in emphasis would also facilitate adding more pictures to chapter (as suggested on the PGCE comments page) and encorporating laboratory into the class. In the U.S., where I live, it is easy to emphasize the need for measurement and emphasis of units in a very accessible way -- by focusing on length measurements. Have students measure their own heights in feet/inches and meters. Drive home the point that physics is not just a class full of mathematics -- word problems. It has to do with things you can touch and feel AND MEASURE. The math is only there to make the measurements meaningful and express the real world in the powerful language of numbers and relationships.

Awaiting feedback from the current contributors before I begin making changes to the existing curriculum. Zolot (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:FHSST Physics/Units/Introduction


text:
Real Analysis/Power Series

Please contribute to this section, it has been neglected. I have made a start, but it is not finished.

Definition
We have already encountered series. A power series is a series of the form

$$f(x)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n x^n$$ where $$a_n \in \mathbb{R} \ \forall n\in \mathbb{N}$$.

$$f$$ can also be seen as a real valued function. One of the first questions we will attempt to answer in this section is for which values of $$x$$ is $$f$$ is convergent.

Convergence
We can use the root test here. We can see that

$$\limsup_{n\to\infty} {\left\vert a_n x^n \right\vert}^{1/n} = \vert x \vert \limsup_{n\to\infty} {\left\vert a_n \right\vert}^{1/n}=\vert x \vert R$$

from before, so we see that there is a radius $$r = 1/R$$ such that $$f$$ converges for $$\vert x \vert < r$$ and diverges for $$\vert x \vert > r$$. This radius has a special significance in Complex analysis, but we will not be concerned with that here.

Differentiability
We can see by the root test that if $$\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n x^n$$ is convergent, then $$\sum_{n=0}^\infty (n+1)a_{n+1} x^n$$ is convergent, as $$\limsup_{n\to\infty} \vert (n+1)a_{n+1} \vert^{1/n}= \limsup_{n\to\infty} \vert a_{n} \vert^{1/n}$$, since $$\lim_{n\to\infty} (n+1)^{1/n}=1$$, so this power series has the same radius of convergence as the original power series. Intuitively, we would guess that this was the derivative of it, but that requires proof. We look at the newton quotient:

$$f^{\prime} (x) = \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n (x+h)^n - \sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n x^n}{h}$$

$$f^{\prime} (x) = \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n (x+h)^n - a_n x^n}{h}$$

$$f^{\prime} (x) = \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n (x^n + nhx^{n-1} +o(h^2) - x^n)}{h}$$

$$f^{\prime} (x) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty na_n x^n-1 = \sum_{n=0}^\infty (n+1)a_{n+1} x^n$$

Taylor Series
One use of power series is to approximate functions. We can see that $$f(0)=a_0$$, so if a power series $$f$$ is a good approximation for $$g$$, then $$a_0 = g(0)$$.

We can also see from that we need $$1.f^\prime (0)=a_1$$, and that $$2.f^{\prime\prime} (0)=a_2$$, and by induction that $$n!.f^{(n)} (0)=a_n$$, so we define the Taylor series of $$f$$ as

$$\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{f^{(n)}(0)}{n!} x^n$$

By translation, we can also approximate $$f$$ by

$$\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{f^{(n)}(t)}{n!} (x-t)^n$$

To do this, we of course require that $$f$$ is differentiable an infinite number of times at o or t.

title: Real Analysis/Power Series


text:
User:René

rené here.

de:User:René

title: User:René


text:
User:Starfish77

h

title: User:Starfish77


text:
Poker/Five card stud

Rules

 * There can be a maximum of 10 players in a hand of five card stud.
 * Each player is dealt one card face down (the hole card) and one card face up (an open card.) The two players to the dealer's left act as big blind and small blind, respectively. The big blind must place an ante equal to one betting division, while the small blind must place an ante equal to one-half of one betting division. Thus, in a $5/$10 game, the big blind must ante $5, and the small blind must ante $2.50.
 * In a game involving a bring-in bet, the player with the smallest initial open card (determined in descending order from Ace to Deuce, with the suits descending Spades, Hearts, Diamonds, Clubs) must place a bet equal to the big blind, in order to sweeten the pot.
 * Once the antes have been placed, betting continues in a similar fashion to other poker games. The player to the left of the big blind acts first. Each player has three options: he or she may fold his hand, forfeiting any stakes they have placed in the pot and their chance to win the hand; call the previous bet, matching the largest single bet placed in the pot thus far; or they may raise the previous bet, exceeding the largest bet by one betting division.
 * Betting Example: Five players, Alex, Ben, Chris, Donna, and Ellen sit clockwise around a table playing $5/$10 five card stud. Alex is the dealer, Ben is the big blind, and Chris is the small blind. (For the sake of our example, there is no bring-in bet.) Donna may fold her hand, call the big blind by placing $5 in the pot, or raise the pot by placing $10 in the pot. If Donna raises, Ellen must place $10 in the pot to call or $15 to raise. If Ellen also raises, Alex must place $15 in the pot to call, or $20 to raise. In limit games, each betting round is capped at 4 times the betting division for that round. Thus, in this first round, the maximum raise is $20.
 * Once betting for the first round has ended, with all players either calling or folding, a second open card is dealt, and a new betting round begins.
 * Again, when betting for the second round has ended, a third open card is dealt. In the third betting round, the opening bet is doubled - in our $5/$10 game, a player must place $10 in the pot initially, and all raises will be in increments of $10 (with $40 being the maximum raise.)
 * Finally, the fourth open card is dealt, and the hands are complete. A fourth betting round occurs (again with a doubled opening bet), and finally the hands are revealed, with the best hand taking the pot.

title: Poker/Five card stud


text: Template:User it-1

title: Template:User it-1


text:
User talk:Hans-AC~enwikibooks

Hello :-)
Welcome to my talk page. I really appreciate any entry.

Feel free to use my other talk pages, too. · Du kannst gern auch meine anderen Diskussionsseiten nutzen: de · en · it · nl · commons

--Hans

Please insert new entries here at the top and put a ==Caption== to it:

Help with German Wikibook
Hello I was wondering if you like to help with the development of the German Wikibook, it need much help and more activity, and since you area native German speaker, from Germany, would you like to help?

--German Men92 17:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Hans-AC. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Hans-AC~enwikibooks that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hans-AC~enwikibooks


text:
Radiation Oncology/Prostate/RTOG Prostate

 * RTOG Website
 * List of RTOG trials


text:
Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/0321

RTOG 03-21 (PROSTATE)
 * Title: Phase II Trial of Combined High Dose Rate Brachytherapy and External Beam Radiotherapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate
 * Objective: To estimate the rate of late Grade 3 or greater genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity following treatment with external beam radiation therapy and high dose rate brachytherapy
 * Protocol: 45 Gy EBRT (no IMRT) + 19 Gy (2 fractions) HDR boost
 * Eligibility:
 * (cT1c-T2c and GS 2-6 and PSA 10-20) or
 * (cT3a-T3b and GS 2-6 and PSA <=20) or
 * (T1c-T3b and GS 7-10 and PSA <=20)
 * N0M0
 * Enrollment Target: 110 patients
 * Activation: July 30, 2004

title: Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/0321


text:
Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/0232

RTOG 02-32 (PROSTATE)
 * Title: A Phase III Study Comparing Combined External Beam Radiation and Transperineal Interstitial Permanent Brachytherapy With Brachytherapy Alone for Selected Patients with Intermediate Risk Prostatic Carcinoma
 * Objective: To evaluate the benefit in terms of overall survival of external beam radiation in addition to interstitial brachytherapy versus interstitial brachytherapy alone among selected patients with intermediate risk prostatic carcinoma.
 * Protocol:
 * Arm 1: 45 Gy EBRT + 2 weeks later Pd-103 (100 Gy) or I-125 (110 Gy)
 * Arm 2: Pd-103 (100 Gy) OR I-125 (110 Gy)
 * Eligibility:
 * cT1c-T2b
 * (GS 7 and PSA <10) or (GS <7 and PSA 10-20)
 * N0M0
 * TRUS volume <60cc
 * Enrollment Target: 1520 patients
 * Activation: June 11, 2003
 * Additional Information:
 * Meeting Minutes January 2005 - "Dr. Brad Prestidge updated the group on RTOG 0232. This randomized trial has had slow accrual to date. The projected monthly accrual was 25.3 cases per month and the average monthly accrual for the past six months was 6.8 cases per month. We discussed the possibility the credentialing process is an obstacle to registering patients on a trial. It was pointed out the number of institutions credentialed exceeds 50 and the RPC and ITC were working on methods to reduce the burden of the credentialing process. In addition, two more treatment-planning systems are now able to allow institutions to participate in a clinical trial (Rosses and RTek). There was a brief discussion about hormone therapy being allowed on the protocol and as it stands up to two months of hormone therapy is allowed prior to registration. Patients may receive six months of hormone therapy. Finally, it was agreed IMRT be allowed on this trial. For the purpose of this study central Quality Assurance of the IMRT is not allowed. Institutions have the option of either being credentialed using IMRT for any of the RTOG studies using the RPC Phantom or using the QARC Benchmark tool."
 * Meeting Minutes June 2004 - "Dr. Prestige announced accrual remains slow on RTOG 0232 – the randomized study for brachytherapy plus external beam radiation therapy versus brachytherapy alone for early stage prostate cancer. He encouraged institutions to get credentialed for electronic data submission of permanent brachytherapy treatment plans. Dr. Michalski pointed out there was some interest from institutions in the UK to participate."
 * Publications:
 * No Abstract - Urinary and rectal complications of contemporary permanent transperineal brachytherapy for prostate carcinoma with or without external beam radiation therapy (Prestidge BR, Cancer 2005)
 * ASTRO 2016:
 * ASTRO 2016 plenary PFS rate at five years post-treatment was 85 percent for EBT+B patients and 86 percent for B patients (Hazard Ratio, HR, 1.02; futility p = 0.0006). Overall toxicity levels were similar across groups only for acute side effects (i.e., those that occur closely following treatment), with eight percent of patients in each cohort reporting acute grade 3+ side effects. Late severe toxicities were more common for EBT+B patients (12 percent) than for B patients (7 percent), as were severe GU side effects GU (7 vs. 3 percent) and severe GI toxicities (3 vs. 2 percent).
 * Conclusion: Among men with intermediate risk (IR) prostate cancer, the addition of external beam therapy to brachytherapy did not result in superior freedom from progression compared to brachytherapy alone at 5 years in this initial report.
 * Implications for clinical practice: Men with intermediate risk prostate cancer may be well managed with brachytherapy alone.

title: Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/0232


text:
Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/0215

RTOG 02-15 (PROSTATE)
 * Title: Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction In Patients Treated With Neoadjuvant Androgen Suppression and Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Impact on Patient and Partner Quality of Life
 * Objectives:
 * (1) To determine if there is a difference in erectile function between men treated with sildenafil versus placebo after radiation therapy + antiandrogens for prostate cancer
 * (2) To determine if there is a difference in overall sexual function and satisfaction between men treated with sildenafil versus placebo after radiation therapy + antiandrogens for prostate cancer
 * (3) To determine if there is a difference in partner sexual satisfaction between the sildenafil versus placebo arms of this study
 * (4) To determine if there is a difference in patient and partner marital adjustment between the sildenafil versus placebo arms of this study
 * (5)To assess factors that may predict response to sildenafil therapy (for example: age, pretreatment sexual function, tobacco use, and comorbidities)
 * Protocol:
 * Arm 1: Sildenafil with dose escalation PRN from 50 to 100 mg/day PRN x 12 weeks --> CROSSOVER @ 13 weeks --> Placebo with similar “dose escalation” opportunity x 12 weeks
 * Arm 2: Placebo with similar “dose escalation” opportunity x 12 weeks --> CROSSOVER @ 13 weeks --> Sildenafil with dose escalation PRN from 50 to 100 mg/day PRN x 12 weeks
 * Eligibility: cT1-T4, M0
 * Enrollment Target: 332 patients
 * Activation: January 3, 2003
 * Conclusion:
 * PMID 21235716 -- Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled crossover trial of treating erectile dysfunction with sildenafil after radiotherapy and short-term androgen deprivation therapy: results of RTOG 0215. (Watkins Bruner D, J Sex Med. 2011). Conclusion: This is the first controlled trial to suggest a positive sildenafil response for ED treatment in patients previously treated with RT/ADT, however, only a minority of patients responded to treatment. ADT duration may be associated with response and requires further study. The overall low response rate suggests the need for study of additional or preventative strategies for ED after RT/ADT for prostate cancer.
 * Publications:
 * PMID 22354624 -- Impact of sildenafil on marital and sexual adjustment in patients and their wives after radiotherapy and short-term androgen suppression for prostate cancer: analysis of RTOG 0215. (Hanisch LJ, Support Care Cancer. 2012) Conclusion: Larger studies are warranted to further examine possible differences in sexual experiences and treatment needs between prostate cancer patients and their wives, as well as to assess predictors of sildenafil response.

title: Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/0215


text:
Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/0126

RTOG 01-26 (PROSTATE)
 * Title: A Phase III Randomized Study of High Dose 3D-CRT/IMRT vs. Standard Dose 3D-CRT/IMRT in Patients Treated for Localized Prostate Cancer
 * Objective: Determine whether 3D-CRT/IMRT to 79.2 Gy in 44 fractions will lead to improved overall survival in patients treated for prostate cancer compared to a group of patients treated with 3D-CRT/ IMRT to 70.2 Gy in 39 fractions.
 * Protocol:
 * Arm 1: 3D-CRT or IMRT: 70.2 Gy in 39 fractions
 * Arm 2: 3D-CRT or IMRT: 79.2 Gy in 44 fractions
 * Eligibility:
 * cT1b-T2b,
 * (GS 2-6 and PSA 10-20) or (GS 7 and PSA <15)
 * N0M0
 * Enrollment Target: 1520 patients
 * Activation: March 21, 2002
 * Closed: Aug 20, 2008
 * Additional Information:
 * Meeting Minutes January 2005 - "Dr. Michalski updated the group regarding RTOG 0126. Accrual for this study has improved over the past six months."
 * Meeting Minutes June 2004 - "The randomized prostate cancer trial (RTOG 0126) had the IMRT amendment approved by the NCI last fall. Accrual has improved this past meeting cycle."
 * Meeting Minutes January 2004 - "The randomized prostate cancer trial (RTOG 0126) had the IMRT amendment approved by the NCI last fall. Accrual to the study has slowed while institutions submit the amendment to their IRB’s and complete credentialing requirements for IMRT. It is expected that accrual to this study will pick up once the regulatory requirements have been completed at the participating institutions and once RTOG 9910 closed to accrual."
 * Meeting Minutes June 2003 - "Dr. Michalski reported that RTOG 0126, the randomized trial of high dose versus standard dose conformal radiation therapy for intermediate prostate cancer would soon allow IMRT. The decision was made to drop the need for two separate target volumes for patients receiving IMRT. Instead, a single target volume that encompasses the proximal seminal vesicles will be used. For patients treated with forward planned 3DCRT, an optional volume reduction after 55.8 Gy will be allowed. The prescription point was changed to a minimum dose to the PTV, rather than an ICRU reference dose."

title: Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/0126


text:
Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/9608

RTOG 96-08 (PROSTATE)
 * Title: A Phase III Trial of Total Androgen Suppression vs. Total Androgen Suppression Plus Definitive External Beam Irradiation for Pathologic Lymph Node Positive (pN+) Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate
 * Objectives:
 * (1) To test the results of the addition of pelvic radiation therapy to TAS in patients with lymph-node positive adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Endpoints of overall survival, disease specific survival, and disease free survival will be addressed.
 * (2) To assess the differences in toxicity with the addition of pelvic radiation therapy to TAS. Endpoints of gastrointestinal toxicity and genitourinary toxicity will be utilized.
 * Protocol:
 * Arm 1: Total Androgen Suppression indefinitely
 * Arm 2: Total Androgen Suppression indefinitely + EBRT whole pelvis to 50.4 Gy with boost to prostate to 68.4 Gy - 70.2 Gy
 * Eligibility: pN+ and PSA >4
 * Enrollment Target: 750 patients
 * Activation: July 1, 1997
 * Closed: September 23, 1998

title: Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/9608


text:
Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/0019

RTOG 00-19 (PROSTATE)
 * Title: A Phase II Study of External Beam Radiation Therapy Combined with Permanent Source Brachytherapy for Intermediate Risk Clinically Localized Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate
 * Objective: The primary goal of this study is to estimate the rate of acute and late Grade 3-5 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity following treatment with external beam radiation therapy and permanent source brachytherapy.
 * Protocol: 45 Gy EBRT followed (within 2–6 weeks) by 108 Gy I-125 brachytherapy
 * Eligibility:
 * cT1c-T2b
 * (GS 2-6 and PSA 10–20) or (GS 7 and PSA <20)
 * N0M0
 * TRUS volume <60cc
 * Enrolled: 138 patients
 * Activation: November 13, 2000
 * Closed: November 30, 2001
 * Additional Info: January 2002 Meeting Minutes -- "A Phase II study of external beam radiation therapy combined with permanent source brachytherapy for intermediate risk clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. This protocol closed November 2001 having accrued 116 patients in approximately one year’s time. There is no mature data yet available regarding toxicity. Dr. Robert Lee presented the preliminary quality assurance data that suggests a lack of conformity between radiation oncologists in defining prostate volumes. There is a direct correlation between nonconformity in defining prostate volumes and nonconformity in dose delivered. Considerable discussion ensued regarding how to manage this problem within future RTOG prostate brachytherapy protocols. Suggestions to be taken to the Image Guided Radiotherapy Committee are having a central rapid-review system in place (not likely practical), or to have a web-based case illustrating how the volumes are to be drawn."
 * Publications:
 * PMID 17340591, 2007 -- "Late toxicity and biochemical recurrence after external-beam radiotherapy combined with permanent-source prostate brachytherapy: analysis of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group study 0019." (Lee WR, Cancer. 2007 Apr 15;109(8):1506-12.)
 * Conclusion : The morbidity observed in this multiinstitutional, cooperative group study was slightly higher than that reported in recent RTOG studies using brachytherapy alone or high-dose external-beam radiotherapy. The BR rate observed in this report was similar to that observed with high-dose external-beam radiotherapy alone in similar patients.
 * PMID 17118317, 2006 — "A descriptive analysis of postimplant dosimetric parameters from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group P0019. Lee WR et al. Brachytherapy. 2006 Oct-Dec;5(4):239-43.
 * Dosimetric parameters (D90, V100, V150, V200) in this study were similar to those in previous studies.
 * PMID 16289906, 2006 — A phase II study of external beam radiotherapy combined with permanent source brachytherapy for intermediate-risk, clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: Preliminary results of RTOG P-0019. Lee WR et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Mar 1;64(3):804-9.
 * Median f/u 20 mos. Acute grade 3 genitourinary toxicity in 7.6%. No grade 4 or 5. Late grade 3 GU and GI toxicity was 3.3% at 18 mos. No grade 4 or 5.
 * ASCO Abstract - Is postimplant dosimetry associated with late morbidity? A secondary analysis of RTOG P-0019 (Lee W, ASCO 2005). Conclusion: The calculated D80 in this multi-institutional trial is consistent with reports from single institutions. There is no evidence of a relationship between D80 and the development of late morbidity in this trial.
 * ASCO Abstract - A phase II study of external beam radiation therapy combined with permanent source brachytherapy for intermediate risk clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: Preliminary results of RTOG P-0019. (Lee WR, ASCO 2004). Conclusion: The acute and late morbidity observed in this multi-institutional, cooperative group study is consistent with previous reports from single institutions with significant prostate brachytherapy experience. The combination of external beam radiation therapy and permanent source brachytherapy is worthy of further study and is currently under evaluation in RTOG 0232, a phase III trial that compares permanent source brachytherapy as monotherapy to the combination of external beam treatment followed by brachytherapy.

title: Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/0019


text:
User:GreenReaper

See Wikipedia:User:GreenReaper.

title: User:GreenReaper


text:
Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/0011

RTOG 00-11 (PROSTATE)
 * Title: Phase III Randomized Study of Adjuvant Therapy for High Risk pT2-3N0 Prostate Cancer
 * Objective: The revised study design will test if the addition of androgen suppression to radiation therapy in patients with unfavorable pathologic stage pT3N0M0 prostate cancer leads to better overall survival than radiation therapy alone.
 * Protocol:
 * Arm 1: RP followed by AS x 2 years + 63.0 - 66.6 Gy RT
 * Arm 2: RP followed by 63.0 - 66.6 Gy RT
 * Arm 3: RP followed by AS x 2 years (CLOSED EARLY DUE TO NON-ACCRUAL)
 * Eligibility:
 * Status post RP
 * (pT2 and GS 7-10 and preop PSA > 10 and +SM) or
 * (pT3 and GS 7-10 and (PSA > 10 or +SM or SVI) or (pT3 and GS <7 and 2 of above risk factors)
 * Enrollment Target: 1398 patients
 * Activation: July 13, 2001
 *  Terminated : May 7, 2004 DUE TO NON-ACCRUAL

title: Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/0011


text:
Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/9910

RTOG 99-10 (PROSTATE)
 * Title: A Phase III Trial to Evaluate The Duration of Neoadjuvant Total Androgen Suppression (TAS) and Radiation Therapy (RT) in Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer
 * Objective: To compare the efficacy of moderate-duration (28-week) neoadjuvant total androgen suppression and RT with short-duration (8-week) neoadjuvant total androgen suppression and RT as related to disease-specific survival.
 * Protocol:
 * Arm 1: TAS x 8 weeks followed by 70.2 Gy RT + concurrent TAS
 * Arm 2: TAS x 28 weeks followed by 70.2 Gy RT + concurrent TAS
 * Eligibility:
 * (cT1b-T4 and GS 2-6 and PSA 10-100) or
 * (cT1b-T4 and GS 7 and PSA <20) or
 * (T1b-T1c and GS 8-10 and PSA <20)
 * N0M0
 * Enrollment Target: 1540 patients
 * Activation: February 14, 2000
 * Closed: May 3, 2004

title: Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/9910


text:
Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/9902

RTOG 99-02 (PROSTATE)
 * Title: A Phase III Protocol of Androgen Suppression (AS) and Radiation Therapy (RT) vs. AS and RT Followed by Chemotherapy With Paclitaxel, Estramustine, and Etoposide (TEE) for Localized, High-Risk Prostate Cancer
 * Objective: To assess the relative efficacy of the combination of androgen suppression + RT followed by androgen suppression vs. AS + RT followed by TEE chemotherapy + androgen suppression in a population of patients with clinically-localized prostate cancer with unfavorable prognostic factors. The primary endpoint will be survival, but biochemical control (freedom from PSA failure), local control, disease free survival, and freedom from distant metastasis will also be assessed.
 * Protocol:
 * Arm 1: AS x 8 weeks followed by 70.2 Gy RT + concurrent AS x 16 weeks
 * Arm 2: AS x 8 weeks followed by 70.2 Gy RT + concurrent AS x 16 weeks + TEE x 4 cycles (start 28 days after completion of RT)
 * Eligibility:
 * (any cT and GS >=7 and PSA 20-100) or
 * (>=cT2 and GS >=8 and PSA <100)
 * N0M0
 * Enroll Target: 1440
 * Activation: January 11, 2000
 * Closed: October 4, 2004
 * This closure is for patient safety due to the observance of increased thromboembolic toxicity due to Emcyt.

title: Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/9902


text:
Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/9805

RTOG 98-05 (PROSTATE)
 * Title: A Phase II Trial of Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Permanent Radioactive Implantation of the Prostate For Definitive Management of Localized Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate
 * Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of TRUS permanent implantation of the prostate for organ confined adenocarcinoma of the prostate compared to historical data of prostatectomy or external beam therapy within cooperative group setting.
 * Protocol: 145 Gy I-125 brachytherapy
 * clinicaltrials.gov entry
 * Eligibility: cT1b-T2a and GS <=6 and PSA <=10
 * Enrolled: 95 patients (maximum 6 per institution)
 * Activation: September 8, 1998
 * Closed: April 28, 2000
 * Additional Information:
 * Brachytherapy Meeting Minutes January 2002 - "Acute and late toxicity data is now available. The acute toxicity was primarily grade 1 or 2, with the most common toxicity being related to renal/genitourinary. The late toxicity was primarily grade 1 or 2 bladder toxicity. There were no grade 3 or 4 acute or late toxicities reported. No data was presented regarding freedom from PSA failure."
 * Brachytherapy Meeting Minutes June 2000 - "Dr. Michael Gillin presented an update of this study. The study opened to accrual in September 1998 and closed April 2000 having met its accrual objective of 95 patients. A review of dosimetry quality assurance has begun and should be available for presentation at the next meeting. Dr. Gillin presented some sample cases of the submitted dosimetry to illustrate the quality assurance process. One apparent problem is the observed difference in prostate definition between the treating radiation oncologists and the radiologist undertaking the quality assurance review. The Brachytherapy Committee will recommend that the Research Strategy Committee invite the radiologist to the next RTOG semiannual meeting to discuss this further. High quality assurance scores are critical to successful completion of further prostate brachytherapy studies."
 * Brachytherapy Meeting Minutes January 2000 - "Dr Colleen Lawton presented an update of this study. The study opened to accrual in September 1998 and has accrued 74 patients to date. A review of dosimetry quality assurance has begun and should be available for presentation at the next meeting. Target accrual is 95 patients. The study is accruing well and is expected to close in late 1999. Institutions must undergo a credentialing process prior to accruing patients. Thirty-three institutions have been credentialed but only 18 have put a patient on study. Institutions are encouraged to participate in this study since the credentialing process will be applied to future prostate brachytherapy studies."
 * Conclusion:
 * PMID 17084551 (2007) — Results of a phase II trial of transrectal ultrasound-guided permanent radioactive implantation of the prostate for definitive management of localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 98-05). Lawton CA et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Jan 1;67(1):39-47.
 * ASTRO Abstract (2004) -- Results of a Prospective Multi-Institutional Phase II Trial (RTOG 98-05) of Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Permanent Radioactive Implantation of the Prostate for Definitive Management of Localized Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate (Lawton CA, ASTRO 2004). Conclusion: This prospective multi-institutional brachytherapy trial was completed successfully with acceptable quality assurance and early results comparable with single institution series. The toxicities are consistent with other reported series. With this trial, the RTOG has demonstrated its capacity to perform a prospective quality assured prostate brachytherapy trial and provides a positive outlook for the feasibility of subsequent cooperative group trials, including the active Phase III trial RTOG P-0232 examining the role of supplemental external beam radiotherapy for prostate brachytherapy.
 * Publications:
 * PMID 16864066 (2006) -- Quality assurance methods for the first Radiation Therapy Oncology Group permanent prostate implant protocol. (Gillin MT, Brachytherapy. 2006 Jul-Sep;5(3):152-6.)
 * PMID 15989995 (2005) -- Health-related quality of life in men receiving prostate brachytherapy on RTOG 98-05. (Feigenberg SJ, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Jul 15;62(4):956-64.)
 * ASCO Poster (2005) -- Correlating prostate seed implant quality with clinical outcomes for patients treated on RTOG protocol 98-05 (A multi-institutional phase II trial of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate seed implant for localized prostate cancer) (Lawton CA, ASCO 2005 Prostate Cancer Symposium, 17-19 February 2005, Orlando, Florida. A-90, 2005.)
 * PMID 12648789 (2003) -- Impact of target volume coverage with Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 98-05 guidelines for transrectal ultrasound guided permanent Iodine-125 prostate implants (Horwitz EM, Radiother Oncol, 2003). Conclusion : Implementation of the RTOG 98-05 implant planning guidelines has increased coverage of the prostate by the prescription isodose lines compared with our previous technique, as indicated by post-implant dosimetry indices such as V(100), V(90), D(90). The CI was also improved significantly with the protocol guidelines. Our data confirms the validity of the RTOG 98-05 implant guidelines for pre-implant planning as it relates to enlargement of the CTV to ensure adequate margin between the CTV and the prescription isodose lines.
 * ASTRO Abstract (2002) -- Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) in Men Treated with Prostate Brachytherapy Alone on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) Trial 98-05. (Lee WR, ASTRO Abstract 2002, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys [54] (2):47-48, 2002.). Conclusion: The rate of incontinence is low one year following PB but many men have persistent urinary symptoms. Of those men potent at baseline, roughly 80% maintain the ability to have an erection one year following PB although 80% of men also report a decline in sexual function according to the SAQ. At one year more men reported a decline in PWB, PCS and SFWB subscales but more men reported an improvement in the EWB, FWB and RWD subscales.

title: Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/9805


text:
Talk:Blender 3D: Noob to Pro/Your First Test

Would someone mind making some screenshots?

The Game Engine is an interesting feature of Blender. The Game Engine is basically a 3D enviornment in which 3D objects move around and react to each other upon contact. -You can do that without using the game engine, the game engine allows people to interact witht the 3d environment in realtime, not for the 3d environment to react with itself(although it does that to)

The Game Engine is most easily applied to 3D architectural tours. -while this is true, the statement is misleading, the game engine is MEANT for making games.

When it talks about vertex painting, it does not explain how to apply it to the stuff so when you press play it shows up... This needs to be fixed.

-BALL goes through the hill not down the hill...

-The isosphere goes through the hill thus making the rest of the next(and the next next page) page undoable cause gravity is broken...

subsurf not working ingame
I added a subsurf modifier of 3 for the hill but when I press PKEY I see the hill without subsurf and the ball doesnt roll when lying on the top face.--5o (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oct25/08 Rigid Body and Dynamic options are not both available in 2.48 therefore sphere falls through - any fix or what am i missing (i successfully did this tutorial in a previous version)

Nov06/08 You have to apply the subsurf in order for it to work in in the game mode.


text:
Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/9601

RTOG 96-01 (PROSTATE)
 * Title: A Phase III Trial of Radiation Therapy with or without Casodex in Patients with PSA Elevation Following Radical Prostatectomy For pT3N0 Carcinoma of the Prostate
 * Objectives:
 * (1) To compare overall survival outcome of radiation therapy plus Casodex to radiation therapy plus placebo by a randomized trial for patients who, following radical prostatectomy demonstrating pathologic T3 disease and pathologic N0 disease status, have an elevated PSA (either as persistence or as a relapse) and have no evidence of metastatic disease.
 * (2) To compare the treatment with respect to time to second PSA-based progression, time to distant failure, and disease-specific survival.
 * (3) To compare the treatment with respect to time to third PSA failure (or PSA progression on hormonal therapy for second PSA failure) as a potential predictor for impending cancer death.
 * Protocol:
 * Arm 1: 64.8 Gy RT + Casodex x2 years
 * Arm 2: 64.8 Gy RT
 * Eligibility:
 * Status post RP
 * pT3 or (pT2 with +SM) AND post-op PSA 0.2-4
 * M0
 * Enrollment Target: 810 patients
 * Activation: March 17, 1998
 * Closed: March 7, 2003

title: Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/9601


text:
Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/9413

RTOG 94-13 (PROSTATE)
 * Title: A Phase III Trial Comparing Whole Pelvic Irradiation Followed by a Conedown Boost to Boost Irradiation Only and Comparing Neoadjuvant to Adjuvant Total Androgen Suppression (TAS)
 * Objectives:
 * (1) To test the hypothesis that TAS and whole pelvic irradiation followed by a conedown boost to the prostate improves the progression-free survival (an "early endpoint") by at least 10% at 5 years compared to TAS and prostate only irradiation.
 * (2) To test the hypothesis that induction (neoadjuvant) and concurrent TAS and RT, improves the progression-free survival (an "early endpoint") compared to adjuvant TAS and RT by at least 10% at 5 years. (10/13/95)
 * Protocol:
 * Arm 1: Neoadjuvant TAS 2 months before and during RT to the whole pelvis + prostate boost (70.2 Gy)
 * Arm 2: Neoadjuvant TAS 2 months before and during 70.2 Gy RT to prostate only (70.2 Gy)
 * Arm 3: RT to the whole pelvis + prostate boost (70.2 Gy) followed by 4 months of TAS
 * Arm 4: RT to the prostate only (70.2 Gy) followed by 4 months of TAS
 * Eligibility: Risk of LN involvement >15% based on pretreatment PSA and GS, N0M0; must not be eligible for RTOG 94-08
 * Enroll Target: 1200 patients
 * Activation: April 1, 1995
 * Closed: June 1, 1999
 * Conclusion:
 * PMID 12743142 -- Phase III trial comparing whole-pelvic versus prostate-only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant versus adjuvant combined androgen suppression: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413 (Roach M, JCO, 2003). Conclusion : WP RT + NCHT improves PFS compared with PO RT and NCHT or PO RT and AHT, and compared with WP RT + AHT in patients with a risk of LN involvement of 15%.
 * Publications:
 * PMID 17011443, 2006 — "Whole-pelvis, "mini-pelvis," or prostate-only external beam radiotherapy after neoadjuvant and concurrent hormonal therapy in patients treated in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413 trial." Roach M et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Nov 1;66(3):647-53.
 * ASCO Abstract -- Field size and progression free survival (PFS) after neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (HT) and radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer: Secondary analysis of RTOG 9413 (Roach M, ASCO 2005). Conclusion: There is a clear volume effect favoring large WP fields in patients with intermediate to high-risk disease. Longer follow-up is required to assess the impact of field size on survival.
 * ASTRO Abstract -- Progression Free Survival (PFS) After Whole-Pelvic (WP) vs Mini-Pelvic (MP) or Prostate Only (PO) Radiotherapy (RT): A Subset Analysis of RTOG 9413, A Phase III Prospective Randomized Trial Using Neoadjuvant and Concurrent (N&CHT) (Roach M, ASTRO 2004). Conclusion: WP RT is associated with an improvement in PFS compared to MP and PO RT in patients with a risk of LN involvement >15%. Late grade 3+ GI toxicity was similar with WP RT compared to MP RT, however both were higher than PO RT. This study supports WP RT as the standard of care for intermediate to high risk prostate cancer treated with RT & N&CHT. Longer follow-up is required to determine if this subset analysis eventually translates into a survival difference.
 * ASTRO Abstract -- Dosimetric Consequences to the Pelvic Lymph Nodes Due to the Daily Motion of the Prostate (Chen H, ASTRO 2004). Conclusion: Movement of the entire pelvic field according to the prostate motion has a significant impact on the coverage of the lymph nodes and the planned DVHs of surrounding normal tissues. The degree of impact depends on the magnitude of the movement and the margins used for the relevant structures. For patients with large (> 10mm) prostate movements in the anterior direction, the small bowel doses increased substantially while the coverage of the presacral nodes was compromised. Conversely, large posterior moves put the external iliac nodes at risk for being under-treated. For the IMRT plans, our preliminary results suggest that the prostate motion could cause serious under-dosage of the lymph nodes.
 * PMID 12967640 -- Cytokine profiles in patients receiving wide-field + prostate boost radiotherapy (xRT) for adenocarcinoma of the prostate (Kovacs CJ, Cytokine, 2003). Conclusion : Patients with prostate cancer (PC) were found to have a significantly (p<0.05) elevated plasma level of the three cytokines prior to treatment. Moreover, during WFP + PB xRT, these circulating cytokine levels were further elevated, the elevation occurring in the form of cyclic waves; the concurrent waves of elevated IL-1alpha and M-CSF preceding that of TGFbeta. In addition to providing support for the existence of a humoral response to xRT in patients receiving WFP + PB xRT, the data demonstrated a significant correlation between the integral radiation dose (ID) and the temporal expression and magnitude of plasma IL-1alpha, M-CSF and TGFbeta levels in patients that had received 1-5 fractions (1.8-9Gy) of WFP + PB xRT. Thereafter, the appearance of elevated waves of cytokine expression in the patient's plasma continued independent of additional fractions of WFP + PB xRT.
 * PMID 12728440 -- The evolving role of pelvic radiation therapy. (Roberts T, Semin Radiat Oncol, 2003). Review.
 * ASCO Abstract -- Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) with whole-pelvic (WP) radiotherapy (RT) improves progression-free survival (PFS): RTOG (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group) 9413, a phase III randomized trial. (Roach M, ASCO 2002). Conclusion: Prophylactic WP RT and NHT reduced the risk of disease progression for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. However, NHT combined with RT was no more effective than AHT when only the prostate was irradiated and WP RT was no more effective than PO RT without NHT.

title: Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/9413


text:
Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/9408

RTOG 94-08 (PROSTATE)
 * Title: A Phase III Trial of the Study of Endocrine Therapy Used As a Cytoreductive and Cytostatic Agent Prior to Radiation Therapy In Good Prognosis Locally Confined Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate
 * Objective: To evaluate the potential impact of a combination of Zoladex and Flutamide used as cytoreductive agents prior to undergoing definitive radiation therapy in locally confined carcinomas of the prostate.
 * Protocol:
 * Arm 1: Neoadjuvant TAS 2 months before and during 66.6 Gy RT
 * Arm 2: 66.6 Gy RT Alone
 * Eligibility: cT1b-T2b, PSA <20, N0M0
 * Enroll Target: 1980
 * Activation: October 31, 1994
 * Closed: April 30, 2001
 * Publications:
 * ASTRO 2009 - Plenary (Late Breaking; unpublished abstract) - Short term androgen deprivation prior to and during radiation therapy improves overall survival in patients with t1b-t2b adenocarcinoma of the prostate and PSA ≤ 20: initial results of RTOG 94-08 (Christopher Jones)
 * Bruner D, Scott C, McGowan D, et al.: Validation of the sexual adjustment questionnaire (SAQ) in prostate cancer patients enrolled on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group studies 90-20 and 94-08. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 42(suppl 1): A156, 202, 1998.
 * Bruner D, Scott C, McGowan, et al.: Factors influencing sexual outcomes in prostate cancer patients enrolled on radiation therapy oncology group studies 90-20 and 94-08. Proceedings of the International Society for Quality of Life Research 7: 575, 1998.

title: Radiation Oncology/RTOG Trials/9408


text:
Puzzles/Logic puzzles/Infinite Hats

Puzzles | Logic puzzles | Infinite (Many) Hats

An arbitrary number of people are buried in the sand in a line and a hat is placed on their head (as in the previous puzzle Hats). Each hat is either red or blue, and there is no restriction on the total number of either color. Furthermore, each person can see the color of all the hats ahead of them, but are unable to see those behind them or their own. Starting with the back person, who can see all hats but his own, each person must call a hat color and nothing more. If the whole group agrees on a strategy beforehand, how many people can accurately say the correct color of the hat they are wearing? What strategy will they use?

Solution

title: Puzzles/Logic puzzles/Infinite Hats