text:
User talk:Panic2k4/Archive2

C++ Programming
About the MFC part you moved to the other book, I was the major contributor, it was created before the other book was, it didn't deal with windows in general, only the C++ part of the wrapper its classes and was an independent part of the C++ book, an addendum. You didn't know my plans or intentions to start building it, you took into your initiative to move its contents without asking and without being the one resposable for the other work also, at witch stage shouldn't I be concerned on what you do with my work and contributions ?!?

I wasn't saying it has to do with Windows in general, but with Windows Programming or the Windows API. I did it based on what I thought was my best judgement at the time. Moving its contents based on what it seemed to be topic of its discussion and what the Windows Programming wikibook topic is as being more tightly related and outside the scope of the wikibook as its describe. It may have been better for me to have added a comment to its page saying I think it should be moved there and perhaps added the template suggesting merger to the top of its page and waiting awhile to see if there was any objections, rather then going with what looked like reasonable move to me.

Authors are protected by the GFDL and have the power in enforcing a work evolution, just because they are the ones contributing content, this is a GFDL work it can be hosted anywhere in this case it is on the wikibooks, authors writing are protected and authors get to sign their work, check the GFDL for the definition and rights... As for the wikibooks in itself a book is not a wikipedia article and if your not returning from a trip to mars you know what steps are being taken to protect articles. This is even more important in wikibooks. In this case the book doesn't only fallow out the wikibooks guidelines and rules but it implements its own set of rules without violating the previous or limiting the guidelines to it's community, we have to deal with 2 communities, the wikibooks readers and the specific book users and editors and the keep track of other works being used (I do have some documentation giving me access to use some content).

The GFDL gives everyone the right to distrubute and modify the contents of a document so long as previous authors are given credit for their work. GFDL protects authors from all liabilities from the use and modification of the documentation. GFDL allows authors to control their copy of the documentation, but authors give up their rights to dictate to others what is done to or with the documentation other then to enforce that people who do make use of the documentation give the same rights to everyone else. GFDL documents may be hosted anywhere, but to be hosted here at wikibooks, additional rules must be followed.

I don't know what steps your reffering to for protecting articles, however I disagree with your assertion on your rights and that the rules you make alone, aren't violating the GFDL and the rules and guidelines of Wikibooks. Wikibooks from what I can tell has no explicit policy on approaches to working together as a community to work on books and even says there is no one right way to do it and leaves open for people's interpretation of best practice, which of course other people may not agree with, such as in our case. I can understand trying to develope some helpful approaches to be used with any wikibook, so long as its agreed to by the majority of community of the wikibook in question as is required by wikibook policy. This wikibook doesn't have a clear guideline or approach that is recommanded written anywhere that I can see, which makes it open to each person's best judgement to decide what to just do and what to discussion beforehand. I'm open to trying to understand what you think on this and adobt some of it to try to reduce disagreements, so long as its reasonable and doesn't violate Wikibook Guidelines and Policy.

 You can learn who is responsible for the most recent versions of any given page by clicking on the "Page history" link. For example, you can look at the full history of this FAQ just by clicking here. You can also see who is most responsible for a particular Wikibook by reading that book's "authors" page (if it has one). If you spot an error in the latest revision of an module you are highly encouraged to be bold and correct it. This practice is one of the basic review mechanisms that maintains the reliability of this instructional resource.

The wording states a diferentiantion on the level of contribution or a ranking if you will, and the GFDL in its wording enforces it also. I'm not locking your contributions out but I claim that I should have more to say about this particular book than you if not for historical reasons, just on moral ground, when I started contributing to the old book Programming:C++ I didn't agreed with the previous maintainer on some topics I tried to dialog with him and his vision on the work difered from what I intended to do, did not contributed, so I created a newbook that was called (wrongly a fork and the wikibooks forking rules were implemented and passed and aproved in record time), if I did it now it would fall outside of the specification on the forking rule, it would share the same topic but not the goal or format, what we have now was an enforced resolution.

There isn't a defined level or ranking of contribution that is needed to be listed on the authors page and the GFDL doesn't say anything about it either other then that the names of those who are listed as the authors must be preserved and that the person should add there name to the list if they make any modifications to it. There's no policy that gives someone more say then other people for historial reasons or otherwise and I think it is fair to say any such attempt at enforcement goes against wikibook policy.

We haven't even had much chance yet to discussion our visions of the work to know if they differ, if they are compleatly incompatible and if there is no room for compromise. Jumping the gun a little bit, don't you think in comparing that past situation to here and now? I kindly ask you to minimize changes to the C++ Programming modules for now since we do disagree until we've worked things out please, as I have tried to do, so we can discuss without resulting in the chaos you spoke of before and getting sidetracked with changes we disagree with.

It does fallow the guidelines of the book to make it accessible to beginners but that doesn't imply deleting content, just making it accessible (if something is to advanced, an explanation should be added), ie: I give the parsing part you used on the rewording, I had to add an explanation that the preprocessor does parse and what it consist, I see that in your view I should only removed the reference to parsing but my main motivation is providing content that goes even beyond the book guidelines, if it is correct more information will never be bad, we are not limited by physical constrains as paper or even size...

I don't go by some fixed rule of thumb for deciding what I think makes an improvement, just depends on whats present. I continue to fail to see how rewording deletes contents. I have no problem adding explanations. I just think since we had agreed on something that it would of been better to add the parsing explanation to my changes rather then what looks like a revert and add, which I disagree with. I have no problem with more information, my motivation is that certain information can be explained with less words and that less time it takes to explan something and to read the explanation the better off everyone is. So I try to improve the quality of the information by balancing it out with the quanity it takes to explain it. More information is always good, quality information is never bad either. I rather read a book that has 1000 pages that explains 500 concepts then a book that only explains a few concepts that takes 1000 pages to explain it. My motivation is in trying to improve the quality of the book, not to decress the size of the book.

I consider a major change, rewording, reformatting, moving or deleting more than couple of lines or the number of changes one does to a work on a small time frame, even more if you were not the original writer, new writers are asked to refrain from doing just that because it can disturb the book in itself and just provide more checking work to any existing maintainers (if the book is not orphan on authors), and probably as it did, will just piss people off (and alienating people is one thing wikibooks doesn't need, if I was not committed to this work I would probably have given up a long time ago).

Wikibooks tend to have more then one author at some point. If change is enough to piss somebody off I think this is the wrong place for them. I can understand trying to give a new module time to grow by its orginal author, but how much time that should be is hard to say. I don't see how the number of changes made in any given time frame should matter. I can't agree with all rewordings and reformatings as being major changes if nothing is lost. A writer can never become known and attempt to be part of the community of maintainers if potental writers just sick back and do nothing which is why it seems reasonable to me that people should be bold and not hestitate to contribute as is suggested. Otherwise books become orphaned when people stop wanting to contribute or worse new writers stops trying to contribute out of hesitation. If I wasn't committed to trying to make this work and to the quality of this work I probably would of been another aliened person who would of left by now.

A real big change would probably grant the writer author status into the book by the GFDL, but it consist mostly in adding content. Minor changes are in the size correcting spelling errors, format mistakes, or any non content based action (like boxes, changing bold, italics), heck even adding pictures can be hard to qualify it probably would depend if the writer has the copyright of the pictures being added, etc...

There doesn't seem to be a real requirement for being listed as an author by wikibooks or GFDL. I won't comment on weither thats a major change or not since its so vage what the requirements are to consider an opinion on it. I had thought of adding myself as an author since it seemd like I had done enough to qualify as one, but then decided I rather let somebody else decide weither I had done enough to have my name added to authors section. I agree with what you consider minor changes with the exception of boxing which I'm still thinking about since in a way they can discrupt the flow of the text much like pictures do.

I think it would be a good idea to try to develope some helpful guidelines for this wikibook that is stated in the talk pages of the wikibook, rather then assuming everyone agrees and shares the same opinions. Which means discussing it with anyone whose contributing to the wikibook and coming to some community consensus and realize that such guidelines may change if consensus changes or new wikibook policies are made that take precedence.

PS: I'm having a problem with the line format, many times I have to add  to text any idea ? (using firefox)--Panic 01:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I use firefox as well. A  is going to be needed if you want to force a line to break because the wiki software interprets two ajoining lines to be part of the same line if there are no tags that normally make two lines disjointed. If your trying to break text into paragraphs its far easier to use a blank line between them. --darklama 23:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

rep.
About the MFC part ... I did it based on what I thought was my best judgement at the time. ...

Ok and what prevents you from doing the inverse option as I requested? (I will show you that you did violate GFDL in your action)

The GFDL gives everyone the right to distrubute and modify the contents of a document so long as previous authors are given credit for their work.

Haa, did you give any credit? :) But that is not the problem, You agreed that it wasn't probably the best way of going about it, but is it your view that people that were not involved with a work should have the same decision power as a person that was contributing to the work for over 1 year ?!? (I could get several users, even without asking for new registries to show that your view could be very dangerous)

But I think it's also morally self evident, even as a newcomer to wikibooks I tried to go by the rules that existed, when that did prove impossible, dialog failed and moderation was missing, for myself I didn't get involved in a revert war so I had 2 options, just quit contributing or "forking" (I still claim that it was not a fork as identified on the fork policy).

GFDL allows authors to control their copy of the documentation, but authors give up their rights to dictate to others what is done to or with the documentation other then to enforce that people who do make use of the documentation give the same rights to everyone else. GFDL documents may be hosted anywhere, but to be hosted here at wikibooks, additional rules must be followed.

Not so, I did not relinquish any rights, I still do own the content, I provide a copy under the GFDL but the content may still be protected, for instance check about the dual licenses and the BSD problem with he GFDL.

As for the wikimedia steps for protecting content check the buzz about the German wikipedia.

You should also take a look at the GFDL as it does make distinction in contributors and rights. If you wish I can probably copy paste here but I think its evident.

And wikibooks also makes distinction in users/contributors, did you cast your vote on the last election here ?!?

I'm open to trying to understand what you think on this and adobt some of it to try to reduce disagreements, so long as its reasonable and doesn't violate Wikibook Guidelines and Policy.

I think we are all cooperating here... If for nothing else just to trade some ideas and check about different view points...

I can understand trying to develope some helpful approaches to be used with any wikibook, so long as its agreed to by the majority of community of the wikibook in question as is required by wikibook policy.

I'm one of the book authors, I don't recognize you as part of the community of the this particular book since you did not contribute content (as for the GFDL).

We haven't even had much chance yet to discussion our visions of the work to know if they differ, if they are compleatly incompatible and if there is no room for compromise. Jumping the gun a little bit, don't you think in comparing that past situation to here and now? I kindly ask you to minimize changes to the C++ Programming modules for now since we do disagree until we've worked things out please, as I have tried to do, so we can discuss without resulting in the chaos you spoke of before and getting sidetracked with changes we disagree...

Ok you must provide/clarify your view above. I'm willing to help/correct and be corrected/work on comments, criticism and debate with users (readers) and give credit to any real contribution to the work (book).

I don't want any place on the wikibooks/wikimedia community structure nor to advance any policy or be involved in it (I will vote one them), but as you should have understanded by now my problem is with what gives you the wright to claim more editorial rights on the book that the ones I have (I don't agree that we should even have equal rights at this time), as stated prev. you did no small changes to the book, was it intended to start a revert war as I requested you to make corrections and you didn't act on them most basic course of action would be having me reverting them (I did and will not take that step).

I kindly ask you to minimize changes to the C++ Programming modules for now since we do disagree until we've worked things out please, as I have tried to do, so we can discuss without resulting in the chaos you spoke of before and getting sidetracked with changes we disagree with.

I don't recognize your right to ask me that, I will not revert your changes as stated above, but I WILL continue to provide content, I will expect only the same from you.

A writer can never become known and attempt to be part of the community of maintainers if potental writers just sick back and do nothing which is why it seems reasonable to me that people should be bold and not hestitate to contribute as is suggested.

Agreed, but your reformats doesn't fall on the contribution being asked, writers are even asked NOT to do it.

I continue to fail to see how rewording deletes contents. I have no problem adding explanations.

Check your own changes for example on the OOP part.

This wikibook doesn't have a clear guideline or approach that is recommanded written anywhere that I can see,

Gezz, I think the this is one of the books were the guidelines are more evident. In the chart, even in the introduction they could be better written probably, but until you clarify your view on editors to a book this is a mood point as a superior number of editors (I think you agree that users will not do) can trash any work on wikibooks.

There isn't a defined level or ranking of contribution that is needed to be listed on the authors page and the GFDL doesn't say anything about it either other then that the names of those who are listed...

It does, and even give you a magic number 5, as I said even in the GFDL there are levels...

There doesn't seem to be a real requirement for being listed as an author by wikibooks or GFDL.

There is. You should refresh your GFDL :)--Panic 04:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

About the MFC part  ... I did it based on what I thought was my best judgement at the time. ...

Ok and what prevents you from doing the inverse option as I requested? (I will show you that you did violate GFDL in your action)

Only concern that since its already been moved that moving it again could be an issue now for those involved with the Windows Programming wikibook and your own assertion that it would be moved when it gets big enough. You also said you were asking to move what they had on MFC into the C++ Programming wikibook. No biggy, but to me that seems to be a bit of a contridiction of what your plans for it are. There is also that nagging forking policy to consider. Also I think it would take an admin to revert this action since the page it was moved from still exists. The best I think I could do is replace the redirect with an inclusion. Since you said you were wanting to have the other contents added, wouldn't it make since to have them as inclusions as well? Whatever is done to achieve it, I'd add the template suggesting its merger into the Windows Programming wikibook and then include my reasons on its talk page, since I haven't changed my mind on it being best to have it there. Even though you probably don't recognize any right to do so.

Haa, did you give any credit? :)

I don't think there is an explict need to do give credit on the page itself. The history of the page acts as a sort of revision history listing the people who contributed to its making. I'm also uncertain if enough has been done to give proper credit to other contributors on the C++ Programming authors page. This properly giving credit issue seems to be an open debate that hasn't been resolved yet as whole when it comes to applying the GFDL to wiki documents from what I have seen. The only solution I've seen suggested is not using GFDL as a way to solve the problem.

...but is it your view that people that were not involved with a work should have the same decision power as a person that was contributing to the work for over 1 year ?!? (I could get several users, even without asking for new registries to show that your view could be very dangerous)

My view goes beyond just "should have". My view is people "do have" the same equal right in the decision making process. See Decision_making as well as "Following the Guidelines" thats right below it, for what I mean. My point in all this is no I don't think you have more right, only equal right to disagree and debate and like anyone else try to come to some consensus. This doesn't mean to say I think your opinion don't mater. I think its good to state and discussion, just tired of this "what I say goes" attitude I sence from you that I think clarily goes against guidelines, policy and community cooperation. It also suggests to me a level of unwillness to negotiation and compromise, which can make it difficult to get additional contributors.

Not so, I did not relinquish any rights, I still do own the content, I provide a copy under the GFDL but the content may still be protected, for instance check about the dual licenses and the BSD problem with he GFDL.

I think you relingquished some rights or gave some rights to other people when you pressed the submit button and agreed to provide it under the terms of the GFDL, including right to modify. Since its not dualed licensed I don't see the relevency of comparing it to any situation involving dual licensing. BTW you said you got permission to use some work by other people, did you get there permission under terms acceptable to wikibooks (eg public domain, GFDL), such as using Boilerplate request for permission? Otherwise that could be a potential problem too. Which I only bring up because we disagree with what this license means and what people are allowed to do.

As for the wikimedia steps for protecting content check the buzz about the German wikipedia.

Its not in german is it? I only understand english. I would also hesitate to consider anything related to German wikipedia for two reasons. This isn't wikipedia and I think different language wikis hosted by wikimedia foundation each have there own situations and policies to deal with even within the same general project. Like the German wikipedia may have different policies from the English wikipedia.

You should also take a look at the GFDL as it does make distinction in contributors and rights. If you wish I can probably copy paste here but I think its evident.

I see no distinction made. There is only one reference to contributor that I could find:

K. For any section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications", Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in the section all the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein.

Which would suggest to me only applying to the "Authors" section on wikibooks, that it may not be changed only appended to, unless its the author who added the achknowledgement or dedications who changes only their own achknowledgements or dedications.

And wikibooks also makes distinction in users/contributors, did you cast your vote on the last election here ?!?

Do you have some references you could point me to that make a clear distinction? I haven't seen any clear distinction made.

 I continue to fail to see how rewording deletes contents. I have no problem adding explanations.

Check your own changes for example on the OOP part.

Hmm the only lost contents I can see is perhaps encapsulation. The rest was covered in Classes. I could add encapsulation back by adding it at the end of Classes to fix that lost contents. Anything else?

 There isn't a defined level or ranking of contribution that is needed to be listed on the authors page and the GFDL doesn't say anything about it either other then that the names of those who are listed...

It does, and even give you a magic number 5, as I said even in the GFDL there are levels...

 There doesn't seem to be a real requirement for being listed as an author by wikibooks or GFDL.

There is. You should refresh your GFDL :)--Panic 04:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to need those references. I've read the GFDL, in fact again on the 29th, to refresh my memory. Here's what I consider relivent:

APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another language.

...

4. MODIFICATIONS E. Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications adjacent to the other copyright notices.

I don't want any place on the wikibooks/wikimedia community structure nor to advance any policy or be involved in it (I will vote one them), but as you should have understanded by now my problem is with what gives you the wright to claim more editorial rights on the book that the ones I have (I don't agree that we should even have equal rights at this time), as stated prev. you did no small changes to the book, was it intended to start a revert war as I requested you to make corrections and you didn't act on them most basic course of action would be having me reverting them (I did and will not take that step).

I don't claim more editorial rights, just equal rights as anyone has. No I have no intention to start a revert war. Trying to prevent one. There is some guideline/policy/recommandation somewhere I read that said in the event of a dispute don't revert, discuss it first and try to come to a consenus to prevent revert wars from happening. Thats why I have not been reverting and we've been getting sidetracked on "rights" and the like, presenting from a discussion that could lead to a compermise. So to me, reverting is the wrong course of action. I'm trying to follow reasonal recommandation. I'm not sure what you mean by "I don't want a place on the wikibooks/wikimedia community structure".

Gezz, I think the this is one of the books were the guidelines are more evident. In the chart, even in the introduction they could be better written probably, but until you clarify your view on editors to a book this is a mood point as a superior number of editors (I think you agree that users will not do) can trash any work on wikibooks.

Well the best definition I can think of to explain my view on editors is somebody who in good faith tries to contribute to a wikibook in an attempt to improve it, regardless of how major or how minor the contribution is, and tries to cooperate, discuse, compermise, etc when disputes arrise with other editors. And before I'm asked, I consider contributions to be any change thats attempts to improve, even such things as spellchecking, grammar correction and format corrections.

P.S Do you know if any good spellchecker for firefox other then SpellBound, appearently there hasn't been an update yet for newer versions of firefox. --darklama 13:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope I don't think there is one (spellchecker that works inside the browser for firefox) there are for explorer (you could probably use IETab and one of those for example, but I use SpellBound, I hate the way it jumps arround the edit box after a check or the slider going mising from it window some times, but could't find another.

As for our private discussion we should move it to the public forum, the best way it to state what our divergence is and ask for third party participation, this can also be useful to others as if your point was the valid one I doubt most projects would get bilt on wikibooks.

I will edit this post later and provide the point in witch I think we diverge and after you check them we will move the discussion.--Panic 17:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ya I tried to give SpellBound a try and install it, but its not compatible with this version of firefox. I guess I'll have to wait for a new update and I can't use IE because I don't use Windows and wouldn't want to.

As for the other stuff, I was going to suggest similar moves. Trying to see if we can agree on a summary of what the issue is we disagree with in regard to policy here first and then move it to Staff Lounge or some other place/forum. I think thats the main issue here that needs attention and not our disagreements with the wikibook content, because we are both trying to be reasonablein that respect. I think the issue causing the problem is both our interpretation of Wikibook policy. I'll try to summerize my POV on this.

Let me know if I'm wrong on this last bit and how. feel free to correct me by clarifing your view: I say the problem thats arrising here is that you think some people are more entitled and are free to force there POV on wikibooks without discussion and that choosing to discuss things with people you don't recognize as being entitled to an opinion, is just a matter of courtesy.

--darklama 19:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You can force the compatibility, on my page go to my page at http://del.icio.us/Panic2k4 check for the firefox+inuse tags, the one that does make it easy (no javascript editing involved) is Mr. Tech local install, you can check google for it also. I'm running the last version, so if you are not running a beta that will work.

I would have liked if you had been less "politically correct" (even if its for public consumption, but I'm not running for office), some of the text includes wikibook/community stuff that you and me do agree, but if you do remove that part we have in "common", I would also remove my last sentence and some other "political correct" text from my statement as it's pointless for the discussion at hand.

Any how, if you don't want any changes, you can move the declarations to the public forum and ask for participation for the clarification of the matter (if you don't want to be the poster I can do it also, no prob.), it should be mentioned that this should be probably used to create a global wikibooks guideline or policy, a link should be provided to this copy to state that none of us are altering each others words and I will move the discussion part (not the declarations) to a separated archive page, if any one does have a need to check what we have said.

--Panic 22:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think its a good idea to try to show where we both agree too, it shows we have been reasonable and have tried to discuss it by ourself and that there is some issues we simply can't seem to agree on that we both agree could benifit from outside input. BTW are we in agreement that the issue isn't so much about what either one of us has done, but with how Wikibooks works? I'd like to try to keep this from becoming "finger pointing" of specific things that have been done and having to clarify that both of our views may have changed and that this isn't so much an issue about a specific wikibook, but interpretation of current Wikibooks policy. I think we both can agree that one way or another specific things that have been done can be resolved on our own once this issue about policy has been resolved and clarified to both our understanding. --darklama 16:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No prob., but please avoid counter arguing my points, just state the facts you defend and make your own points, keep you statements small and less confusing. And take notice that in your first statement I almost agree entirely with it, the point in question is your understanding on the level of contribution needed to become part of a specific book community and that can't be understood by reading it, I have added a common statements on thing we agree and disagree, to remove some of double talk. --Panic 18:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I like the last bit about "call for opinion vote". Did you notice the General voting rules/Proposals you refer to is a rejected policy and if you go up to General voting rules it redirects you to Decision making ?!?. If thats not enough to convence you of my point at the very least you should try to refer to a policy thats accepted and not rejected in calling for people's opinions, because I cannot agree to such a statement being used when it refers to a rejected policy. --darklama 00:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to put in its place, I think it may be too early to suggest that it needs to be voted on or needs to be turned into a new policy. There may already be an established consensus or policy that covers this neither of us are aware of or that needs to be clarified. I think for now we just need to ask for people's opinions and for clarification and go from there. --darklama 02:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right, but as the GFDL is an enforceable policy my point is valid (on our disagreements), I'll remove the reference to the General voting rules later on you can continue in establishing a policy (I will be content with a decision by at least a 60%+ in global votes on our problem), if you win I will probably fork the books I was creating to another location (not wikibooks) and probably not wikibased (I was about to do that as the merge was forced on me, this will be the tipping point...).

Well since I didn't change any other points (feel free to edit the format of the proposal of vote), I think we are done. Can you post it on the Lobby or do you prefer that I do it. ? --Panic 01:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

We were both editing at the same time. I was about to add to my last comment. Which may effect this. --darklama 02:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should say we both agreed that we needed to get input and opinions of other people and try to get clarification and that this is a summary of what the dispute is about and if people would comment in order to help us try to resolve this dispute. --darklama 02:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I made the changes to reflect this view. Hows it look? It is late here, so I won't get a chance to see any changes you've made until later. So this will need to continue tomorrow before we are finished. --darklama 03:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Call for comment is not a vote, we will not get a clear response, there may even be people with other views, it will take much more time to even understand what various factions will be saying and your interpretation my be different than mine a clear and simple vote is what is needed. A discussion will be needed to create a policy but a proper page must be created. --Panic 18:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, a vote is premature, until we know what other people's views are. We both could be compleatly off or both somewhat right. We just don't know. A vote now assumes people agree with one of our views 100%. Obviously a discussion will take more time, but a discussion is what is needed and what will have to happen anyways before a vote for it to have any meaning twords a new policy or changes to existing onces to be more clear, if thats what your after. I would just be satisfied with some clarification, one way or another even if I'm wrong. Did you not read on the Decision making page that policies are high impact changes? Even if you can't agree that the same process applies to book discussion, surely you agree it applies to trying to change policy or to have policies clarified? --darklama 22:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

We could say we disagree with this too, if you don't agree, and make it clear that its you who believes it should be voted on now and give a third choice. The third choice being that it needs to be discussed more before being voted on yet. --darklama 22:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to know other peoples views are, I only wan't to know if the majority agrees with you or with me, if we take your option you or I can shape our views along the way, restate or reformulate them, this can lead to a endless debate. (Made a small clarification on my points),Btw it is not my intention of creating a policy (one is needed) but to solve this differences with you, as I stated before I don't have the time or will to be involved in general wikibooks debates, my concern is only "my" works, if you will only accept a lengthy discussion, I can live with it, if you can accept that I could revert some of the changes you made to the book to its original status (if your view wins a future vote, you can then restore them), then I will have no problem with the time frame, if this is acceptable then move the points to the lobby. If not I must request a moderation vote on our views as this will be the quicker path.--Panic 04:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

-

It is my intention to solve these differences with you as well. I have no interest in politics as you have refered to it either. I've tried to understand your POV to better understand where we differ in opinion, but it is difficult to do. I've tried to rephrase what I've thought you point is on more then one occation, but you have not really commented on them. I don't see how the GFDL relates to our difference in opinion, you have not even stated specifics from the GFDL that you believe validate your view. Which in turn makes it hard to explain why I think you are wrong or right. All this seems to be the result in difference in opinion of how we are suppose manage differences in opinion and what should or shouldn't be done in the mean time.

I can't stop you from reverting my changes nor from not explaining why you think reverting my changes was necessary. However without input, I may continue to make changes you disagree with, simply because I can't read whats going through your mind. I don't expect you to seek approvel from me any more then I expect to need to seek approvel from you. As this is a community effort, for people to work together it seems like a good idea to try to avoid rediting each other's work if its only going to lead to a revert war by discussing our differences to come to some comparemise that works for us both. I choose to prevent a revert war by trying to limit my edits to what I think won't cause reversions by you, what you do is up to you.

The only issue I have here, is what to me appears to be your belief that the GFDL and/or certain policies gives you more say or greator control over the book contents then other users for whatever reasons you have, which haven't been made clear to me in a way I can understand. The only thing that has been made clear to me so far is that you don't think you own the wikibook as I use to think. I'm not sure what you interpretation of my POV is either, but it seems to suggest to you that wikibook could not work if things are as you think I'm saying things are, which may mean you misunderstand my POV.

my concern is only "my" works,

This is partially where we may have a difference in opinion or interpretation. While I don't urgue with your changes being your work, I do not understand what your concern is. Are you concerned with people editing your contributions? Are you concerned with what your rights are here on Wikibook concerning your contributions? Are you concerned with what is done with your contributions? This is why I tried (perhaps not clearly) to suggest this may not be the right place if thats what concerns you. By putting you work under the GFDL you allow anyone to use and do with your work as they please so long as credit for what you have done is maintained. Perhaps you could clarify what your concerns are?

It has been suggested to me, that what is needed is a mediator to interven in our discussion here and try to help us resolve the problem. Its also been suggested to me what our problem is has not been made clear. Are you be open to a mediator? Are you open to trying to explain the problem so its clearer? I'm not even sure how to explain the problem clearly myself, which means to me they got a good point. --darklama 05:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is exasperating, we have by now shown each other to respect wikibooks and recognized its rules and you now ask me "Are you concerned with people editing your contributions?"... ?!?? wtf ?!?

I respect the views of wikibooks probably more than you (as only I seem to understand the moral and legal rights it has to stand on) and have been contributing content for two years, please don't use that kind of wording/remarks on your comments, I am not a kid, as I said before if you are running for a job/more power on wikibooks please don't make me waste my time, what I write here is for your consumption not as a platform to show how righteous I am, I am human and I do make mistakes and like to be corrected but I will refuse to be made into a vilan...

"I and others painted a group swimming in a pool over a wall, later, you saw it and decided that the person jumping into the pool needed tree nipples and painted over it..." that is the core of our discussion... We have established our divergences, I don't recognize you as an author (if you prefer an equal part to the work, some of the reformatting were welcomed, but copyright law, at least were I live, doesn't give you author status) and I claim that you made changes (witch I have listed to you) to the work I didn't like (as author, even in you view I was an author before you), I claim you had no rights in doing some changes (you've granted me that you at least failed to fallow protocol) and I claim that even if what I say is not expressed as a policy in wikibooks (which I claim it is), I and others at least have the moral rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Moral_rights) to the work and form the book community that should steer that book development, if you wished to have an equal decision/participation what you needed to do is make content contributions (see GFDL), then I would recognize you equal rights even thant natural raking should be respected, I would respect the opinion of one that made greater part of the work.

"in other word, if you had contributed as mutch to the painting as the other artists you should have an equal rights on deciding its evolution"

Ok will you move our points to the lobby and ask for a simple vote ? If not I will move my declaration and ask for a show of hands...

--Panic 18:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to come off sounding like I think your a kid or to offend you. I know I'm no diplomat and far from sounding like one when trying to discuss with people who have differences of opinion. I can only do my best and I'm not sure how I could phrase my question any better to not offend you. I'm not trying to make anyone out to be a vilan here. I'm just a bit confused.

"I and others painted a group swimming in a pool over a wall, later, you saw it and decided that the person jumping into the pool needed tree nipples and painted over it..." that is the core of our discussion...

"in other word, if you had contributed as mutch to the painting as the other artists you should have an equal rights on deciding its evolution"

So your saying because I haven't been contributing as long you, that I don't have any right to be involved in any decision on the book and that I should just accept your decisions as being final when we disagree? I'll leave it at that so as not to have to address too many things at once.

As for the moving to the lobby and asking for a vote, I don't think thats such a good idea from what I'm being told. --darklama 23:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Gezzz, you clearly don't seem to comprehend that it is not the time (that should also count, but it is more sign of respect to others that came before or have done more work) but the quality of the contributions, content (simple edits to a work is not contributing content to it), since you did not contribute to a work yes you aren't considered part of its community the decision process and should respect its opinion, this to me seems to be basic and morally right (even if we disagree with the legalities of it, right is right...), I can't be more basic that the example I gave.

You should read about "game theory" you would see how wrong your POV is and why it wouldn't work anywhere. --Panic 04:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Who determins weither contributions are quality contributions then? Is it those who are listed on the Author's section? If so who determins who can be on the authors section? Is it those who are already listed there? Who determins who is part of a wikibook community? Is it also determin by those listed in the authors section? If its not who determins these things, then how or what determines these things?

I'm trying to refrain from urging with you on things I disagree with again and trying to just focus on understanding what your POV is, by asking questions and restating what you say based on my interpretation so you can correct me where I'm getting your POV wrong. For the sake of trying to speed this up more, I'm going to try to ask more questions. Ignore any questions which don't fit in and try to explain why if you could please or explain further where you think I'm getting your POV wrong.

I'm a bit confused on what your POV applies to. Does it apply to contributing at all? It doesn't seem so, since you seem to agree that any one can contribute. Are these suppose to be under what conditions you believe someone can edit a wikibook? Perhaps this is suppose to apply to when there is disagreement in order to resolve disagreement? I'm thinking you believe its for when there is disagreement and for certain exspects of contributing, from what I think I understand of your POV.

Using the painting analog to somewhat explain what I think I understand of your POV as being "a painter should only add new coats of paint, until the painter has shown enough respect for the painting to be able to keep the artist's intentions and vision of the painting the same." Is that correct? --darklama 13:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Who determins weither contributions are quality contributions then?

The book community (note that the book community can only make its will stand on wikibooks if no rules to GFDL are broken, anyone can ignore thier decissions, author is defined in the copyright law so its simple to force a legal action if legal laws are broken in this case you could probably get help from the Mediawiki as the "editor" of the work).

 * Is it those who are listed on the Author's section?

Yes and others that can prove contributions to content (GFDL).

 * who determins who can be on the authors section?

The GFDL, even if the book community refuses the place you can fork the work (not on wikibooks) and add your name, or request FSF to make a legal claim to correct the Wikibook (if you write to Wikimedia and request a review they will do it if the history logs are there).

 * Who determins who is part of a wikibook community?

The book coomunity itself or the author (creator).

 * "a painter should only add new coats of paint, until the painter has shown enough respect for the painting to be able to keep the artist's intentions and vision of the painting the same."

Well respect is a good thing, for your elders, for people that have more experience for the rights and liberties of others, etc... but that is no enforceable, it falls on the motivations and morals that should guide ones life.

Basically the new painter should respect the previous work, not to vandalize it or make unwanted alterations to it try to see if the ones that made it agree, if not and the painting is GFDL, copy it to another wall and do as he likes (even then he should respect the others VP but GFDL removes any obligation to respect the original work, you could for instance get a GFDL book on WW2 and rewrite parts of it to make Hitler a hero, this is probably why people refuse to be added to the author list and some movements against the GFDL are emerging), we have to remember that authors are liable for the work. --Panic 17:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I think we almost agree here.

 * Who determins weither contributions are quality contributions then?

The book community (note that the book community can only make its will stand on wikibooks if no rules to GFDL are broken, anyone can ignore thier decissions, author is defined in the copyright law so its simple to force a legal action if legal laws are broken in this case you could probably get help from the Mediawiki as the "editor" of the work).

I almost agree with this. I think the issue is there's no universal copyright law and definition for author. The closest we can get is International Copyright Laws. Other then that yes I agree, if you can prove laws have been broken, you can seek legal action. Perhaps one disagreement is over definition of authors as it applies to wikibooks? Could you meantion what rules of GFDL your referring to? You said awhile ago you would try to show me how the GFDL proves you are right. I'm a bit interested in this again. Do you believe I have broken the GFDL requirements somehow?

 * Is it those who are listed on the Author's section?

Yes and others that can prove contributions to content (GFDL).

What proof of contributions would that be? I think the edit History acts as a sort of proof as well as satisfies History section of the GFDL. Am I correct in my understanding that you disagree that the edit History is not same as an Authors section and is not proof of contributions?

 * who determins who can be on the authors section?

The GFDL, even if the book community refuses the place you can fork the work (not on wikibooks) and add your name, or request FSF to make a legal claim to correct the Wikibook (if you write to Wikimedia and request a review they will do it if the history logs are there).

I agree the GFDL determins this. Perhaps we disagree on how the GFDL determins this? Could you explain how the GFDL determins this from your POV or would you rather we try to seek clarification of this from a third party? OK your reference here to the history logs suggests you do consider the edit history to be important in determing authors and disputes over authorship. Am I correct?

 * Who determins who is part of a wikibook community?

The book coomunity itself or the author (creator).

So the community decides who is and isn't part of the community? How does the author fit into deciding this?

 * "a painter should only add new coats of paint, until the painter has shown enough respect for the painting to be able to keep the artist's intentions and vision of the painting the same."

Well respect is a good thing, for your elders, for people that have more experience for the rights and liberties of others, etc... but that is no enforceable, it falls on the motivations and morals that should guide ones life.

I agree. My motivation and morals in regard to wikibooks, is that its a community effort, some changes are expected and people's contributions may not always be preserved except in the edit history if people wish to look back on it, because wikibooks are always changing. Some changes last longer then others, but nothing lasts forever. When people disagree with changes they should try to work out a solution that will satisfy everyone involved. Obviously some changes are more important then others, but that can be hard to work out when its best to discuss before hand and when to just do it. Obviously thats something I'm still trying to learn through making mistakes.

Basically the new painter should respect the previous work, not to vandalize it or make unwanted alterations to it try to see if the ones that made it agree, if not and the painting is GFDL, copy it to another wall and do as he likes (even then he should respect the others VP but GFDL removes any obligation to respect the original work, you could for instance get a GFDL book on WW2 and rewrite parts of it to make Hitler a hero, this is probably why people refuse to be added to the author list and some movements against the GFDL are emerging), we have to remember that authors are liable for the work.

--Panic 17:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Is that what you think I've done? Vandalized and made unwanted alternations to try to see if its a problem? I agree that vandalism should be avoided and unwanted alterations, but it can be hard to determan if its so until its been done, more so when its a community thats judging whats unwanted. I have to disagree with the last bit about authors being liable for their work. I think GFDL removes reliability or at least tries to. I guess this is another area we disagree with?

I think I may have managed to figure out where we disagree a little better. Which is also whats confusing, since you said you agreed with me for the most part on what I said before about contributions being welcomed. Care to explain some more about your POV on the distinction between users, authors, editors and contributors? I think we might be able to make it clearer whats disagreed on this way and reducing what our differences in POV are exactly, taking this approch. :)

Another recap of my understanding of your POV. Both authors and the community decides who is and isn't part of the community (a "contributor") based on both the quality and amount of contributions (the "weight" of contributions) made to a wikibook. It is up to the community to decide or vote if there is disagreement with a contribution made. Users are people not part of the community as decided by the community and authors. Users don't get to make any decisions if there's disagreements. Is this correct?

My POV for the sake of something to compare to if you want to explain your POV, is that authors, contributors and editors are the same thing here on Wikibooks and all are members of wikibook community. Users tend to be readers and may occationlly make comments on a talk page or the like about how great the work is or make constructive criticism about how a wikibook could be made better, while everyone else actually works to try to make the wikibook better rather then just saying what could be done to make a wikibook better.

I hope I haven't sidetracked away too much from trying to understand your POV better. BTW do you have any questions for me on my POV that you would like to understand better? --darklama 20:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Panic2k4/Archive2


text:
Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Magic/Dissendium

Overview
Dissendium is a single-purpose spell; used on the statue of the hump-backed, one-eyed witch in the third-floor corridor at Hogwarts, it causes her hump to hinge open

Extended Description
When her hump is open, it reveals the end of a passageway that goes to the basement of Honeyduke's Sweetshop in Hogsmeade. Harry uses this passageway to leave the castle without permission, in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban; the twins have apparently been doing the same for years, as the Marauders did many years before them; and it seems Sirius Black is also using this as a means of getting into the castle.

Analysis
A certain number of spells seem to have a single use at a single location, much like passwords; rather than being available for general use, they seem to be tied to specific locations or artifacts. Dissendium appears to be one such; similar to Alohomora, the unlocking spell, but tied to this one statue. The Marauder's Map is similarly opened and hidden with passwords that are not, strictly speaking, magical at all, though they have magical effects.

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


text:
Neuroscience/Cellular Neurobiology/Neuronal Membrane

Membrane Potentials

Membrane Properties
The membrane, just like in any other cell, is a phospholipid bilayer separating two regions of ion-filled, water-based solutions. The separation of various ions across this membrane creates the potentials that form the basis of the electrical communication in neurons.

Chemical Background
Proteins are located throughout the membrane and function to regulate the concentrations of various ions on either side of the membrane. Many of these proteins function as ion channels-that is, they control the passage of ions across the membrane. Based on the construction of a particular ion channel, it will be opened by different stimuli, electrical or chemical, and when open, permeable to a specific ion. The ions that commonly have channels are the monovalent potassium, sodium and chlorine and the divalent calcium. There are also important ion channels with no gate, referred to as leak channels because the ions will 'leak' across the membrane through these channels down their electrochemical gradient. Another set of membrane proteins serve to force ions across the membrane against their chemical gradient. These are known ion pumps, and the most common one is the sodium potassium ion pump that, at the cost of one molecule of ATP(Adenosine triphosphate), forces three sodium ions out of the cell and two potassium ions in.

Electrical Background
Because opposite charges attract, the separation of positive and negative ions (ex. Na+ and Cl-) across the membrane creates a potential for charges to move toward each other. When these charges do move relative to other nearby charges, this movement is referred to as electrical current. By convention a positive current refers to the movement of positive charge. The electrical potential exerted on these charges is a measurable force called voltage measured in volts. Another relevant characteristic of the movement of charge is the ease with which the charges or ions move across a barrier such as the membrane. This is measured with two inversely related quantities, conductance (g) and resistance (R). the relation between the two is R=1/g. To tie everything together is Ohm's Law, which says that current (I) is equal to the conductance (g) multiplied by the electrical force (V).

Measurement
The membrane potential can be measured experimentally with an electrode inserted through the membrane of the cell. The electrical force is then measured, and most cell register at about -65 millivolts, usually stated as Vm = -65 mV. This potential is necessary for the function of a neuron.

Composition of the Resting Potential
This measure of -65mV is a composite of the potentials of K+, Na+, Cl- and Ca2+ ions. To determine what a particular ion, for example, K+, contributes to the composite, an experiment can be setup in which a potassium salt is placed in solution on one side of the membrane. The salt dissociates, leaving K+ and A- (the anion) in solution. The membrane, being permeable to K+ only, prevents the anion from crossing. Diffusion forces K+ to spread out, so K+ crosses the membrane without A-. There is also a force acting against diffusion, the electrical attraction between the negative anion and the positive K+, and the balancing of these two forces is referred to as an ionic equilibrium. Because this equilibrium involves the separation of opposite charges, it has a potential associated with it. K+'s equal. Potential is about -80mV. Each of the ions associated with membrane potentials have a characteristic equilibrium potential. The composite will be the overall resting membrane potential, and because this composite is a compromise between the ionic equilibrium potentials of the ions permeable to the membrane, none of the ions are at their ionic equilibrium. The difference between an ion's ion equilibrium potential and the overall resting potential is the force on that ion to move toward its equilibrium. This force is referred to as the ionic driving force.

Driving Force
If an ion is not at equilibrium it has a potential to move. This is a force on the ion. The total driving force is a sum of the electrical potential and the chemical gradient potential. (A negative current is an inward current; a positive current, out of the cell. [DANGER: most Neuroscience websites and books mention that inward current is positive current and outward current is negative current. The opposite of what is here.]) K+'s force is -80mV. Resting potential is -60mV. Thus, there is a net positive force of 20mV on the cell. This pushes positive ions out of the cell. If one opens Na and K channels (the same number), Na generates more current because its electrical force is higher than K. Na will then enter the cell and K will exit the cell. For Na, the outside concentration is much higher than the concentration inside, and there is a negative charge inside that pulls Na inside. Cl- equilibrium potential is just below resting potential, so there is some movement when permeability is higher.

Ion Pumps
It is essential to maintain the concentration gradients to keep electrical forces. K continues to leak out and Na in, until conc.s across membrane are equal. The membrane compensates by pumping these ions against their conc. gradient. Requires ATP. Three Na ions bind to protein on the inside of the membrane, and when ATP binds, the protein changes conformation to release Na on the outside. K binds and that cause the protein to change back. This causes a positive current out of the cell. Ca2+ is used differently, generally herded elsewhere. Ca has low intracellular conc.

Resources
Glossary


text:
User talk:Mcgill

Hi. Your images are great! Have you ever thought of uploading them to the Commons: so that they can be used on other projects as well? Thanks. gren グレン 20:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The Elements
You are listed as either an interested participant or voted for "The Elements" for Wikijunior New Book of the Quarter. This message is to let you know that we are starting work on The Elements because it was selected for 4th quarter 2006.

Actually, I did notice that you have already contributed but I didn't want you to feel left out since I left this message for everyone else. :-) --xixtas 03:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mcgill


text:
User:Banaticus

You may be asking yourself, "Who is this Banaticus fellow?" Check out my Wikipedia userpage as I'd rather only ever update a single Wikipedia user page.

title: User:Banaticus


text:
Consumer Electronics Certification and Regulation

Foreword

 * 1) Aim of this textbook

Chapter 4: Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Certification Standards and Testing
The FCC has set electromagnetic compatibility standards such that, if your device passes the test (and your neighbor's TV or other device also passes the test), you device will (probably) not interfere with your neighbor's TV reception, and your neighbor's other devices will not interfere with your device.

All products containing electronics that oscillate above 9 kHz must be certified. (There is a special section 15.103 exemption from certification for devices that do not operate when connected to the AC power lines, are digital, do not intentionally radiate, and both the highest frequency generated and the highest frequency used are less than 1.705 MHz ).

Nearly all electronic devices fall into one or the other of the categories and therefore require one or the other tests described in "FCC Part 15" ( Title 47 CFR Part 15):
 * Intentional radiators that require a license to use
 * Intentional narrowband radiators that use the "unlicensed spectrum" in a way that does not require a license to use
 * Intentional ultra-wideband radiators
 * Unintentional radiators

Other tests
Many manufacturers perform other tests on prototypes that—while not legally required—often help flush out design flaws that lead to excessive returns or support costs or both:

 * drop tests are often performed even on products that aren't technically required to pass that test  . One drop test standard is "49 CFR 178.603 - Drop test".
 * electrostatic discharge testing ( Electrostatic discharge


text:
Consumer Electronics Certification and Regulation/Aim

The aim of this textbook is to provide a centralized information resource and reference for working engineers to familiarize themselves with various consumer electronics certification and regulatory standards and compliance testing, both optional and mandatory, that are commonly used on products sold in the US, EU, and other major economies.


text:
WebObjects/Web Applications/Deployment/FreeBSD WO5.2

Install Java
Follow the FreeBSD instructions to install the native Java. I (Ari Maniatis) am still using 1.4.2 on our deployment servers, but it is likely that 1.5.x will work fine.

This should also cause the javavmwrapper port to be installed. This makes it easy to switch between different Java VM versions.

Install WebObjects
Install gtar (the FreeBSD tar doesn't seem to work for me):

portinstall gtar

Mount the WebObjects CD at /mnt/cdrom and then:

cd /mnt/cdrom/Deployment/SOLARIS ./install.sh -license B-111-AAA-111-AAA-111-AAA-111-AAA-111 -altjvm /usr/local/bin/javavm -adaptorsOnly NO -minimalInstall NO -cgibin /usr/local/www/cgi-bin -docroot /usr/local/www/data -woroot /usr/local/apple -gnutar /usr/local/bin/gnutar

To find your license key, look in your developer installation and find it at:

/System/Library/Frameworks/JavaWebObjects.framework/Resources/License.key

The system then needs to know where NEXT_ROOT lives:

edit /etc/profile and add: NEXT_ROOT=/usr/local/apple export NEXT_ROOT OS=FREEBSD export OS

Log out and then back in to make sure this takes effect.

Apply updates
If necessary, you can apply updates like this:

sh patcher.sh -install WO51Solaris522.tar.gzip

You can download the patcher.sh shell script and the gzip update from Apple's website.

Install the Apache adaptor

 * Download the binary or
 * Compile it yourself

TODO: I've tried but failed to get this working with Apache2

Configure Apache
Add the configuration file: cp $NEXT_ROOT/Developer/Examples/WebObjects/Source/Adaptors/Apache/apache.conf /usr/local/etc/apache/webobjects.conf

Add the line: Include /usr/local/etc/apache/webobjects.conf
 * before* LoadModule rewrite_module

Add the line: AddModule mod_WebObjects.c
 * after* AddModule mod_rewrite.c

Edit the configuration file at /usr/local/etc/apache/webobjects.conf:

comment out the line "AddModule mod_WebObjects.c" replace LOCAL_LIBRARY_DIR/WebServer/Documents with /usr/local/www/data

Create a startup scripts for wotaskd and javamonitor
Create /usr/local/etc/rc.d/110.wotaskd.sh
 * 1) !/bin/sh

NEXTROOT=/usr/local/Apple

case "$1" in       start)                if [ -x /usr/local/bin/mysqld_safe ]; then                export PATH=/usr/local/bin:$PATH                export NEXT_ROOT=${NEXTROOT}                ${NEXTROOT}/Library/WebObjects/JavaApplications/wotaskd.woa/wotaskd &                        echo -n ' wotaskd'                fi                ;;        stop) echo "not supported" ;;       *)                echo ""                echo "Usage: `basename $0` { start | stop }"                echo ""                exit 64                ;; esac

Create /usr/local/etc/rc.d/150.javamonitor.sh
 * 1) !/bin/sh

PATH=/usr/local/bin NEXTROOT=/usr/local/Apple

case "$1" in       start)                        export PATH=/usr/local/bin:$PATH                        export NEXT_ROOT=${NEXTROOT}                        ${NEXTROOT}/Library/WebObjects/JavaApplications/JavaMonitor.woa/JavaMonitor -WOPort 6666 &                        echo -n 'JavaMonitor'                        ;;        stop) echo "not supported" ;;       *)                echo ""                echo "Usage: `basename $0` { start | stop }"                echo ""                exit 64                ;; esac


text:
Wikijunior:The Elements/Hydrogen

Hydrogen is an atom that contains an electron and a single proton. It is found at the very upper left of the periodic chart. The symbol for Hydrogen is the letter H. Hydrogen is both the lightest and most abundant element in the universe. Here is some data:
 * Name: Hydrogen
 * Symbol: H
 * Atomic Number: 1
 * Atomic Mass: 1.00794 amu
 * Melting Point: -259.14 °C (14.009985 K, -434.45203 °F)
 * Boiling Point: -252.87 °C (20.280005 K, -423.166 °F)
 * Number of Protons and Electrons (same number): 1
 * Number of Neutrons: 0
 * Classification: Non-metal
 * Color: Colorless

What does it look, feel, taste, or smell like?
Hydrogen is the absolute smallest of all elements, so small that four billion atoms, laid end to end, could fit on the head of one pin! At room temperature, hydrogen is a clear gas. Hydrogen gas (H2) is a molecule made of two hydrogen atoms bonded together. It has no taste or odor and is not toxic. It takes a very, very low temperature and/or very high pressure to turn hydrogen into a liquid or a solid. One common molecule formed by hydrogen is water, or scientifically known as H2O. It has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. At room temperature, water is a clear liquid.

How was it discovered?
Henry Cavendish was the first to understand that hydrogen was a unique substance. In 1776, he produced hydrogen by mixing mercury with an acid. Hydrogen had actually been produced much earlier by the Swiss alchemist Paracelsus. He also added mixes of water samples in it to make water!

Where did its name come from?
Hydrogen comes from Hydrogenes, which comes from Ancient Greek meaning "water-forming". The element was named by Antoine Lavoisier in 1783. When hydrogen burns, it produces water.

 Did You Know?
 * Hydrogen is the smallest element.
 * Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.
 * Hydrogen isn't common in a pure form on Earth, but is mostly found as part of water.
 * Hydrogen is the main fuel of stars and the only fuel for red dwarfs.
 * Hydrogen makes a squeaking noise when it is set on fire.

Where is it found?
Hydrogen in its atomic form is found commonly in space and stars. There are vast clouds of hydrogen in outer space. However much of the hydrogen in space is missing an electron, which means it is an ion. On Earth, hydrogen is commonly found as part of water molecules. Very little of it is in our atmosphere though, as it is so light that it can simply float to space! Many other molecules also contain hydrogen, such as propane and plastics. Some bacteria produce pure hydrogen gas as waste. Hydrogen is very important for all living creatures including people to exist. It is found in every living thing on Earth, and also forms the oceans, rivers, lakes and clouds.

Hydrogen gas makes up most of the atmospheres of the gas giant planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, which are massive planets in our solar system that have much stronger gravity and lower temperatures than Earth.

What are its uses?
The largest application of hydrogen is for the processing ("upgrading") of fossil fuels, and in the production of ammonia. Hydrogen can be used as a fuel source by burning it for heat or by using hydrogen fuel cells. A fuel cell is a device that produces electricity by safely combining hydrogen and oxygen.

Hydrogen is lighter than air, which allows it to rise. If it is put into a container such as a balloon, it can lift it very high! In the past, it was used to lift many airships, which are massive balloon-like vehicles that were used to transport people long distances, like we use planes for nowadays. Unfortunately, it is much less safe than Helium, which isn't flammable, so it is very rarely used for that purpose nowadays.

In the future, non-polluting cars may be fueled by hydrogen. The technology to make a hydrogen car already exists, but there are reasons you don't see them on the road. Separating hydrogen from water takes energy. The energy needed to produce enough hydrogen to power a car can cause pollution. Also, it's hard to carry enough hydrogen to power a vehicle for a long trip.

Stars give off light and heat because of the energy made when hydrogen atoms are merged (or fused) together to form heavier elements. Scientists are working to create a reactor that can make energy in the same way. This, however, is a very hard problem to solve and will take many years before we see useful fusion reactors built.

Is it dangerous?
Elemental hydrogen is highly flammable, and when it is mixed with oxygen gas or with air it can burn or even explode. The Hindenburg Disaster was caused by this property, as the ship was filled with hydrogen instead of helium. When it caught fire, the ship was quickly engulfed in flame as the hydrogen inside quickly ignited and took the entire ship down. This terrible disaster could have been avoided if helium was used to lift it instead, but helium was very rare and expensive at the time so the airship's builders were forced to use hydrogen instead.

While not toxic, hydrogen isn't safe to breathe alone, as it cannot take the place of the oxygen that our bodies need to survive. As long as it's mixed with enough normal air, it's perfectly safe to breathe and it can even raise the pitch of your voice if you inhale some!

title: Wikijunior:The Elements/Hydrogen


text:
Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Magic/Whomping Willow

Overview
The Whomping Willow is a large tree located on the Hogwarts grounds. It seems to be unique, it is certainly very rare; it can move its limbs, and does so with great speed and violence when it feels threatened.

Extended Description
The Whomping Willow destroys the flying car in which Harry and Ron arrive at Hogwarts in their second year; it apparently manages to injure itself slightly in this event. The Herbology teacher, Professor Sprout, is seen to have been tending it. At the same time, we learn something about Professor Lockhart, who has been "advising" her; tellingly, Professor Sprout is carrying all the tools and equipment, has been injured in the endeavor, and is looking nettled, while Professor Lockhart has not even a hair out of place.

We find out in the third book that the Whomping Willow was planted specifically to guard the entrance to a secret passage. It was actually brought to Hogwarts when Remus Lupin was a student at school. The tree hid a secret tunnel that led to the Shrieking Shack in Hogsmeade; when the full moon caused Lupin to transform into a werewolf, he could lock himself into the Shack and so avoid harming his fellow students. This particular willow can be temporarily stilled by pressing a specific knot at its base; this is the technique used by Lupin (and others) to enter the secret tunnel that it conceals between its roots. The presence of this knot is revealed to Harry and Hermione by Crookshanks; we also later see Lupin and Professor Snape using it. It is possible that Sprout knows about this, but was prevented from using it while tending the tree's injuries because of Lockhart's presence; this would explain not only her injuries, but part of her visible annoyance with him. Most of her annoyance, likely, would have been caused by his staying out of range and shouting unnecessary and probably incorrect advice, while Sprout was actually doing the hard and dangerous work.

In Harry's third year, the tree destroys Harry's Nimbus 2000 broom. We are never told whether the Willow has a particular antipathy to brooms, but it does reduce Harry's treasured broom to splinters.

Finally, we see that the Trio have to pass the Willow to reach the Shrieking Shack, where Voldemort has established his field headquarters for the attack on Hogwarts. In this instance, it is Ron who triggers the knot that stills the tree. How he knows about the knot and its function is not explained, as Sirius had already dragged him into the tunnel when Crookshanks revealed its operation to Harry and Hermione;

Analysis
There is a technique of tree-trimming much practiced in England, and places following the English model, where major branches of a tree are cut quite short and repeatedly. This results in a tree with stubby branches and large round growths on the ends of its branches. These, looking like knuckles on the ends of the branches, could easily inspire the idea of a tree that acts as if it has fists.

Like many of the obstacles Harry faces in his endeavors, the Whomping Willow is impersonal; it neither likes nor dislikes Harry, it simply defends its secret against all comers. Other similar obstacles are Fluffy, the three headed dog, and most of the other barriers between Harry and the chamber where the Philosopher's Stone is kept in the first book. We suspect these challenges are intended to illustrate to the reader how not all obstacles are malign; they would, and do, act the same no matter who is challenging them. Harry's reaction, showing dismay, for instance, when his broom is destroyed, without having the urge to destroy the Willow, shows maturity and likely is intended to teach that sort of mature response to adversity. It is to the author's credit that the lesson is not belaboured, as that makes it much more likely to be accepted.

Greater Picture
In the final book of the series, Voldemort uses the Shrieking Shack as a command post. As he attended Hogwarts before Lupin, the tunnel to the school may not have existed in his day, and the Whomping Willow certainly did not. The Trio have to pass the Willow and traverse the tunnel in order to determine what Voldemort is doing. Voldemort is clearly unaware of the tunnel, as the Trio do not encounter any difficulty other than the Willow in reaching the room where Voldemort is holding court.

The effort to pass the Willow results in a bit of byplay between Ron and Hermione that echoes an event in the first book. As mentioned in the Extended Description section, there is no explanation for how Ron knows to still the tree, as he was dragged into the tunnel before Crookshanks demonstrated the operation of the knot. We suspect that having Ron still the Willow was done specifically to allow that echo from the first book, and his not having earlier seen the knot being used was an oversight on the author's part.


text:
Wikijunior:The Elements/Introduction

=Introduction=

To know what "Elements" are, you need to know about chemistry. So, what is chemistry? Chemistry is the study of matter and the changes that take place within that matter. Unfortunately, this does not tell you very much about chemistry, and it is also a very long way from telling you EVERYTHING about chemistry.

Everything on Earth, everything in our solar system, everything in our galaxy, and everything in the universe is made up of matter. Matter is the name that scientists have given to everything you can touch, or see, or feel, or smell. Matter takes up space, and matter has weight. To be really correct, we should say that matter has volume and mass. In other words matter has substance, and "Elements" (about 118 of them) are what gives matter its substance, even what makes it exist at all.

Most of the matter around you will have more than one element in it. But there are bits of matter that you have certainly seen and touched that are made up of just one element. If you have ever held a diamond, for example, it has been formed from just one element, the element Carbon. Surprisingly, the graphite in a pencil that you use for drawing or writing is also Carbon, just arranged differently.

Some other examples of matter you may have seen which have just one element are: an aluminium drink can; 24 carat gold jewelry; the helium gas in a balloon that floats upwards; cast iron garden railings; lead sheeting used by builders on the roofs of houses; a powder called "Flowers of Sulphur" that you can buy in a pharmacy.

In actual fact these are not perfectly true examples of elements, because an element, like gold or aluminium, will always have tiny amounts of other elements present as impurities.

Not many elements occur "naturally;" that is to say as pieces of nearly pure substance that you can pick from the ground. The elements Gold and Sulphur do occur naturally, as does Carbon when it is a diamond.

To purify them, most elements have to be pried apart from one another, because in most matter they are fixed together by strong "chemical bonds." Sometimes this can be done quite easily by using heat or electricity.

Ancient people knew how to make the element Iron. They did it by heating iron ore dug from the ground with charcoal they got from burning wood. The matter containing the iron was originally a "compound" of two elements, iron and oxygen; by heating with charcoal the oxygen was removed as a gas called carbon dioxide, leaving iron behind.

The elements Sodium and Chlorine can be separated from common salt by passing an electric current into salt that is melted at a very high temperature. The salt we started with is said to be a "compound" of sodium and chlorine. It is given the scientific name of sodium chloride.

One interesting source of elements is the air around us. It contains a mixture of elements that are all gases, such as Oxygen which you will have heard of already, as well as many gases which are not elements but are compounds — a bit like salt, only different!.

To get the elements from the air we need to cool it down to a very low temperature, much lower than even Siberia in winter! At around −190°C it forms a liquid. It's a bit like cooling down steam to make water. Afterwards, by boiling this liquid, the gases are released one at a time. As well as elements Oxygen and Nitrogen, we can get what are called the "Noble Gas" elements Argon, Xenon and Krypton. Two other noble gases, Helium and Neon, are in the air and can be taken out by cooling to an even lower temperature.

You have probably wondered how we have got this far without using some words that you probably have heard, and which are very much part of the subject of chemistry: atom, molecule, electron, nuclear and so forth. In fact, up until about 150 years ago chemists didn't really know very much about any of these things, even though they did understand the difference between elements and compounds.

Today we can "see" atoms by using a special electron microscope, which magnifies things that are millions of times smaller than those things we look at with an ordinary microscope. Under a scanning electron microscope, which shows things in 3-D, atoms appear as fuzzy balls.

Atoms are the key to describing why there exists different elements and why these elements form just those compounds that they do.

Atoms also explain why the Periodic Table of Elements is the way it is, even though much of it was worked out by the old-time chemists like Dobereiner and Mendeleev (see Chapter 4). Understanding atoms can explain, for example, why there are just 81 elements that have atoms which can exist for ever.

Wikijunior Die Elemente/ Einführung Materie fr:Wikijunior:Les éléments/Introduction

title: Wikijunior:The Elements/Introduction


text:
Talk:Suomen kieli ulkomaalaisille/Sisältö

I would like to comment on the Finnish name of this project: Suomen kieli ulkomaalaisille sounds awkward; it actually means giving the whole language to foreigners (how's that possible?), or maybe "to" instead of "for" in English. Correct name would be Suomen kieltä ulkomaalaisille, or even better, just Suomea ulkomaalaisille. It is the process of giving a part of Finnish, not all, to foreigners.

Interesting project, especially laudable as it seems that main contributor is not a native Finnish speaker. I will probably contribute something.--Jyril 23:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Flowchart
1. "minulla on" lause │   -objekti on oikein │    subjekti ja se on •─┐ Väärin                      │ │                        │  ┌─────────────• 2. Negatiivi              │ │              │                         │  │               │                         │  │            väärin                       │ │              │                         │  │┌────────────• 3. Partitiivi Verbi       │ ││             │                         │  ││           Väärin                       │ ││             │                         │  ││┌───────────• 4. Aine                   │ │││            │                         │  │││          Väärin                       │ │││            │                         │  │││┌──────────• 5. Numero etta ei ole yksi│ ││││           │                         │  ││││         Väärin                       │ ││││           │                         │  ││││┌─────────• 6. Osa                    │ │││││          │                         │  │││││        Väärin                       │ │││││          │                         │  │││││┌────────• 7. Prosessi on kesken     │ ││││││         │                         │  ││││││       Väärin                       │ ││││││         │                         │  ││││││          8. Käsky lause •─────────┐│ ││││││         │                        ││  ││││││       Väärin                      ││ ││││││         │                        ││  ││││││          9. "Minä olen" lause •──┐││ ││││││         │                       │││  Oikein       Väärin                    Oikein ││││││         │                       │││ ┌─••••••─────┐ ┌──•──────────┐ ┌──────────•••┐ │ Partitiivi │ │ Akkusatiivi │ │ Nominatiivi │ └────────────┘ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ Heyzeuss (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


text:
User talk:71.203.147.175

This message is regarding the page Rhetoric and Composition. Please refrain from removing content from Wikibooks. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Az1568 23:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:71.203.147.175


text:
C Sharp Programming/Keywords/virtual

The keyword is applied to a method declaration to indicate that the method may be overridden in a subclass. If the keyword is not applied and a method is defined in a subclass with the same signature as the one in the parent class, the method in the parent class is hidden by the subclass implementation. With other words, it is only possible to have a true polymorphism of functions with this keyword.

Notice: Comparing it with Java, a method is not virtual if and only if it is. This is the result of different design philosophies.

title: C Sharp Programming/Keywords/virtual


text:
William Shakespeare's Works/Comedies/All's Well That Ends Well/Act I, Scenes I-III

=Act I, Scenes I-III=

Summary
Helena, the daughter of a famous doctor, has been the ward of the Countess of Rousillon, a wise and kindly old noblewoman, since her father's death. The Countess' husband has also recently died, and her son Count Bertram, a brave, handsome, but callow young man, is sent to serve the King of France, his liege lord. (The King, we learn, is dying). Helena is in love with Bertram, but hopelessly, since he is a nobleman and she a commoner. As he departs for the King's Court, she banters with Parolles, an unsavory character who has managed to gain Bertram's ear despite being a liar and a coward. They discuss chastity in coarse terms, with Parolles recommending that she find a husband and lose her virginity quickly. As they speak Helena conceives a plan that she hopes will gain her the hand of Bertram.

Bertram arrives at the King's court, where the cautious monarch has recently decided to stay out of a war involving Austria and the Duke of Florence--with the caveat that any French noblemen who wish to involve themselves in the conflict are free to go. Greeting Bertram, the King laments the loss of the young man's father, and then remarks that he wishes Helena's father were still living, because only such a great doctor could now save his life. Meanwhile, in Rousillon, the countess walks about and chats with the coarse, bawdy Clown who once served her husband. Her Steward joins them and informs the Countess that he overheard Helena declaring her love for Bertram; the noblewoman sends for her ward immediately. After much dissembling, Helena admits to loving the Countess' son, and then immediately declares her plan to go to the King's palace and offer her services as a doctor, using the medical knowledge that her father taught her. The Countess, while expressing her doubts that the King and the royal doctors will accept the help of a young woman, gives her blessing, and sends Helena on her way.

Commentary
The play opens on a dark, somber note: as Bertram departs, his mother recalls her husband's passing, and Bertram comments that "I in going, madam, weep o'er my father's death anew." (Act I, Scene I, Lines 3-4) Lafew. the wise old nobleman, makes an attempt at comforting them by saying that the King will act as a husband and father to the family, but this only leads into a discussion of the King's illness, and how he has abandoned all hope of a cure--which, in turn, leads them to speak of the recent death of Helena's father. This conversation is useful to the audience, since it fills in the background details before the action of the play begins, but its heavy emphasis on illness and death casts a pall over the scene. Indeed, the entire older generation in All's Well That Ends Well is nearing death--the King, the Countess, Lafew are all figures of wisdom, offering sage advice to the headstrong young, but they are also figures of decay and decrepitude. The Countess and Lafew speak repeatedly of their own feebleness and impending deaths; the King's life will be saved by Helena, but it is clearly only a reprieve, and he seems to lack energy, especially in his refusal to take part in the war that so many of his young nobles flock to join. In sum, the play presents a "generation gap"--a stark contrast between the weakness of the older generation and the vitality of the younger characters (Helena, Bertram, Diana, etc.).

The shadow that mortality casts on the action is one reason why this play has often been termed a "problem comedy," or "dark comedy." Another reason is the nature of the younger generation, who are poised to inherit from their wiser, aging elders. Bertram, the supposed romantic hero, possesses most of the appropriate attributes--everyone admits that he is handsome, dashing, and brave, and certainly, Helena speaks highly of him, describing his "bright radiance and collateral light /...His arched brows, his hawking eye, his curls" (Act 1, Scene 1, Lines 94-100) in the glowing terms of a would-be lover. But, significantly, she only mentions, and we only observe, the superficial qualities of the man. When he shows his true colors later, his image will be tarnished significantly.

Helena, meanwhile, is more appealing--her worth is evident despite her low birth--and already her resourcefulness is on display as she assumes the male role of physician (a common burden for Shakespeare's heroines, who either end up wearing men's clothes, like Viola in Twelfth Night, or doing men's work, like the lawyerly Portia in The Merchant of Venice) and plans a journey to Paris. But her fixation on Bertram, while determined, will come to seem almost monomaniacal--it is her defining character trait, in the end. Her love, she admits, is a kind of "idolatrous fancy," (Act 1, Scene 1, Line 103) but she will not release her hold on it. There is a bitter edge to her humor, too, a coarseness that other Shakespearean heroines lack; her conversation with Parolles, filled with sexual innuendo, displays a cynicism about relations between the sexes that is seems jarring coming from a romantic heroine.

The cynicism is appropriate to Parolles, of course, who seems cast as the villain in the early going. Eventually, his essential harmlessness will be revealed--he is a minor rogue, whose boasts and lies are dangerous, but not deadly.


text:
Wikijunior:The Elements/Authors

=Authors= Please add your name to the list below.
 * 1) Radiation
 * 2) Tannersf
 * 3) Klingoncowboy4
 * 4) MiltonT
 * 5) Read-write-services
 * 6) n1person
 * 7) Ferretinator
 * 8) Elocina
 * 9) franklinthetanklin
 * 10) Urbane User
 * 11) Bart133
 * 12) LaleenaWiki
 * 13) Chrisb97
 * 14) Poetrope
 * 15) Pi zero
 * 16) Whoop whoop pull up
 * 17) Enervation
 * 18) Pbrower2a
 * 19) RoofToilet1107
 * 20) ANSH
 * 21) ThatOneEli
 * 22) MdaNoman
 * 23) Wikiwau

Thanks for contributing!!!

title: Wikijunior:The Elements/Authors


text:
Engineering Analysis/Fourier Series

The L2 space is an infinite function space, and therefore a linear combination of any infinite set of orthogonal functions can be used to represent any single member of the L2 space. The decomposition of an L2 function in terms of an infinite basis set is a technique known as the Fourier Decomposition of the function, and produces a result called the Fourier Series.

Fourier Basis
Let's consider a set of L2 functions, $$\phi$$, as follows:

 * $$\phi = \{1, \sin(\pi x), \cos(\pi x), \sin(2\pi x), \cos(2\pi x), \sin(3\pi x), \cos(3\pi x) ...\}. \ $$

We can prove that over a range $$[0, 2\pi]$$, all of these functions are orthogonal:

 * $$\int_0^{2\pi} 1 \cdot \cos(n\pi x) dx = 0$$
 * $$\int_0^{2\pi} 1 \cdot \sin(n\pi x) dx = 0$$
 * $$\int_0^{2\pi} \sin(n\pi x) \sin(m\pi x)dx = 0, n \ne m$$
 * $$\int_0^{2\pi} \sin(n\pi x) \cos(m\pi x)dx = 0$$
 * $$\int_0^{2\pi} \cos(n\pi x) \cos(m\pi x)dx = 0, n \ne m$$

Because $$\phi$$ is as an infinite orthogonal set in L2, $$\phi$$ is also a valid basis set in the L2 space. Therefore, we can decompose any function in L2 as the following sum:

 * $$\psi(x) = a_0(1) + \sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n \sin(n\pi x) + \sum_{m=1}^\infty b_m\cos(m\pi x)$$

However, the difficulty occurs when we need to calculate the a and b coefficients. We will show the method to do this below:

a0: The Constant Term
Calculation of a0 is the easiest, and therefore we will show how to calculate it first. We use the value of a0 which minimizes the error in approximating $$f(x)$$ by the Fourier series.

First, define an error function, E, that is equal to the squared norm of the difference between the function f(x) and the infinite sum above:

 * $$E = \frac{1}{2}\int_0^{2\pi}\|f(x) - a_0(1) - \sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n \sin(n\pi x) - \sum_{m=1}^\infty b_m\cos(m\pi x)\|^2dx$$

For ease, we will write all the basis functions as the set φ, described above:

 * $$\sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i\phi_i = a_0 + \sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n \sin(n\pi x) + \sum_{m=1}^\infty b_m\cos(m\pi x)$$

Combining the last two functions together, and writing the norm as an integral, we can say:

 * $$E = \frac{1}{2}\int_0^{2\pi}|\sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i\phi_i|^2dx$$

We attempt to minimize this error function with respect to the constant term. To do this, we differentiate both sides with respect to a0, and set the result to zero:

 * $$0 = \frac{\partial E}{\partial a_0} = \int_0^{2\pi} (f(x) - \sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i\phi_i(x))(-\phi_0(x))dx$$

The φ0 term comes out of the sum because of the chain rule: it is the only term in the entire sum dependent on a0. We can separate out the integral above as follows:

 * $$\int_0^{2\pi} (f(x) - \sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i\phi_i)(-\phi_0)dx = -\int_0^{2\pi}f(x)\phi_0(x)dx + a_0\int_0^{2\pi}\phi_0(x)\phi_0(x)dx$$

All the other terms drop out of the infinite sum because they are all orthogonal to φ0. Again, we can rewrite the above equation in terms of the scalar product:

 * $$0 = -\langle f(x), \phi_0(x)\rangle + a_0\langle \phi_0(x), \phi_0(x)\rangle$$

And solving for a0, we get our final result:

 * $$a_0 = \frac{\langle f(x), \phi_0(x)\rangle}{\langle \phi_0(x), \phi_0(x)\rangle}$$

Sin Coefficients
Using the above method, we can solve for the an coefficients of the sin terms:

 * $$a_n = \frac{\langle f(x), \sin(n\pi x)\rangle}{\langle \sin(n\pi x), \sin(n\pi x)\rangle}$$

Cos Coefficients
Also using the above method, we can solve for the bn terms of the cos term.

 * $$b_n = \frac{\langle f(x), \cos(n\pi x)\rangle}{\langle \cos(n\pi x), \cos(n\pi x)\rangle}$$

title: Engineering Analysis/Fourier Series


text:
Orthopaedic Surgery/Decubitus Ulcers

Epidemiology

The overall prevalence of presure sores in the nursing home population is 11% ulcers

Sociology

Sorting out the influence of clinical factors and care factors is a poignant reminder of how the responsibility for the physical integrity of the nursing home resident falls to the staff of the nursing home. We can only hope and attempt to foster a quality standard akin to the care of a loving family which we hold as an optimal standard even though by definition the nursing home patient by virtue of clinical factors, the intensity and duration of care needed has exceeded the capacity of the extended family unit to provide for their needs. Thus this issue is a comment on modern industrial society and the breakdown of the family unit and the outsourcing of intergenerational responsibilities.

Pathophysiology

Wound Healing

Prevention

In the case of pressure ulcers prevention is the most cost effective approach, however in the population at risk medicare dollars are not available for preventative measures and in fact treatment is underfunded until complicated by infection. Like falls, pressure ulcers have been considered a nursing-sensitive outcome. pressure ulcers

Nutrition

Nutritional inadequacy and pressures sores go hand in hand. How to prevent the second by attending to the first is not so easy. How to overcome depression and altered awareness and diminished appetite, loss of taste, even the loss of a sufficient coordination to physically engage in eating make nutrition a more daunting problem than encouraging the nursing home patient to eat. Feeding tubes have there own problems including impeding mobility, diarrhea and fecal incontinence (with resultant risk of skin breakdown) nutrition

Treatment

Dressings

Debridement

Coverage

title: Orthopaedic Surgery/Decubitus Ulcers


text:
Jeep Liberty/Transmissions

Automatics
The 42RLE is a 4-speed overdrive automatic transmission. The 42RLE comes in 2003.5+ Jeep Liberty. The 45RFE is a 4-speed overdrive automatic transmission, with an alternative 2nd gear ratio for downshifting. The 45RFE was replaced in mid-April 2003 by the 42RLE in the 2003.5+ Liberty. The 545RFE is a 5-speed overdrive automatic transmission. The 545RFE was the only transmission available in Liberty CRD (diesel engine) models. The Liberty's maximum tow rating with an automatic transmission is Class III 5,000#. Mechanically, the 42RLE has 13 bolts and a straight crossmember, while the 45RFE and 545RFE have 15 bolts and a backwards angled crossmember. Electronically, vehicles equipped with the 42RLE have a 4 connector NGC PCM (Powertrain Control Module) with an integrated TCM (Transmission Control Module), while those equipped with the 45RFE have a 3 connector JTEC PCM and a separate TCM.

Gear Ratio Table

Manuals
The NSG370 is a 6-speed overdrive manual transmission. The NSG370 comes in 2005+ Jeep Libertys. The NV3500 is a 5-speed overdrive manual transmission. The NV3500 was replaced by the NSG370 in 2005+ Libertys. The NV1500 is 5-speed overdrive manual transmission with an unsynchronized first gear. The Liberty's maximum tow rating with a manual transmission is Class II 3,500#. The clutch design of the manuals results in a lower tow rating than that of the automatics. A driver skilled in towing with manuals may be able to safely tow more than Class II.

Gear Ratio Table

Cooling
Jeep Libertys with the 42RLE transmission have an auxiliary transmission cooler in front of the engine radiator. Libertys with the 45RFE transmission have the transmission cooler coils integrated into the engine radiator. Liberty CRDs with the 545RFE have a combination transmission cooler & A/C condenser in front of the intercooler and engine radiator. Libertys with the NSG370, NV1500, and NV3500 manual transmissions don't have a cooler because manual transmissions lack a fluid pump.

Standard Coolers (3.7L Auto):

Off-Roading
An automatic transmission is more popular than a manual for off-roading. It removes the distraction, water leakage, and clutch wear associated with off-road manual shifting. These benefits come at a price, as an automatic is always heavier than an equivalent manual.

title: Jeep Liberty/Transmissions