text:
Functionalism (philosophy of mind)

In the philosophy of mind, functionalism is the thesis that each and every mental state (for example, the state of having a belief, of having a desire, or of being in pain) is constituted solely by its functional role, which means its causal relation to other mental states, sensory inputs, and behavioral outputs. Functionalism developed largely as an alternative to the identity theory of mind and behaviorism.

Functionalism is a theoretical level between the physical implementation and behavioral output. Therefore, it is different from its predecessors of Cartesian dualism (advocating independent mental and physical substances) and Skinnerian behaviorism and physicalism (declaring only physical substances) because it is only concerned with the effective functions of the brain, through its organization or its "software programs".

Since a mental state is identified by a functional role, it is said to be realized on multiple levels; in other words, it is able to be manifested in various systems, even perhaps computers, so long as the system performs the appropriate functions. While a computer's program performs the functions via computations on inputs to give outputs, implemented via its electronic substrate, a brain performs the functions via its biological operation and stimulus responses.

Multiple realizability
An important part of some arguments for functionalism is the idea of multiple realizability. According to standard functionalist theories, a mental state corresponds to a functional role. It is like a valve; a valve can be made of plastic or metal or other material, as long as it performs the proper function (controlling the flow of a liquid or gas). Similarly, functionalists argue, a mental state can be explained without considering the state of the underlying physical medium (such as the brain) that realizes it; one need only consider higher-level function or functions. Because a mental state is not limited to a particular medium, it can be realized in multiple ways, including, theoretically, with non-biological systems, such as computers. A silicon-based machine could have the same sort of mental life that a human being has, provided that its structure realized the proper functional roles.

However, there have been some functionalist theories that combine with the identity theory of mind, which deny multiple realizability. Such Functional Specification Theories (FSTs) (Levin, § 3.4), as they are called, were most notably developed by David Lewis and David Malet Armstrong. According to FSTs, mental states are the particular "realizers" of the functional role, not the functional role itself. The mental state of belief, for example, just is whatever brain or neurological process that realizes the appropriate belief function. Thus, unlike standard versions of functionalism (often called Functional State Identity Theories), FSTs do not allow for the multiple realizability of mental states, because the fact that mental states are realized by brain states is essential. What often drives this view is the belief that if we were to encounter an alien race with a cognitive system composed of significantly different material from humans' (e.g., silicon-based) but performed the same functions as human mental states (for example, they tend to yell "Ouch!" when poked with sharp objects), we would say that their type of mental state might be similar to ours but it is not the same. For some, this may be a disadvantage to FSTs. Indeed, one of Hilary Putnam's arguments for his version of functionalism relied on the intuition that such alien creatures would have the same mental states as humans do, and that the multiple realizability of standard functionalism makes it a better theory of mind.

Machine-state functionalism
The broad position of "functionalism" can be articulated in many different varieties. The first formulation of a functionalist theory of mind was put forth by Hilary Putnam in the 1960s. This formulation, which is now called machine-state functionalism, or just machine functionalism, was inspired by the analogies which Putnam and others noted between the mind and the theoretical "machines" or computers capable of computing any given algorithm which were developed by Alan Turing (called Turing machines). Putnam himself, by the mid-1970s, had begun questioning this position. The beginning of his opposition to machine-state functionalism can be read about in his Twin Earth thought experiment.

In non-technical terms, a Turing machine is not a physical object, but rather an abstract machine built upon a mathematical model. Typically, a Turing Machine has a horizontal tape divided into rectangular cells arranged from left to right. The tape itself is infinite in length, and each cell may contain a symbol. The symbols used for any given "machine" can vary. The machine has a read-write head that scans cells and moves in left and right directions. The action of the machine is determined by the symbol in the cell being scanned and a table of transition rules that serve as the machine's programming. Because of the infinite tape, a traditional Turing Machine has an infinite amount of time to compute any particular function or any number of functions. In the below example, each cell is either blank (B) or has a 1 written on it. These are the inputs to the machine. The possible outputs are:

 * Halt: Do nothing.
 * R: move one square to the right.
 * L: move one square to the left.
 * B: erase whatever is on the square.
 * 1: erase whatever is on the square and print a '1''.

An extremely simple example of a Turing machine which writes out the sequence '111' after scanning three blank squares and then stops as specified by the following machine table:

This table states that if the machine is in state one and scans a blank square (B), it will print a 1 and remain in state one. If it is in state one and reads a 1, it will move one square to the right and also go into state two. If it is in state two and reads a B, it will print a 1 and stay in state two. If it is in state two and reads a 1, it will move one square to the right and go into state three. If it is in state three and reads a B, it prints a 1 and remains in state three. Finally, if it is in state three and reads a 1, then it will stay in state three.

The essential point to consider here is the nature of the states of the Turing machine. Each state can be defined exclusively in terms of its relations to the other states as well as inputs and outputs. State one, for example, is simply the state in which the machine, if it reads a B, writes a 1 and stays in that state, and in which, if it reads a 1, it moves one square to the right and goes into a different state. This is the functional definition of state one; it is its causal role in the overall system. The details of how it accomplishes what it accomplishes and of its material constitution are completely irrelevant.

The above point is critical to an understanding of machine-state functionalism. Since Turing machines are not required to be physical systems, "anything capable of going through a succession of states in time can be a Turing machine". Because biological organisms “go through a succession of states in time”, any such organisms could also be equivalent to Turing machines.

According to machine-state functionalism, the nature of a mental state is just like the nature of the Turing machine states described above. If one can show the rational functioning and computing skills of these machines to be comparable to the rational functioning and computing skills of human beings, it follows that Turing machine behavior closely resembles that of human beings. Therefore, it is not a particular physical-chemical composition responsible for the particular machine or mental state, it is the programming rules which produce the effects that are responsible. To put it another way, any rational preference is due to the rules being followed, not to the specific material composition of the agent.

Psycho-functionalism
A second form of functionalism is based on the rejection of behaviorist theories in psychology and their replacement with empirical cognitive models of the mind. This view is most closely associated with Jerry Fodor and Zenon Pylyshyn and has been labeled psycho-functionalism.

The fundamental idea of psycho-functionalism is that psychology is an irreducibly complex science and that the terms that we use to describe the entities and properties of the mind in our best psychological theories cannot be redefined in terms of simple behavioral dispositions, and further, that such a redefinition would not be desirable or salient were it achievable. Psychofunctionalists view psychology as employing the same sorts of irreducibly teleological or purposive explanations as the biological sciences. Thus, for example, the function or role of the heart is to pump blood, that of the kidney is to filter it and to maintain certain chemical balances and so on—this is what accounts for the purposes of scientific explanation and taxonomy. There may be an infinite variety of physical realizations for all of the mechanisms, but what is important is only their role in the overall biological theory. In an analogous manner, the role of mental states, such as belief and desire, is determined by the functional or causal role that is designated for them within our best scientific psychological theory. If some mental state which is postulated by folk psychology (e.g. hysteria) is determined not to have any fundamental role in cognitive psychological explanation, then that particular state may be considered not to exist. On the other hand, if it turns out that there are states which theoretical cognitive psychology posits as necessary for explanation of human behavior but which are not foreseen by ordinary folk psychological language, then these entities or states exist.

Analytic functionalism
A third form of functionalism is concerned with the meanings of theoretical terms in general. This view is most closely associated with David Lewis and is often referred to as analytic functionalism or conceptual functionalism. The basic idea of analytic functionalism is that theoretical terms are implicitly defined by the theories in whose formulation they occur and not by intrinsic properties of the phonemes they comprise. In the case of ordinary language terms, such as "belief", "desire", or "hunger", the idea is that such terms get their meanings from our common-sense "folk psychological" theories about them, but that such conceptualizations are not sufficient to withstand the rigor imposed by materialistic theories of reality and causality. Such terms are subject to conceptual analyses which take something like the following form:

 * Mental state M is the state that is preconceived by P and causes Q.

For example, the state of pain is caused by sitting on a tack and causes loud cries, and higher order mental states of anger and resentment directed at the careless person who left a tack lying around. These sorts of functional definitions in terms of causal roles are claimed to be analytic and a priori truths about the submental states and the (largely fictitious) propositional attitudes they describe. Hence, its proponents are known as analytic or conceptual functionalists. The essential difference between analytic and psychofunctionalism is that the latter emphasizes the importance of laboratory observation and experimentation in the determination of which mental state terms and concepts are genuine and which functional identifications may be considered to be genuinely contingent and a posteriori identities. The former, on the other hand, claims that such identities are necessary and not subject to empirical scientific investigation.

Homuncular functionalism
Homuncular functionalism was developed largely by Daniel Dennett and has been advocated by William Lycan. It arose in response to the challenges that Ned Block's China Brain (a.k.a. Chinese nation) and John Searle's Chinese room thought experiments presented for the more traditional forms of functionalism (see below under "Criticism"). In attempting to overcome the conceptual difficulties that arose from the idea of a nation full of Chinese people wired together, each person working as a single neuron to produce in the wired-together whole the functional mental states of an individual mind, many functionalists simply bit the bullet, so to speak, and argued that such a Chinese nation would indeed possess all of the qualitative and intentional properties of a mind; i.e. it would become a sort of systemic or collective mind with propositional attitudes and other mental characteristics. Whatever the worth of this latter hypothesis, it was immediately objected that it entailed an unacceptable sort of mind-mind supervenience: the systemic mind which somehow emerged at the higher-level must necessarily supervene on the individual minds of each individual member of the Chinese nation, to stick to Block's formulation. But this would seem to put into serious doubt, if not directly contradict, the fundamental idea of the supervenience thesis: there can be no change in the mental realm without some change in the underlying physical substratum. This can be easily seen if we label the set of mental facts that occur at the higher-level M1 and the set of mental facts that occur at the lower-level M2. Then M1 and M2 both supervene on the physical facts, but a change of M1 to M2 (say) could occur without any change in these facts.

Since mind-mind supervenience seemed to have become acceptable in functionalist circles, it seemed to some that the only way to resolve the puzzle was to postulate the existence of an entire hierarchical series of mind levels (analogous to homunculi) which became less and less sophisticated in terms of functional organization and physical composition all the way down to the level of the physico-mechanical neuron or group of neurons. The homunculi at each level, on this view, have authentic mental properties but become simpler and less intelligent as one works one's way down the hierarchy.

Mechanistic functionalism
Mechanistic functionalism, originally formulated and defended by Gualtiero Piccinini and Carl Gillett independently, augments previous functionalist accounts of mental states by maintaining that any psychological explanation must be rendered in mechanistic terms. That is, instead of mental states receiving a purely functional explanation in terms of their relations to other mental states, like those listed above, functions are seen as playing only a part—the other part being played by structures— of the explanation of a given mental state. A mechanistic explanation involves decomposing a given system, in this case a mental system, into its component physical parts, their activities or functions, and their combined organizational relations. On this account the mind remains a functional system, but one that is understood in mechanistic terms. This account remains a sort of functionalism because functional relations are still essential to mental states, but it is mechanistic because the functional relations are always manifestations of concrete structures—albeit structures understood at a certain level of abstraction. Functions are individuated and explained either in terms of the contributions they make to the given system or in teleological terms. If the functions are understood in teleological terms, then they may be characterized either etiologically or non-etiologically. Mechanistic functionalism leads functionalism away from the traditional functionalist autonomy of psychology from neuroscience and towards integrating psychology and neuroscience. By providing an applicable framework for merging traditional psychological models with neurological data, mechanistic functionalism may be understood as reconciling the functionalist theory of mind with neurological accounts of how the brain actually works. This is due to the fact that mechanistic explanations of function attempt to provide an account of how functional states (mental states) are physically realized through neurological mechanisms.

Physicalism
There is much confusion about the sort of relationship that is claimed to exist (or not exist) between the general thesis of functionalism and physicalism. It has often been claimed that functionalism somehow "disproves" or falsifies physicalism tout court (i.e. without further explanation or description). On the other hand, most philosophers of mind who are functionalists claim to be physicalists—indeed, some of them, such as David Lewis, have claimed to be strict reductionist-type physicalists.

Functionalism is fundamentally what Ned Block has called a broadly metaphysical thesis as opposed to a narrowly ontological one. That is, functionalism is not so much concerned with what there is than with what it is that characterizes a certain type of mental state, e.g. pain, as the type of state that it is. Previous attempts to answer the mind-body problem have all tried to resolve it by answering both questions: dualism says there are two substances and that mental states are characterized by their immateriality; behaviorism claimed that there was one substance and that mental states were behavioral disposition; physicalism asserted the existence of just one substance and characterized the mental states as physical states (as in "pain = C-fiber firings").

On this understanding, type physicalism can be seen as incompatible with functionalism, since it claims that what characterizes mental states (e.g. pain) is that they are physical in nature, while functionalism says that what characterizes pain is its functional/causal role and its relationship with yelling "ouch", etc. However, any weaker sort of physicalism which makes the simple ontological claim that everything that exists is made up of physical matter is perfectly compatible with functionalism. Moreover, most functionalists who are physicalists require that the properties that are quantified over in functional definitions be physical properties. Hence, they are physicalists, even though the general thesis of functionalism itself does not commit them to being so.

In the case of David Lewis, there is a distinction in the concepts of "having pain" (a rigid designator true of the same things in all possible worlds) and just "pain" (a non-rigid designator). Pain, for Lewis, stands for something like the definite description "the state with the causal role x". The referent of the description in humans is a type of brain state to be determined by science. The referent among silicon-based life forms is something else. The referent of the description among angels is some immaterial, non-physical state. For Lewis, therefore, local type-physical reductions are possible and compatible with conceptual functionalism. (See also Lewis's mad pain and Martian pain.) There seems to be some confusion between types and tokens that needs to be cleared up in the functionalist analysis.

China brain
Ned Block argues against the functionalist proposal of multiple realizability, where hardware implementation is irrelevant because only the functional level is important. The "China brain" or "Chinese nation" thought experiment involves supposing that the entire nation of China systematically organizes itself to operate just like a brain, with each individual acting as a neuron. (The tremendous difference in speed of operation of each unit is not addressed.). According to functionalism, so long as the people are performing the proper functional roles, with the proper causal relations between inputs and outputs, the system will be a real mind, with mental states, consciousness, and so on. However, Block argues, this is patently absurd, so there must be something wrong with the thesis of functionalism since it would allow this to be a legitimate description of a mind.

Some functionalists believe China would have qualia but that due to the size it is impossible to imagine China being conscious. Indeed, it may be the case that we are constrained by our theory of mind and will never be able to understand what Chinese-nation consciousness is like. Therefore, if functionalism is true either qualia will exist across all hardware or will not exist at all but are illusory.

The Chinese room
The Chinese room argument by John Searle is a direct attack on the claim that thought can be represented as a set of functions. The thought experiment asserts that it is possible to mimic intelligent action without any interpretation or understanding through the use of a purely functional system. In short, Searle describes a person who only speaks English who is in a room with only Chinese symbols in baskets and a rule book in English for moving the symbols around. The person is then ordered by people outside of the room to follow the rule book for sending certain symbols out of the room when given certain symbols. Further suppose that the people outside of the room are Chinese speakers and are communicating with the person inside via the Chinese symbols. According to Searle, it would be absurd to claim that the English speaker inside knows Chinese simply based on these syntactic processes. This thought experiment attempts to show that systems which operate merely on syntactic processes (inputs and outputs, based on algorithms) cannot realize any semantics (meaning) or intentionality (aboutness). Thus, Searle attacks the idea that thought can be equated with following a set of syntactic rules; that is, functionalism is an insufficient theory of the mind.

In connection with Block's Chinese nation, many functionalists responded to Searle's thought experiment by suggesting that there was a form of mental activity going on at a higher level than the man in the Chinese room could comprehend (the so-called "system reply"); that is, the system does know Chinese. In response, Searle suggested the man in the room could simply memorize the rules and symbol relations. Again, though he would convincingly mimic communication, he would be aware only of the symbols and rules, not of the meaning behind them.

Inverted spectrum
Another main criticism of functionalism is the inverted spectrum or inverted qualia scenario, most specifically proposed as an objection to functionalism by Ned Block. This thought experiment involves supposing that there is a person, call her Jane, that is born with a condition which makes her see the opposite spectrum of light that is normally perceived. Unlike normal people, Jane sees the color violet as yellow, orange as blue, and so forth. So, suppose, for example, that you and Jane are looking at the same orange. While you perceive the fruit as colored orange, Jane sees it as colored blue. However, when asked what color the piece of fruit is, both you and Jane will report "orange". In fact, one can see that all of your behavioral as well as functional relations to colors will be the same. Jane will, for example, properly obey traffic signs just as any other person would, even though this involves the color perception. Therefore, the argument goes, since there can be two people who are functionally identical, yet have different mental states (differing in their qualitative or phenomenological aspects), functionalism is not robust enough to explain individual differences in qualia.

David Chalmers tries to show that even though mental content cannot be fully accounted for in functional terms, there is nevertheless a nomological correlation between mental states and functional states in this world. A silicon-based robot, for example, whose functional profile matched our own, would have to be fully conscious. His argument for this claim takes the form of a reductio ad absurdum. He considers gradually replacing a human brain by functionally equivalent circuitry; the general idea is that since it would be very unlikely for a conscious human being to experience a change in its qualia which it utterly fails to notice, mental content and functional profile appear to be inextricably bound together, at least for entities that behave like humans. If the subject's qualia were to change, we would expect the subject to notice, and therefore his functional profile to follow suit. A similar argument is applied to the notion of absent qualia. In this case, Chalmers argues that it would be very unlikely for a subject to experience a fading of his qualia which he fails to notice and respond to. This, coupled with the independent assertion that a conscious being's functional profile just could be maintained, irrespective of its experiential state, leads to the conclusion that the subject of these experiments would remain fully conscious. The problem with this argument, however, as Brian G. Crabb (2005) has observed, is that, while changing or fading qualia in a conscious subject might force changes in its functional profile, this tells us nothing about the case of a permanently inverted or unconscious robot. A subject with inverted qualia from birth would have nothing to notice or adjust to. Similarly, an unconscious functional simulacrum of ourselves (a zombie) would have no experiential changes to notice or adjust to. Consequently, Crabb argues, Chalmers' "fading qualia" and "dancing qualia" arguments fail to establish that cases of permanently inverted or absent qualia are nomologically impossible.

A related critique of the inverted spectrum argument is that it assumes that mental states (differing in their qualitative or phenomenological aspects) can be independent of the functional relations in the brain. Thus, it begs the question of functional mental states: its assumption denies the possibility of functionalism itself, without offering any independent justification for doing so. (Functionalism says that mental states are produced by the functional relations in the brain.) This same type of problem—that there is no argument, just an antithetical assumption at their base—can also be said of both the Chinese room and the Chinese nation arguments. Notice, however, that Crabb's response to Chalmers does not commit this fallacy: His point is the more restricted observation that even if inverted or absent qualia turn out to be nomologically impossible, and it is perfectly possible that we might subsequently discover this fact by other means, Chalmers' argument fails to demonstrate that they are impossible.

Twin Earth
The Twin Earth thought experiment, introduced by Hilary Putnam, is responsible for one of the main arguments used against functionalism, although it was originally intended as an argument against semantic internalism. The thought experiment is simple and runs as follows. Imagine a Twin Earth which is identical to Earth in every way but one: water does not have the chemical structure H2O, but rather some other structure, say XYZ. It is critical, however, to note that XYZ on Twin Earth is still called "water" and exhibits all the same macro-level properties that H2O exhibits on Earth (i.e., XYZ is also a clear drinkable liquid that is in lakes, rivers, and so on). Since these worlds are identical in every way except in the underlying chemical structure of water, you and your Twin Earth doppelgänger see exactly the same things, meet exactly the same people, have exactly the same jobs, behave exactly the same way, and so on. In other words, since you share the same inputs, outputs, and relations between other mental states, you are functional duplicates. So, for example, you both believe that water is wet. However, the content of your mental state of believing that water is wet differs from your duplicate's because your belief is of H2O, while your duplicate's is of XYZ. Therefore, so the argument goes, since two people can be functionally identical, yet have different mental states, functionalism cannot sufficiently account for all mental states.

Most defenders of functionalism initially responded to this argument by attempting to maintain a sharp distinction between internal and external content. The internal contents of propositional attitudes, for example, would consist exclusively in those aspects of them which have no relation with the external world and which bear the necessary functional/causal properties that allow for relations with other internal mental states. Since no one has yet been able to formulate a clear basis or justification for the existence of such a distinction in mental contents, however, this idea has generally been abandoned in favor of externalist causal theories of mental contents (also known as informational semantics). Such a position is represented, for example, by Jerry Fodor's account of an "asymmetric causal theory" of mental content. This view simply entails the modification of functionalism to include within its scope a very broad interpretation of inputs and outputs to include the objects that are the causes of mental representations in the external world.

The twin earth argument hinges on the assumption that experience with an imitation water would cause a different mental state than experience with natural water. However, since no one would notice the difference between the two waters, this assumption is likely false. Further, this basic assumption is directly antithetical to functionalism; and, thereby, the twin earth argument does not constitute a genuine argument: as this assumption entails a flat denial of functionalism itself (which would say that the two waters would not produce different mental states, because the functional relationships would remain unchanged).

Meaning holism
Another common criticism of functionalism is that it implies a radical form of semantic holism. Block and Fodor referred to this as the damn/darn problem. The difference between saying "damn" or "darn" when one smashes one's finger with a hammer can be mentally significant. But since these outputs are, according to functionalism, related to many (if not all) internal mental states, two people who experience the same pain and react with different outputs must share little (perhaps nothing) in common in any of their mental states. But this is counterintuitive; it seems clear that two people share something significant in their mental states of being in pain if they both smash their finger with a hammer, whether or not they utter the same word when they cry out in pain.

Another possible solution to this problem is to adopt a moderate (or molecularist) form of holism. But even if this succeeds in the case of pain, in the case of beliefs and meaning, it faces the difficulty of formulating a distinction between relevant and non-relevant contents (which can be difficult to do without invoking an analytic–synthetic distinction, as many seek to avoid).

Triviality arguments
According to Ned Block, if functionalism is to avoid the chauvinism of type-physicalism, it becomes overly liberal in "ascribing mental properties to things that do not in fact have them". As an example, he proposes that the economy of Bolivia might be organized such that the economic states, inputs, and outputs would be isomorphic to a person under some bizarre mapping from mental to economic variables.

Hilary Putnam, John Searle, and others have offered further arguments that functionalism is trivial, i.e. that the internal structures functionalism tries to discuss turn out to be present everywhere, so that either functionalism turns out to reduce to behaviorism, or to complete triviality and therefore a form of panpsychism. These arguments typically use the assumption that physics leads to a progression of unique states, and that functionalist realization is present whenever there is a mapping from the proposed set of mental states to physical states of the system. Given that the states of a physical system are always at least slightly unique, such a mapping will always exist, so any system is a mind. Formulations of functionalism which stipulate absolute requirements on interaction with external objects (external to the functional account, meaning not defined functionally) are reduced to behaviorism instead of absolute triviality, because the input-output behavior is still required.

Peter Godfrey-Smith has argued further that such formulations can still be reduced to triviality if they accept a somewhat innocent-seeming additional assumption. The assumption is that adding a transducer layer, that is, an input-output system, to an object should not change whether that object has mental states. The transducer layer is restricted to producing behavior according to a simple mapping, such as a lookup table, from inputs to actions on the system, and from the state of the system to outputs. However, since the system will be in unique states at each moment and at each possible input, such a mapping will always exist so there will be a transducer layer which will produce whatever physical behavior is desired.

Godfrey-Smith believes that these problems can be addressed using causality, but that it may be necessary to posit a continuum between objects being minds and not being minds rather than an absolute distinction. Furthermore, constraining the mappings seems to require either consideration of the external behavior as in behaviorism, or discussion of the internal structure of the realization as in identity theory; and though multiple realizability does not seem to be lost, the functionalist claim of the autonomy of high-level functional description becomes questionable.

title: Functionalism (philosophy of mind)


text:
USS Ohio (BB-12)

USS Ohio (BB-12), a Maine-class battleship pre-dreadnought battleship, was the third ship of her class and the third ship of the United States Navy to be named for the 17th state. She was laid down at the Union Iron Works shipyard in San Francisco in April 1899, was launched in May 1901, and was commissioned into the fleet in October 1904. She was armed with a main battery of four 12 in guns and could steam at a top speed of 18 kn.

Ohio initially served in the Asiatic Fleet, from 1905 to 1907, when she returned to the United States. In December that year, she joined the Great White Fleet for its world cruise, which lasted until early 1909. She served with the Atlantic Fleet for the next four years conducting a peacetime training routine. In 1914, she was sent to Mexico to protect American interests in the country during the Mexican Revolution. She served as a training ship during America's involvement in World War I from 1917 to 1918. Thoroughly obsolete by that time, Ohio was decommissioned in July 1919, and was ultimately sold for scrap in March 1923 under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty.

Description
The United States Congress passed a major naval construction program in response to the outbreak of the Spanish–American War in 1898; the program included three new battleships, which were to become the Maine class. The class incorporated several significant technological developments, including smaller caliber main guns that used smokeless powder to achieve greater muzzle velocity (and thus penetrating power), Krupp cemented armor that was stronger than Harvey armor used on earlier vessels, and water-tube boilers that provided more power for the engines.

Ohio was 393 ft long overall and had a beam of 72 ft and a draft of 24 ft. She displaced 12723 LT as designed and up to 13700 LT at full load. The ship was powered by two-shaft triple-expansion steam engines rated at 16000 ihp, driving two screw propellers. Steam was provided by twelve coal-fired Thornycroft boilers, which were vented into three funnels. The propulsion system generated a top speed of 18 kn. As built, she was fitted with heavy military masts, but these were quickly replaced by cage masts in 1909. She had a crew of 561 officers and enlisted men, which increased to 779–813.

The ship was armed with a main battery of four 12 in /40 caliber guns in two twin gun turrets on the centerline, one forward and aft. The secondary battery consisted of sixteen 6 in /50 caliber Mark 6 guns, which were placed in casemates in the hull. For close-range defense against torpedo boats, she carried six 3 in /50 caliber guns mounted in casemates along the side of the hull, eight 3-pounder guns, and six 1-pounder guns. As was standard for capital ships of the period, Ohio carried two 18 in torpedo tubes, submerged in her hull on the broadside.

Ohio's main armored belt was 11 in thick over the magazines and the propulsion machinery spaces and 8 in elsewhere. The main battery gun turrets had 12 in thick faces, and the supporting barbettes had the same thickness of armor plating on their exposed sides. Armor that was 6 in thick protected the secondary battery. The conning tower had 10 in thick sides.

Service history
Ohio, the final member of the Maine class of pre-dreadnought battleships, was the second ship of the three to be laid down. She was built at the Union Iron Works in San Francisco, with her keel being laid on 22 April 1899. She was launched on 18 May 1901 and was commissioned on 4 October 1904. After she entered service, Ohio was assigned as the flagship of the Asiatic Fleet. She left San Francisco on 1 April, bound for Manila in the Philippines. After the new battleship arrived, the party of then-Secretary of War William Howard Taft came aboard for a tour of East Asia, including stops in Japan and China. Ohio returned to the United States in 1907 and was transferred to the Atlantic Fleet. She and the rest of the Atlantic Fleet battleships held a naval review for President Theodore Roosevelt in Hampton Roads, Virginia to mark the start of the cruise of the Great White Fleet on 16 December 1907. The cruise of the Great White Fleet was conceived as a way to demonstrate American military power, particularly to Japan. Tensions had begun to rise between the United States and Japan after the latter's victory in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905, particularly over racist opposition to Japanese immigration to the United States. The press in both countries began to call for war, and Roosevelt hoped to use the demonstration of naval might to deter Japanese aggression.

The following day, the fleet steamed out of Hampton Roads and cruised south to the Caribbean and then to South America, making stops in Port of Spain, Rio de Janeiro, Punta Arenas, and Valparaíso, among other cities. After arriving in Mexico in March 1908, the fleet spent three weeks conducting gunnery practice. The fleet then resumed its voyage up the Pacific coast of the Americas, stopping in San Francisco and Seattle before crossing the Pacific to Australia, stopping in Hawaii on the way. Stops in the South Pacific included Melbourne, Sydney, and Auckland. After leaving Australia, the fleet turned north for the Philippines, stopping in Manila, before continuing on to Japan where a welcoming ceremony was held in Yokohama. Three weeks of exercises followed in Subic Bay in the Philippines in November. The ships passed Singapore on 6 December and entered the Indian Ocean; they coaled in Colombo before proceeding to the Suez Canal and coaling again at Port Said, Egypt. The fleet called in several Mediterranean ports before stopping in Gibraltar, where an international fleet of British, Russian, French, and Dutch warships greeted the Americans. The ships then crossed the Atlantic to return to Hampton Roads on 22 February 1909, having traveled 46729 nmi. There, they conducted a naval review for Roosevelt.

Following the conclusion of the ceremonies, Ohio proceeded to New York, where she was based for the following four years. This time was spent conducting normal peacetime training with the fleet and assisting in the training of the New York Naval Militia. By 1914, the worsening conditions during the Mexican Civil War prompted the United States to begin intervening in the conflict. Ohio was sent to Mexican waters early that year to protect American interests in the country. In mid-1914, she returned to the east coast of the United States to conduct a training cruise for midshipmen from the US Naval Academy. After completing the cruise, Ohio was transferred to the Reserve Fleet based at Philadelphia. She returned to service only to conduct additional midshipmen cruises in the summers of 1915 and 1916.

The United States had initially remained neutral during World War I, but by early 1917, tensions between it and Germany rose as the latter's unrestricted submarine warfare campaign began to sink American merchants ships. On 6 April 1917, the United States declared war on Germany, and on the 24th, Ohio was recommissioned. She was based in Norfolk and tasked with training crews for the rapidly expanding wartime fleet. This service included gunnery training; on 1 June 1918, she was involved in a significant accident during gunnery practice with two other battleships, USS New Hampshire (BB-25) and USS Louisiana (BB-19). Gunners aboard New Hampshire accidentally began firing at a pair of submarine chasers. Ohio issued a "cease fire" warning, though it was not immediately received aboard New Hampshire before one shell struck Louisiana. While the ships stopped to assess the damage, lookouts aboard Ohio reported an enemy submarine, prompting several salvos from the secondary batteries of Ohio and New Hampshire, though the submarine chasers found no evidence of a submarine upon investigating the scene.

Following the German surrender in November 1918, most of the battleships of the Atlantic Fleet were used as transports to ferry American soldiers back from France. Ohio and her sisters were not so employed, however, owing to their short range and small size, which would not permit sufficient additional accommodations. Instead, she was sent to Philadelphia on 28 November and remained inactive there until 7 January 1919, when she was placed back in reserve. On 17 July, the ship was reclassified as BB-12. The old battleship USS Iowa (BB-4) (by then renamed as Coast Battleship No. 4) was converted into a radio-controlled target ship, and Ohio was employed as her first control vessel. Ohio controlled the vessel remotely on a voyage from Philadelphia to Hampton Roads for initial tests in August 1920. The two vessels conducted experiments there until 10 September.

In June 1921, the Navy and Army conducted a series of bombing tests off the Virginia Capes to evaluate the effectiveness of aircraft against warships. Ohio was again used to control Coast Battleship No. 4 during the experiments, steaming astern of the target ship along with several other vessels to simulate a fleet underway. The ability of the ship to maneuver significantly hindered the aircrews' ability to locate and attack the vessel. Following the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, which mandated significant reductions in naval armaments, Ohio was stricken from the naval register on 31 May 1922 and sold for scrap on 24 March 1923.

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

title: USS Ohio (BB-12)


text:
Nuremberg principles

The Nuremberg principles are a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime. The document was created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations to codify the legal principles underlying the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members following World War II.

Principle I
"Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment."

Principle II
"The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law."

Principle III
"The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law, acted as Head of State or responsible government official, does not relieve him from responsibility under international law."

Principle IV
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders'".

Previous to the time of the Nuremberg Trials, this excuse was known in common parlance as "superior orders". After the prominent, high-profile event of the Nuremberg Trials, that excuse is now referred to by many as the "Nuremberg Defense". In recent times, a third term, "lawful orders" has become common parlance for some people. All three terms are in use today, and they all have slightly different nuances of meaning, depending on the context in which they are used.

Nuremberg Principle IV is legally supported by the jurisprudence found in certain articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which deal indirectly with conscientious objection. It is also supported by the principles found in paragraph 171 of the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status which was issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Those principles deal with the conditions under which conscientious objectors can apply for refugee status in another country if they face persecution in their own country for refusing to participate in an illegal war.

Principle V
"Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law."

Principle VI
"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

 * (a) Crimes against peace:

 * (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

 * (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

 * (b) War crimes:

 * Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

 * (c) Crimes against humanity:

 * Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
 * Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan."

Principle VII
"Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law."

The principles' power or lack of power
In the period just prior to the June 26, 1945 signing of the Charter of the United Nations, the governments participating in its drafting were opposed to conferring on the United Nations legislative power to enact binding rules of international law. As a corollary, they also rejected proposals to confer on the General Assembly the power to impose certain general conventions on states by some form of majority vote. There was, however, strong support for conferring on the General Assembly the more limited powers of study and recommendation, which led to the adoption of Article 13 in Chapter IV of the Charter. It obliges the United Nations General Assembly to initiate studies and to make recommendations that encourage the progressive development of international law and its codification. The Nuremberg Principles were developed by UN organs under that limited mandate.

Unlike treaty law, customary international law is not written. To prove that a certain rule is customary one has to show that it is reflected in state practice and that there exists a conviction in the international community that such practice is required as a matter of law. (For example, the Nuremberg Trials were a "practice" of the "international law" of the Nuremberg Principles; and that "practice" was supported by the international community.) In this context, "practice" relates to official state practice and therefore includes formal statements by states. A contrary practice by some states is possible. If this contrary practice is condemned by other states then the rule is confirmed. (See also: Sources of international law)

In 1947, under UN General Assembly Resolution 177 (II), paragraph (a), the International Law Commission was directed to "formulate the principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal." In the course of the consideration of this subject, the question arose as to whether or not the commission should ascertain to what extent the principles contained in the Charter and judgment constituted principles of international law. The conclusion was that since the Nuremberg Principles had been affirmed by the General Assembly, the task entrusted to the commission was not to express any appreciation of these principles as principles of international law but merely to formulate them. The text above was adopted by the Commission at its second session. The Report of the commission also contains commentaries on the principles (see Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1950, Vol. II, pp. 374–378).

The 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Concerning Nuremberg Principle IV, and its reference to an individual's responsibility, it could be argued that a version of the Superior Orders defense can be found as a defense to international crimes in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. (The Rome Statute was agreed upon in 1998 as the foundational document of the International Criminal Court, established to try those individuals accused of serious international crimes.) Article 33, titled "Superior Orders and prescription of law," states:

"1. The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless:

 * (a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government or the superior in question;
 * (b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and
 * (c) The order was not manifestly unlawful."

"2. For the purposes of this article, orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful."

There are two interpretations of this Article:

 * This formulation, especially (1)(a), whilst effectively prohibiting the use of the Nuremberg Defense in relation to charges of genocide and crimes against humanity, does however, appear to allow the Nuremberg Defense to be used as a protection against charges of war crimes, provided the relevant criteria are met.
 * Nevertheless, this interpretation of ICC Article 33 is open to debate: For example, Article 33 (1)(c) protects the defendant only if "the order was not manifestly unlawful." The "order" could be considered "unlawful" if we consider Nuremberg Principle IV to be the applicable "law" in this case.  If so, then the defendant is not protected.  Discussion as to whether or not Nuremberg Principle IV is the applicable law in this case is found in a discussion of the Nuremberg Principles' power or lack of power.

Canada
Nuremberg Principle IV, and its reference to an individual's responsibility, was also at issue in Canada in the case of Hinzman v. Canada. Jeremy Hinzman was a U.S. Army deserter who claimed refugee status in Canada as a conscientious objector, one of many Iraq War resisters. Hinzman's lawyer, Jeffry House, had previously raised the issue of the legality of the Iraq War as having a bearing on their case. The Federal Court ruling was released on March 31, 2006, and denied the refugee status claim. In the decision, Justice Anne L. Mactavish addressed the issue of personal responsibility:

An individual must be involved at the policy-making level to be culpable for a crime against peace ... the ordinary foot soldier is not expected to make his or her own personal assessment as to the legality of a conflict. Similarly, such an individual cannot be held criminally responsible for fighting in support of an illegal war, assuming that his or her personal war-time conduct is otherwise proper.

On Nov 15, 2007, a quorum of the Supreme Court of Canada consisting of Justices Michel Bastarache, Rosalie Abella, and Louise Charron refused an application to have the Court hear the case on appeal, without giving reasons.

title: Nuremberg principles


text:
Hot dog

A hot dog is a dish consisting of a grilled, steamed, or boiled sausage served in the slit of a partially sliced bun. The term hot dog can refer to the sausage itself. The sausage used is a wiener (Vienna sausage) or a frankfurter (Frankfurter Würstchen, also just called frank). The names of these sausages commonly refer to their assembled dish. Hot dog preparation and condiments vary worldwide. Typical condiments include mustard, ketchup, relish, onions in tomato sauce, and cheese sauce. Other toppings include sauerkraut, diced onions, jalapeños, chili, grated cheese, coleslaw, bacon and olives. Hot dog variants include the corn dog and pigs in a blanket. The hot dog's cultural traditions include the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest and the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile.

These types of sausages were culturally imported from Germany and became popular in the United States. It became a working-class street food in the U.S., sold at stands and carts. The hot dog became closely associated with baseball and American culture. Although particularly connected with New York City and its cuisine, the hot dog eventually became ubiquitous throughout the US during the 20th century. Its preparation varies regionally in the country, emerging as an important part of other regional cuisines, including Chicago street cuisine.

History

The word frankfurter comes from Frankfurt, Germany, where pork sausages similar to hot dogs originated. These sausages, Frankfurter Würstchen, were known since the 13th century and given to the people on the event of imperial coronations, starting with the coronation of Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor, as King. "Wiener" refers to Vienna, Austria (Wien), home to a sausage made of a mixture of pork and beef. Johann Georg Lahner, an 18th/19th century butcher from the Franconian city of Coburg, is said to have brought the Frankfurter Würstchen to Vienna, where he added beef to the mixture and simply called it Frankfurter. Nowadays, in German-speaking countries, except Austria, hot dog sausages are called Wiener or Wiener Würstchen (Würstchen means "little sausage"), to differentiate them from the original pork-only mixture from Frankfurt. In Swiss German, it is called Wienerli, while in Austria the terms Frankfurter or Frankfurter Würstel are used.

It is not definitively known who started the practice of serving the sausage in the bun. One of the strongest claims comes from Harry M. Stevens who was a food concessionaire. The claim is that, while working at the New York Polo Grounds in 1901, he came upon the idea of using small French rolls to hold the sausages when the waxed paper they were using ran out.

A German immigrant named Feuchtwanger, from Frankfurt, in Hesse, allegedly pioneered the practice in the American Midwest; there are several versions of the story with varying details. According to one account, Feuchtwanger's wife proposed the use of a bun in 1880: Feuchtwanger sold hot dogs on the streets of St. Louis, Missouri, and provided gloves to his customers so that they could handle the sausages without burning their hands. Losing money when customers did not return the gloves, Feuchtwanger's wife suggested serving the sausages in a roll instead. In another version, Antoine Feuchtwanger, or Anton Ludwig Feuchtwanger, served sausages in rolls at the World's Fair – either at the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, or, earlier, at the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition, in Chicago – again, allegedly because the white gloves provided to customers to protect their hands were being kept as souvenirs.

Another possible origin for serving the sausages in rolls is the pieman Charles Feltman, at Coney Island in New York City. In 1867 he had a cart made with a stove on which to boil sausages, and a compartment to keep buns in which they were served fresh. In 1871 he leased land to build a permanent restaurant, and the business grew, selling far more than just the "Coney Island Red Hots" as they were known.

Etymology

The term dog has been used as a synonym for sausage since the 1800s, possibly from accusations that sausage makers used dog meat in their sausages.

In Germany the consumption of dog meat was common in Saxony, Silesia, Anhalt, and Bavaria during the 19th and 20th centuries. Hot dogs occasionally contained it.

An early use of the term hot dog in reference to the sausage-meat appears in the Evansville (Indiana) Daily Courier (September 14, 1884):

"even the innocent 'wienerworst' man will be barred from dispensing hot dog on the street corner."

It was used to mean a sausage in casing in the Paterson (New Jersey) Daily Press (31 December 1892):

"the 'hot dog' was quickly inserted in a gash in a roll."

Subsequent uses include the New Brunswick Daily Times (New Jersey; May 20, 1893), the New York World (May 26, 1893), and the Knoxville Journal (September 28, 1893).

According to one story, the use of the complete phrase hot dog (in reference to sausage) was coined by the newspaper cartoonist Thomas Aloysius "Tad" Dorgan around 1900 in a cartoon recording the sale of hot dogs during a New York Giants baseball game at the Polo Grounds. He may have used the term because he did not know how to spell "dachshund". No copy of the apocryphal cartoon has ever been found. Dorgan did use the term at other times; the earliest known example was in connection with a bicycle race at Madison Square Garden, appearing in The New York Evening Journal of December 12, 1906.

Ingredients
Common hot dog sausage ingredients include:
 * Meat trimmings and fat
 * Flavorings, such as salt, garlic, and paprika
 * Preservatives (cure) – typically sodium erythorbate and sodium nitrite

Pork and beef are the traditional meats used in hot dogs. Less expensive hot dogs are often made from chicken or turkey, using low-cost mechanically separated poultry. Changes in meat technology and dietary preferences have led manufacturers to lower the salt content and use turkey, chicken, and vegetarian meat substitutes.

Commercial preparation
Hot dogs are prepared commercially by mixing the ingredients (meats, spices, binders and fillers) in vats where rapidly moving blades grind and mix the ingredients in the same operation. This mixture is forced through tubes into casings for cooking. Most hot dogs sold in the US are "skinless" rather than "natural casing" sausages.

Natural casing
As with most sausages, hot dogs must be in a casing to be cooked. Traditional casing is made from the small intestines of sheep. The products are known as "natural casing" hot dogs or frankfurters. These hot dogs have firmer texture and a "snap" that releases juices and flavor when the product is bitten.

Kosher casings are expensive in commercial quantities in the US, so kosher hot dogs are usually skinless or made with reconstituted collagen casings.

Skinless
"Skinless" hot dogs use a casing for cooking, but the casing may be a long tube of thin cellulose that is removed between cooking and packaging, a process invented in Chicago in 1925 by Erwin O. Freund, founder of Visking.

The first skinless hot dog casings were produced by Freund's new company under the name "Nojax", short for "no jackets" and sold to local Chicago sausage makers.

Skinless hot dogs vary in surface texture, but have a softer "bite" than with natural casing. Skinless hot dogs are more uniform in shape and size and cheaper to make than natural casing hot dogs.

Home consumption
A hot dog may be prepared and served in various ways. Typically it is served in a hot dog bun with various condiments and toppings. The sausage itself may be sliced and added, without bread, to other dishes.

Sandwich debate
There is an ongoing debate about whether or not a hot dog fits the description of a sandwich. The National Hot Dog and Sausage Council (NHDSC) has declared that a hot dog is not a sandwich. Hot dog eating champions Joey Chestnut and Takeru Kobayashi agree with the NHDSC. Merriam-Webster, on the other hand, has stated that a hot dog is indeed a sandwich. United States Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also weighed in on the matter, stating that a hot dog might be categorized as a sandwich, but ultimately it comes down to the definition of a sandwich. She went on to acknowledge that a hot dog bun is a single roll that is not sliced all the way through and in that way is similar to a submarine sandwich.

In June 2022, Jon Batiste stated that hot dogs were his favourite kind of sandwiches when he was given the Colbert Questionert by Stephen Colbert.

Health risks
Although hot dogs are cooked during manufacture, it is still recommended that packaged hot dogs are heated to an internal temperature of at least 165 °F (75 °C) prior to consumption.

Most hot dogs are high in fat and salt and have preservatives sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate, which are contributors to nitrate-containing chemicals classified as group 1 carcinogens by the World Health Organization, although this has been disputed. These health concerns have resulted in manufacturers offering alternative product lines made from turkey and chicken, and uncured, low-sodium, and "all-natural" franks. Hot dogs have relatively low carcinogenic heterocyclic amine (HCA) levels compared to other types of ready-to-eat meat products because they are manufactured at low temperatures.

An American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) report found that consuming one daily 50-gram serving of processed meat—about one hot dog—increases long-term risk of colorectal cancer by 20 percent. Thus, eating a hot dog every day would increase the probability of contracting colorectal cancer from 5.8 percent to 7 percent. The AICR's warning campaign has been criticized as being "attack ads". The Cancer Project group filed a class-action lawsuit demanding warning labels on packages and at sporting events.

Like many foods, hot dogs can cause illness if not cooked properly to kill pathogens. Listeria monocytogenes, a type of bacteria sometimes found in hot dogs, can cause serious infections in infants and pregnant women, and can be transmitted to an infant in utero or after birth. Adults with suppressed immune systems can also be harmed.

Due to their size, shape, and ubiquitous consumption, hot dogs present a significant choking risk, especially for children. A study in the US found that 17% of food-related asphyxiations among children younger than 10 years of age were caused by hot dogs. The risk of choking on a hot dog is greatly reduced by slicing it. It has been suggested that redesign of the size, shape and texture of hot dogs would reduce the choking risk.

In the United States

Hot dogs are a traditional element of American food culture, having obtained significant cultural and patriotic status from their association with public events and sports since the 1920s. In the US, the term hot dog refers to both the sausage by itself and the combination of sausage and bun. Many nicknames applying to either have emerged over the years, including frankfurter, frank, wiener, weenie, coney, and red hot. Annually, Americans consume 20 billion hot dogs.

Restaurants
Stands and trucks sell hot dogs at street and highway locations. Wandering hot dog vendors sell their product in baseball parks. At convenience stores, hot dogs are kept heated on rotating grills. Hot dogs are also common on restaurants' children's menus. Costco, a big-box retail chain, sells a yearly average of 135 million hot dogs at its food courts, at a notably low price. Fast-food restaurant chains typically do not carry hot dogs because of its shorter shelf-life, more complex toppings and cooking, and mismatched consumer expectations. There are also restaurants where hot dogs are a specialty.

Condiments
Hot dogs are commonly served with one or more condiments. In 2005, the US-based National Hot Dog & Sausage Council (part of the American Meat Institute) found mustard to be the most popular, preferred by 32% of respondents; 23% favored ketchup; 17% chili; 9% pickle relish, and 7% onions. Other toppings include sauerkraut, mayonnaise, lettuce, tomato, cheese, and chili peppers.

Condiment preferences vary across the U.S. Southerners showed the strongest preference for chili, while Midwesterners showed the greatest affinity for ketchup.

Variations
American hot dog variations often have misleading names; they are commonly named for the geographical regions that allegedly inspired them instead of the regions in which they are most popular. For example, michigan hot dogs and white hots, are popular in upstate New York, whereas Coney Island hot dogs are popular in Michigan. Sauteed bell peppers, onions, and potatoes find their way into New Jersey's deep-fried Italian hot dog. Hot wieners, or weenies, are a staple in Rhode Island where they are sold at restaurants under the misleading name "New York System." Texas hot dogs are spicy variants found in upstate New York and Pennsylvania (and as "all the way dogs" in New Jersey), but not Texas. In the Philadelphia metro area, Texas Tommy refers to a hot dog variant in which the frank is topped with melted cheese (often cheddar) and wrapped in bacon. In the Midwest, the Chicago-style hot dog is served on a poppy seed bun and topped with mustard, fresh tomatoes, onions, "sport peppers", bright green relish, dill pickles, and celery salt.

The "New York dog" or "New York style" hot dog is a natural-casing all-beef frank topped with sauerkraut and spicy brown mustard, onions optional, invented and popularized in New York City.

Some baseball parks have signature hot dogs, such as Dodger Dogs at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, and Fenway Franks at Fenway Park in Boston.

Washington, D.C. is home to the half-smoke, a half beef, half pork sausage that is both grilled and smoked. A half-smoke is often placed into a hotdog-style bun and topped with chili, cheese, onions, and mustard, similar to a chili dog. Among the famous half-smoke restaurants in the Washington area include Ben's Chili Bowl, which is a cultural landmark, and Weenie Beenie in Arlington County, Virginia.

In Canada
Skinner's Restaurant, in Lockport, Manitoba, is reputed to be Canada's oldest hot dog outlet in continuous operation, founded in 1929 by Jim Skinner Sr. Hot dogs served at Skinner's are European style foot-long (30.5 cm) hot dogs with natural casings, manufactured by Winnipeg Old Country Sausage in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

The Half Moon Drive In, also in Lockport, Manitoba, and located directly across the river from Skinner's, was established in 1938 by brothers Peter and Louie Kosowicz. The original drive-in consisted of three wooden buildings shaped like semicircles—one was for takeout, one was for dine-in, and the third was a dance hall and later an arcade. The Half Moon also serves European-style wieners manufactured by Winnipeg Old Country Sausage. One of the most popular items on the menu is the Moon Dog, consisting of a hot dog topped with cheese, bacon, fried onions, pickles and mustard; the Half Moon serves about 2,000 on an average summer weekend day.

Outside North America
In most of the world, a "hot dog" is recognized as a sausage in a bun, but the type varies considerably. The name is often applied to something that would not be described as a hot dog in North America. For example, in New Zealand a "hot dog" is a battered sausage, often on a stick, which is known as a corn dog in North America; an "American hot dog" is the version in a bun.

Records
The world's longest hot dog had been 60 m long and rested within a 60.3 m bun. The hot dog was prepared by Shizuoka Meat Producers for the All-Japan Bread Association, which baked the bun and coordinated the event, including official measurement for the world record. The hot dog and bun were the center of a media event in celebration of the Association's 50th anniversary on August 4, 2006, at the Akasaka Prince Hotel in Tokyo.

On May 31, 2012, Guinness World Records certified the world record for the most expensive hot dog at USD$145.49. The "California Capitol City Dawg", served at Capitol Dawg in Sacramento, California, features a grilled 18 in all-beef, natural-casing frank from Chicago, served on a fresh-baked herb-and-oil focaccia roll, spread with white truffle butter, then grilled. It is topped with whole-grain mustard from France, garlic and herb mayonnaise, sauteed chopped shallots, organic mixed baby greens, maple syrup-marinated and fruitwood-smoked uncured bacon from New Hampshire, chopped tomato, moose cheese from Sweden, sweetened dried cranberries, basil olive oil and pear-cranberry-coconut balsamic vinaigrette, and ground peppercorn. Proceeds from the sale of each 3 lb super dog were donated to the Shriners Hospitals for Children.

Hot dogs are a popular food for eating competitions. The record for hot dogs eaten in 10 minutes is 75. This record is held by Joey Chestnut, who achieved this feat at the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest on July 4, 2020, beating his previous record of 74. The last person to hold the record before Chestnut was Takeru Kobayashi. Competitive eater Miki Sudo holds the record for most hot dogs eaten in 10 minutes by a female at 48.5 hot dogs, also setting this record on July 4, 2020. The last person to hold the record before Sudo was Sonya Thomas.

title: Hot dog


text:
Cymbal making

Modern cymbal making comprises many different techniques, from traditional hand methods to completely automated mass-production.

The traditional process
Historically, cymbals were made from individually cast cymbal blanks which were then hot-forged, often with many annealing processes, to form the rough shape of the cymbal.

The finishing stages consisted of cold-hammering to unevenly harden the metal, then turning on a lathe to reduce the thickness, and then often a final cold hammering.

The hot and cold hammering were all performed entirely by a highly skilled hand and was a labour-intensive process. The only machine to touch the cymbal was a hand-held lathe.

This lathing step could decrease the weight of the cymbal by two-thirds or more, and resulted in further uneven hardening which produces much of the tone of a traditionally made cymbal. This effect was deliberately enhanced by use of a coarse lathe tool, and sometimes by a very limited final polishing, leaving the lathe tool marks as "tone grooves". Traditional cymbals are lathed over the entire surface top and bottom.

Modern developments
Each stage of this process has been modified by the use of recent technology.

One of the main effects has been that far closer manufacturing tolerances can be achieved, resulting in more consistent sounding cymbals.

This has also provided the opportunity to omit some of the traditional steps completely, and so unlathed, partly lathed, and even unhammered cymbals have entered the catalogs of major makers, and achieved widespread acceptance.

Rotocasting
The more unusual of these is rotocasting, in which the mold is spun to force metal into the details of the mold by centrifugal force. This allows the hot forging step to be reduced or even omitted, as the resulting casting can be made far closer to the final shape of the cymbal, including its bell and taper. It is an expensive process used for a few top quality bell bronze cymbals.

Sheet metal cymbals
Many modern cymbals are stamped or, less commonly, hammered from sheet metal. It is a widely held misconception that only malleable alloys can be cold rolled into sheets. The historical and current production 602 line cymbals and the historical Sound Creation cymbals, both from the major manufacturer Paiste, and the current production M-Series cymbals from Meinl are made from sheet bell bronze with a 20% Tin content. Nevertheless, the term "sheet metal cymbals" tends to refer to cymbals produced from all other common cymbal alloys as opposed to bell bronze.

Some claim that these "sheet" cymbals have a different sound to traditionally made cymbals, owing to their manufacture from sheet metal rather than from individual castings. Others claim that the larger difference is the alloy or the hammering technique. Top quality "cast" cymbals are normally made from bell bronze, while "sheet" cymbals are normally made from malleable alloys.

Paiste even claims that the division into cast and sheet cymbals is misleading, as all alloys are at some stage cast, and refuses to say whether or not particular cymbals are made from sheet metal. Their Sound Alloy patent implies that they have a method for making sheet metal cymbals of this alloy, which would make these a unique third category.

The 2002 Paiste Cymbal Guide even claims that all cymbals are "cast", not just their own, but here they are not using the word in the established sense. All other manufacturers openly state that all of their malleable alloy cymbals are made from sheet metal, and that all of their bell bronze cymbals are individually cast. One possible reason for Paiste's claims is that there is still a great deal of prestige associated with traditionally cast cymbals. The first sheet cymbals were brass, and were very cheaply made. It is only in the last few decades that top-quality sheet cymbals have been produced at all.

But whether this prestige is still deserved is doubtful. The major manufacturer Meinl produces both cast and sheet cymbals, and currently chooses to make their top premium line from sheet bronze. Some top drummers who play Zildjian or Sabian cymbals now choose to play their sheet bronze cymbals, rather than their more expensive cast cymbals, for the sake of their sound.

Louder drummers tend to choose sheet cymbals, while jazz players and major orchestras still tend towards cast cymbals. So it is more a matter of choosing the correct cymbal for the sound required.

Forging techniques
Some manufacturers of bell bronze cymbals now use hot-rolling and cold-pressing of individual cymbal blanks rather than traditional forging. These processes are faster and cheaper and appear to have little if any effect on the final sound.

Hammering techniques
Many manufacturers claim that their cymbals are "hand hammered", but again these words may not always mean the same thing.* Some hand hammered cymbals are hammered using a hammer held in the cymbal maker's hand. Others are hammered using a proprietary machine, but are still described as "hand hammered" because the hammering is under the control of an individual craftsman.

In general, truly hand hammered cymbals tend to have darker, lower, richer tones, and there tends to be far more variation in character between cymbals of supposedly identical models. Istanbul Mehmet Cymbals are an example of traditionally hand hammered cymbals.

Cymbals hammered by automated machines tend to be brighter, higher in pitch, and more cutting. Most significantly, the variation between supposedly identical cymbals is noticeably reduced, assuming adequate quality control.

The difference in sound is due mostly to the nature of the hammering: hand hammering is done randomly (that is not in a regular pattern) and thus the cymbal has a darker sound-even if this "random" style is dictated and executed by a computer. Symmetrical hammering- which is almost always done by a machine- gives the cymbal a brighter sound. This fact is reinforced by the example of some cymbals from English independent cymbal maker, Matt Nolan, which are unusual in being truly hand hammered but made from Malleable Bronze. The results are darker sounds from what are normally considered brighter alloys.

Paiste has used the same production processes from at least the mid 50's or earlier (they got their first hammering machine in 1952) to the present on all their top of the line Swiss and German produced cymbals. An electro pneumatic hammer is operated manually by the cymbal-smith, he wears a mount with a spindle on his left knee that holds the cymbal, he uses his thigh to move the cymbal in and out from the hammer to position the blows, with his right foot he controls the power/depth of the hammer blows, with his hands he rotates the cymbal to evenly distribute the hammer marks. Paiste has been using this technique and the same type of machines since at least the mid 50’s or earlier. The next step is fine tuning: a different cymbal-smith now hammers the cymbal by hand to fine tune the shape and checks the bow with a ruler and on a steel flat table to make sure the edges are straight, he also checks the cymbal against a “master” for hammer pattern and shape of the bow.
 * Paiste is the only company out of the “big four” (Paiste, Zildjian, Sabian and Meinl) that uses manual hammering to shape the curve or “bow” of the cymbal (Meinl used a computer controlled hammering machine to shape one line of their cymbals): Zildjian and Sabian use a 75 ton press to and STAMP their cymbals into shape. With the exception of their Turkish made cymbals, all of Meinl's cymbal production is completely computer automated.

Turning (lathing)
During the 20th century, the mechanical lathe underwent major improvements eventually leading to the automated cymbal lathe Secondly, the closer tolerances have led to far more use of unturned and partly unturned cymbals. The turning which was once essential to form the shape of the cymbal can now be varied to produce new sounds, especially at the top end of the range.

One pioneering example was the Meinl Raker splash, whose top surface has a single spiral cut by a single pass of a very coarse tool. Another is the Zildjian Earth Ride, whose top surface is not turned at all, but very sparingly hammered. Many manufacturers now produce cymbals with one or both surfaces unturned, or with bands of dark unturned metal. Modern coarse turning patterns allow unturned metal and hammering-marks to show through between the tracks of the lathe tool.

Some lower market cymbals are not turned at all and are produced by pressing rather than turning. The effect on the sound is similar to turning, because the parts of the metal that have been most deformed are most hardened. However the effect that can be produced in this way is very limited.

In the extreme it is even possible to produce a cymbal that appears to have been turned then hammered, by a single operation of a press starting with a flat metal sheet. The result is a round cymbal, with a thickened bell, tapered bow, turning marks and hammering marks.

Away from this extreme, the line between hammering and pressing can blur. Some excellent student cymbals have a final hammering pattern produced by a single blow of a press, after genuine turning. The effect on the metal of this pressing operation is very similar to the effect of machine hammering, and the results are very consistent.

Polishing
Modern cymbals are available in several polishes or finishes.

Traditional fully lathed cymbals are coated with clear lacquer to protect the bare metal from oxidizing or tarnishing or "browning" from exposure to air and other elements, as well as oil from fingerprints. Because the cymbal retains its shiny look until the lacquer starts wearing off, this finish is still the most common.

The first departure from this was the appearance of "bright" or "brilliant" finishes. These are the result of polishing high speed buffer. Some metal is removed in the process, especially the microscopic ridges in the grooves which produce the high end "zing" sound of a cymbal. The process actually dulls the sound of the cymbals but makes them very visually attractive. These cymbals are usually lacquered as well.

In the case of bands of oxide left on partly lathed cymbals like the Bosphorus Ferrit Antique and Istanbul Custom Sultan it is impossible to decide what the contribution of the oxide pattern is to the sound, as these tend to be complex, top-quality handmade cymbals. But in giving the cymbal designer more options, they allow more precise and focused control, and production of a wide range of sounds.

Finally, on some cymbals the oxide coat is deliberately enhanced to simulate age, or a whole new coating applied. Examples are Meinl Champagne Finish, Masterwork Avanos and Paiste Coloursound. Results depend very much on the actual coating and the cymbal.

title: Cymbal making


text:
Talk:Akihito

War crimes?
What part did Akihito (if any) play in the war crimes of the Japanese during WWII? I realize he was only a child but did he have any part in supporting the war effort, and has he made any attempt to make up for the Japanese atrocities? Brain696 (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He was only a child during the war, so he wasn't involved in it. Also, at the request of his father Emperor Shōwa(hirohito), he was not being commissioned as a military officer. Since he was enthroned in 1990, Emperor Akihito actually did personally visit and apologize to countries affected by the Japanese during the war. He also frequently reminded the Japanese people of the lessons learned in the war. Unfortunately though, the recent efforts made by the Prime Minister Shinzō Abe and the government to revise the Constitution undermined much of the efforts made by Emperor Akihito.

There is not the word of Emperor Akihito.
In Japan, the word of 明仁天皇(Emperor Akihito) is not used because of the same reason as there are not the words of 裕仁天皇(Emperor Hirohito), 嘉仁天皇(Emperor Yoshihito) and so on. The expression corresponding to 昭和天皇(Emperor Showa), 大正天皇(Emperor Taisho) etc. is 今上天皇(Reigning Emperor). See also ja:talk:今上天皇. --新幹線 (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are edit warring and need to stop. Discuss the issue here.
 * Please note that what the Emperor may be called in Japan is not always the same thing as what he is called in the general English-speaking world. The English Wikipedia goes by the common usage in the English-speaking world. Therefore, your insistence on using the term preferred in Japan is tendentious and violating the policies and guidelines here on the English Wikipedia. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been several days. Are you willing to discuss your changes and come to a consensus? ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Akihito
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Akihito's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "time": From 1980s in Japan:  From Empress Michiko: « The Girl from Outside », Time, 23 March 1959 From South Africa:  From Junichirō Koizumi: "Japan's Destroyer," TIME, September 10, 2001. From Imperial Household Agency: The Future of Japan's Monarchy, Time Asia Magazine From Pope Francis: Pope Francis: Now is the time for mercy :: Catholic News Agency (CNA). (2015-04-11). Retrieved on 2015-05-08. From Donald Tusk:  From Kazakhstan: </li> <li>From Yoshirō Mori: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Reign in infobox
The dates in the infobox have been repeatedly changed from "7 January 1989 – present" to "7 January 1989 – 30 April 2019 (planned)" or similar. It has been reverted by multiple editors, including, , , and me, and it has been explained that it is premature to add this, according to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. We don't put the end of a term of office if it's in the future. To the editor who again made the same edit for at least the sixth time, today using IP, and recently other IPs also starting with 2001:240:296f:9100, please do not continue this without WP:CONSENSUS - see also WP:EDITWARRING. --IamNotU (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

He has abdicated
At 08:00 UTC. Hektor (talk) 08:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Abdication completed?
as it is already past 8 on May 1st in Japan, every media reports that Akihito has abdicated. Kowalmistrz (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Just before 50 minutes, according to sources like Al Jazeera Japanese emperor Akihito has abdicated and thanked his people for maintaining peace. Abishe (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/abdicating-japanese-emperor-public-prays-peace-190430075004862.html

No, reliable sources (including the above) are saying that he has completed the abdication ceremony, but remains emperor until midnight Japan time, which is 15:00 GMT, for example BBC:. --IamNotU (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2019
Change title from imperial majesty to majesty as per http://www.kunaicho.go.jp/e-about/history/history.html 82.132.219.159 (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Now done by Keivan.f – Þjarkur (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Introduction
It is not correct to say that Akihito "served as" Emperor. The choice of words implies that he held a subordinate position, or that he was simply filling a role. There's a failure here to understand what an Emperor is. The appropriate word is "reigned": Akihito reigned as... Alternatively: Akihito was the 125th Emperor of Japan, reigning from...2A01:E35:8A71:6D40:4879:3122:B59C:8E06 (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have made some changes in the introduction. I didn't want to write "Akihito was the 125th Emperor..." as it might give the impression that he's no longer living. "Reigned" seems the best. --IamNotU (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Title in infobox
, could you please explain why you reverted my edit that added the "title" parameter to the infobox? That's the way it's done for example in Edward VIII, where his post-abdication title is used. --IamNotU (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Title
Titles in the section have been repeatedly changed, for example by User:178.78.102.68, to include unusual italicization, and mid-phrase capitalization of "the". This is contrary to the given source. It has also been done in the Naruhito article, where I noted on the talk page : According to MOS:CAPS, "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." I was not able to find a single reliable source that capitalized "the", therefore it should not be capitalized. This is also in line with usual Wikipedia practice according to MOS:THECAPS. --IamNotU (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Title update
The former emperor Akihito has received the title of Jōkō (上皇), or 'Emperor Emeritus', in order to improve this article, it's necessary indicate this new title in the same way when he was Tennō (天皇). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.190.155.173 (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox
Just like the dispute at Hirohito's infobox. We do not need the show the total years/days of the reign. The start & end dates of the reign, will suffice. GoodDay (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Current name
The article mentions that Akihito currently holds the title of Jōkō. When Japanese people refer to him, what name do they use? Akihito? Jōkō? Reiwa? The article does not make this clear (and I think it should). Monkaaap (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

 * "Akihito" would be very informal (and therefore only really applicable to be used as such, bar a few exceptions). "Reiwa" doesn't apply, you probably meant "Heisei", as Reiwa relates to his successor Naruhito. This would not be applicable, as "era names" for Emperors in Japan are only used post-humously (after the death of said Emperor), regardless of abdication. He is likely to be referred to as (Emperor) Heisei upon his passing. I am not resident in Japan (nor have I been), but to my knowledge the current emperor is almost always referred to as "Tennō", so the emperor emeritus would, in the same vein, be generally referred to as "Jōkō". Alongside formality/respect, the titles of Jōkō and Tennō also tend to be quicker to say than their proper names, which would be a possible indication as to why. I am not Japanese (only studying) and sadly cannot provide sources, but that may at least in part answer your question. ToffeeQueen (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Crown Prince Akihito & Michiko Shoda Wedding 1959-4.jpg

Daijō Tennō ≠ Jōkō
Daijō Tennō is not same the title "Jōkō". "Jōkō" has two means. One of it is abbreviation of Daijō Tennō, and the other is the formal name of Akihito's title. Daijō Tennō isn't used now. It is very old title, that about 1,500 years ago. 圜二 (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 立太子礼に臨む皇太子明仁親王.png

Predecessor and successor names
In the infobox, the reign name is given for his predecessor, but the personal name for his successor. I understand why, but to those unfamiliar, it is perhaps confusing. I would argue for one or the other.

Toyokuni3 (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I believe is a COMMONNAME thing why the current Emperor is still in use for his real name, and not his reign name. And its the same for Akihito. Once he passes, he'll likely then be switched for Emperor Heisei. TheCorriynial (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Akihito