text:
Chevaline

Chevaline was a system to improve the penetrability of the warheads used by the British Polaris nuclear weapons system. Devised as an answer to the improved Soviet anti-ballistic missile defences around Moscow, the system increased the probability that at least one warhead would penetrate Moscow's anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defences, something which the Royal Navy's earlier UGM-27 Polaris re-entry vehicles (RVs) were thought to be unlikely to do.

Chevaline used a variety of penetration aids and decoys to offer so many indistinguishable targets that an opposing ABM system would be overwhelmed attempting to deal with them all, ensuring that enough warheads would get through an ABM defence to be a reasonable deterrent to a first strike. The project was highly secret, and survived in secrecy through four different governments before being revealed in 1980.

The system was in service from 1982 to 1996, when the Polaris A3T missiles it was fitted to were replaced with the Trident D5.

Military and political requirements
The origins of the Chevaline requirement grew from the conclusion of several British governments that in the event of a Soviet nuclear attack on the UK alone, as had been threatened in late 1950s by Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and Prime Minister Nikolai Bulganin it was unrealistic to expect that the US would retaliate against the Soviet Union and risk an attack on major American cities. That conclusion by successive British governments was the basis of their justification given to the British people for an independent nuclear retaliatory capability.

For some time this deterrent force had been based on the Royal Air Force's V bomber force. This looked increasingly vulnerable in the face of ever-increasing Soviet Air Defence Forces, and various reports by the RAF suggested their bombers would be incapable of successfully delivering free-fall ("gravity") bombs by 1960. This had been considered from the early 1950s and the planned solution was a move to the Blue Streak medium range ballistic missile, but this suffered extensive delays for a variety of reasons.

As it became clear Blue Streak would not be available by 1960, interim solutions were considered. Among many possibilities, the RAF eventually selected the Blue Steel standoff missile to allow its bombers to fire their weapons while still (hopefully) outside the range of the defensive fighters. This system provided marginal capability and a number of projected developments were considered as Blue Steel II, which increased both its range to improve the survivability of the bomber and speed to improve the survivability of the missile.

A better solution came along in the form of the US's AGM-48 Skybolt missile. The US bomber force was facing the same sorts of problems as the British V bombers, and were attempting to solve it in a similar fashion, with a long-range standoff missile. In this case the missile had a projected range of just under 2000 km. The distance from London to Moscow is about 2500 km, so Skybolt would allow the V-bomber force to attack Russia from sites not far off the British coast, with complete impunity. Skybolt seemed like such a good solution that work on both Blue Steel II and Blue Streak were cancelled.

Skybolt development was cancelled in early 1962 and led to a major political row. Finally a compromise was reached later that year; the Nassau Agreement had the Royal Navy taking over the deterrent role with newly acquired Polaris missiles. This arrangement was formally outlined in the Polaris Sales Agreement.

One key part of the agreement was that the UK would develop their own warheads for the missiles, as the UK military and political establishments were rather worried about losing their own nuclear production and design capability. Having already put some effort into the Skybolt warhead, it was decided to adapt this design, based on the thermonuclear secondary of the US W59, matched to a primary trigger based on a wholly UK design developed from the Cleo device tested at the Pampas instead of the W58 used on US Navy missiles.

The ABM problem
Throughout this period both the US and USSR were working on anti-ballistic missile systems. Developing an ABM system was largely an engineering issue, requiring radars with high resolution and targeting computers that could adjust trajectories fast enough given an approach speed in thousands of miles an hour. Given that these items would be expensive, the ABM interceptor itself was likely to cost about the same as an ICBM (or less), so any increase in the enemy's stockpile could be countered for an additional expenditure of about the same amount. This was a game the US was clearly willing to play, although it would seem the USSR was considerably less capable of doing so given the size of the two countries' respective economies.

The Soviets were confirmed as working on an ABM system in 1961 when they made their first successful exo-atmospheric interception of an ICBM. An American response was to develop "Antelope", a system designed to overwhelm an ABM defence with decoys, or penaids (penetration aids). In the end the US abandoned Antelope because they could achieve the same ends simply by throwing additional warheads, which was becoming increasingly inexpensive with the introduction of MIRVs. With MIRV, a single missile could launch multiple warheads that separated in space, forcing the defender to use multiple ABMs to attack them. A single new ballistic missile would demand multiple ABMs to counter it, this cost-exchange ratio ultimately convincing the US that ABMs were infeasible.

This development left the British in a particularly bad position. Although the Polaris was fairly immune to direct attack in the submerged ballistic missile submarines, this meant little if the warheads could not make it through the Soviet defences – especially if the Soviets were convinced of this. Although Polaris did have multiple warheads, they were not MIRV - all three were released on the same trajectory and remained fairly close together during atmospheric entry. This meant that all three could be attacked by a single ABM with a large warhead. A single Resolution-class submarine with 16 missiles would throw a total of 48 warheads, making it conceivable that many of them might be destroyed by even a small number of ABMs. This meant the fleet could no longer guarantee the success of the deterrent's objective – to threaten Soviet state power.

Something had to be done in order to maintain the relevance of the UK's nuclear deterrent. Although developments in the ABM field had been watched throughout the 1960s, exactly what to do about the problem apparently remained a fairly low priority. In 1967 the US offered a newer version of the Polaris, the A3T design, which featured a "hardened" missile airframe intended to better protect it against ABMs. As the UK had not yet received their missiles, they agreed to use the A3T version as it required relatively few other changes.

KH.793
In 1970 serious efforts to explore the ABM problem started. By this point the US and USSR had agreed in the ABM Treaty to deploy up to 100 ABMs at only two sites. MIRVs had so seriously upset the balance between ABM and ICBM that both parties agreed to limit ABM deployment largely as a way of avoiding a massive buildup of new ICBMs. The only good news for the UK in this development was that it clearly defined the problem they were facing; their attacks had to be able to credibly defeat a 100-interceptor ABM defence around Moscow. Thus started project KH.793, a one-year project to identify potential solutions.

One option would be to build additional Polaris platforms and keep more of them at sea. Two Resolutions would throw 96 warheads and almost guarantee penetration, while three would make it a certainty. This would require a fleet of at least five submarines to keep two on station at all times, as well as larger crew complements, training and logistics support, and appeared to be the most expensive option.

Several "low cost" options were also explored. Among these were "Topsy", the A3T missile the UK had already agreed to use. Another option was Antelope, which used hardened warheads along with penaids, although it reduced the payload to two warheads in order to save weight for the penaids. They also explored a "superhardened" version known as Super Antelope, a further improvement on the warhead that also used a manoeuvrable warhead "bus" to deploy the penaids further apart in space.

The Royal Navy preferred to upgrade to the Poseidon missile, increasing the number of warheads from three per missile to between ten and thirteen of a newer and lighter design. In this case a single Resolution could launch up to 208 warheads, guaranteeing that some would get through. This option also had the advantage of maintaining commonality with the US Navy, as well as offering greater range, and thus increasing the safety of the launch submarines.

The US also favoured the Poseidon, although for more technical reasons. They felt that while the decoy approach was useful against near-term ABMs deployed by the USSR, that it was considerably less useful against "point defence" type interceptors. This is because the decoys are so much lighter than warheads; when they started to hit the upper atmosphere the decoys would slow more than the warheads and thus "declutter", allowing the warheads to be attacked. This would require a much faster-reacting radar and computer system than an ABM using a long-range interceptor, one that could safely wait until only a few moments before detonation, but this was by no means impossible and was part of the US's own ABM systems.

As the UK had decided to produce its own warheads and bus, this option would require considerable development effort in order to produce a new MIRV bus of their own. Although in theory the UK might be able to use the US-designed bus, these options were being explored in the midst of the ABM Treaty, and it was not clear whether the treaty might forbid this technology being transferred. Some related options were explored, including "Option M" which used a simple "de-MIRVed" bus, "Hybrid" (or "Stag") which put the newer Poseidon warheads on the existing Polaris A3T missiles, and "Mini Poseidon", a similar adaptation with a smaller six-Poseidon-warhead payload on the A3T.

In the end the higher levels of the British political system decided against the urgings of their own Chiefs of Staff and went with the penaid approach on the existing A3T missile. This decision was made official late in 1973 by the Edward Heath administration, which changed the name from Super Antelope to Chevaline. The name 'Chevaline' was the result of a telephone call to London Zoo from an official at the Ministry of Defence. Prompted by a request for a name-change from his boss, the Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Carrington, the official asked the zoo to 'imagine an animal like a large antelope' and inquired whether there was such a beast. The zoo told him there was a South African creature called a Chevaline, and the official 'thought that sounded rather good'. (The creature to which the zoo was probably referring was the Roan Antelope, Hippotragus equinus which is known in French as 'Antilope chevaline'.)

Initially it was planned to make the project public, but a change of government in the 1974 elections ended these plans. A new review again concluded that the project should continue, even though the naval staff continued to be opposed. Full development started in January 1975.

Development
The project was carried out in extreme secrecy by a team consisting of the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) at Aldermaston, the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) at Farnborough, and Hunting Engineering at Ampthill, Sperry Gyroscope at Bracknell, Lockheed Aerospace in the United States, and others, both in the US and the UK. The system was tested at the US Eastern Test Range, Cape Canaveral, and the warheads were tested with two full scale underground nuclear tests (Fallon in 1974 and Banon in 1976) at the Nevada Test Site. There were also numerous weapon effects tests to prove the RV/warhead resistance to the radiation-effects of the Galosh warhead; and there were numerous missile tests at the Woomera Missile Range, Australia, to develop various aspects of the RVs, the PAC and decoys. Recent declassifications of official files show that more than half the total project costs were spent in the United States, with industry and government agencies.

Range of the "Improved" Chevaline system was 22% less than the "Unimproved" Polaris A3T, reduced from 2500 nmi to 1950 nmi. This was the source of continuing pressure on the development team from the Naval Staff, who had set the minimum requirement at 2000 nmi, and who were deeply concerned at intelligence reports of improving Soviet anti-submarine warfare capabilities. Reduced missile range had the effect of reducing the sea-room in which the British submarines could hide. With Chevaline, the patrol area was limited to the north of and just around the GIUK gap, whereas previously they could operate within an area to the south of the Gap as well. This was a serious problem, because much of NATOs anti-submarine strategy was based on closing the Gap, with the implicit assumption that areas north of it would be fairly easy for Soviet submarines to operate within. If the Polaris fleet was forced to operate to the north of the line, or even within a limited distance of it, they would be lacking the protection of the bulk of the NATO forces, and potentially in the midst of a high concentration of enemy hunter-killer subs.

Efforts were made to reduce warhead weight by substituting a new, smaller, high-yielding thermonuclear primary tested at Fondutta and Quargel, and although these tests were deemed successful, the delays involved in preparing them for Chevaline were thought to risk further unacceptable delays to the in-service date planned, and they were not used. This thermonuclear primary was by then being referred to in official documents as a "trigger device" and some suspect that this new description was a sleight-of-hand to circumvent the pledge given by Prime Minister Wilson of "no new generation of nuclear weapons". The thermonuclear (or fusion) secondary for Chevaline and known to AWRE by the codename Reggie, is known from these declassified documents to be recycled from the "Unimproved" Polaris A3T warhead.

Further political developments
The Chevaline project was kept secret by successive UK governments, both Labour and Conservative. This secrecy was maintained under Harold Wilson, Edward Heath, Harold Wilson's second term and James Callaghan. The project was finally revealed by Margaret Thatcher's then defence minister Francis Pym.

The reasons for revelation were both political and practical. The cost over-runs of the project were now so enormous (approximately £1 billion by 1979) that the secret inner-Cabinet spending approvals could not continue. The key decision to proceed had been taken in 1975, four years previously, and cancellation would be unlikely to save money at that point. Even if it were to be cancelled, a replacement would have to be ordered in any case. Shortly afterwards the Thatcher government decided that the successor system should be the Trident system and ordered the C4 variant.

The Naval Staff angst that had been a feature of the Chevaline project surfaced here too. For several reasons the Navy had not wanted Chevaline and had actively lobbied against it. Their preference for Poseidon was in large part based on commonality of equipment. Polaris was being phased out of use by the US Navy and supplies of spares and repair facilities were becoming unavailable. To keep the Polaris missile in use in the UK meant that some production lines had to be re-opened at great cost to supply a very small force. A missile common to both navies was desirable, and the Naval Staff strongly argued against Chevaline. At one point, several of their counterparts in the US Navy had encouraged them to seek congressional approval for such a proposal through a formal request from the Ministry of Defence. Although the papers will not be declassified for some time yet, it seems likely that the Naval Staff made the same case with Trident with some success when their influence was at its height after the Falklands War.

The US later decided to move primary development from the C4 to the larger Trident D5, a much more capable missile, but one that would not fit into the latest Ohio-class submarines, let alone the older Benjamin Franklin-class submarine. Their solution to this problem was to change the design of the Ohio class to allow for the larger D5. Thatcher, who was fully committed to Trident, decided to follow the same route and authorized the design of the Vanguard-class submarine to carry them. They agreed to a deal whereby the US and British combined missile stock is serviced at a single location at the US Navy facility at Kings Bay, Georgia, and from there missiles are issued to both US and British submarines. Only the warheads (added later to British missiles) are different.

Finally, recently published recollections from senior members of the development team are explicit in stating that Chevaline was not the best, or with hindsight, the cheapest choice the British could have made from the many options available. But the choices were never simple but overlaid with what was politically possible, what was in the best interests of UK industry and its scientific base. In the end, the alternatives were "between Chevaline or nothing at all; a decision which could easily have meant withdrawal of the UK from the military political nuclear scene" and that option was unthinkable to the military staffs and government alike.

Description

The response to the threat of interception by ABM-1 Galosh missiles was to deploy an upgraded or Improved Front End (IFE) to Polaris A3T using the Antelope/Super Antelope/Chevaline technology. The Chevaline solution was to decrease the number of warheads carried by the Polaris system from three to two, using the space and weight to carry numerous decoys, and increase the likelihood of warhead survival by substituting a new super-hardened thermonuclear primary for the warhead contained in a new super-hardened RV.

The IFE was built in two primary parts. One warhead was mounted directly to the front of the second stage, as had been the case for all three warheads in the original Polaris. The second part was the "penetration aid carrier", or PAC, which carried the second warhead along with the various penetration aids. The PAC dispensed one RV but the principal purpose of its manoeuvring capability was to dispense the 27 decoys into a 'threat tube' surrounding the RVs, which also had a 'disguise' to match their radar appearance to the decoys. The system was not a MIRVing system because the target of both warheads was one location, about which the two warheads were spread, as in the earlier MRV system of Polaris A3T.

In the case of an attack on the USSR, even a single Resolution could have ensured the destruction of a significant portion of the Soviet command and control structure. Given all sixteen missiles launching successfully, an ABM system would be presented with 551 credible-looking targets to deal with. Given that the ABM treaty limited the USSR to 100 ABM interceptors, a "hit" was virtually guaranteed.

The 'unimproved' British Polaris A3T carried three 200 kt warheads designated ET.317 in U.S. Mk-2 RVs, composed of a primary known as Jennie and a thermonuclear secondary known as Reggie. The integrated upgraded Polaris system was known as A3TK and carried two warheads in upgraded British-designed RVs. These warheads used the new Harriet primary with Reggie re-used from the ET.317 warhead, and their nuclear yield increased to 225 kt. This system was in service from 1982 to 1996, when it was replaced by Trident D5.

Construction
Whilst the fully assembled Chevaline ReB and a new warhead was of identical external shape, and balance to US Polaris RVs to minimise development costs and avoid the need for full-scale flight testing, the Chevaline ReB was unusual in using a new material known as 3-Dimensional Quartz Phenolic (3DQP), which was developed in the UK and subsequently used on US warheads. 3DQP is a phenolic-based material composed of a quartz cloth material woven into a seamless sock shape cloth impregnated with a phenolic resin and hot-pressed. The quartz material 'hardens' the ReB protecting the nuclear warhead against high-energy neutrons emitted by exo-atmospheric Anti-ballistic missile (ABM) bursts before re-entry. When cured, 3DQP can be machined in the same way as metals and is tough and fire-resistant.

Manufacture
A licence to manufacture 3DQP in the US was acquired and production was undertaken by AVCO, one of the two suppliers of US RVs, the other being General Electric. The first production examples of the Chevaline ReB were manufactured by AVCO, now part of Textron before production began in the UK at the Royal Ordnance Factory at Burghfield, now incorporated into the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, using quartz thread material obtained from France.

Components for the Chevaline system were manufactured at the Royal Ordnance Factory (Cardiff), which in turn was renamed (along with ROF Burghfield) AWE Cardiff in 1987. The Beryllium facility (Project B) at Cardiff, as well as the other workshops at the site, manufactured high precision components relating to the PAC and the decoys for Chevaline, as well as in later years pre-production components and gauges for Trident, before being decommissioned and closed in the mid ‘90s when full production moved to Burghfield.

Later, the supply of test samples of 3DQP to France without UK permission caused friction between the British Government and AVCO, and action in the US courts by the British government.

title: Chevaline


text:
Arnsberg

Arnsberg (Arensperg) is a town in the Hochsauerland county, in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia. It is the location of the Regierungsbezirk Arnsberg administration and one of the three local administration offices of the Hochsauerlandkreis district.

Location
Arnsberg is located in the north-east of the Sauerland in the Ruhr river valley. The river Ruhr meanders around the south of the old town of Arnsberg. The town is nearly completely encircled by forest, and the nature park Arnsberger Wald lies to the north".

Arnsberg is connected by Federal Motorway 46 (Autobahn 46) Brilon in the east and (using the Federal Motorway 445) Werl in the west. It is also connected by several railroad stations, which provide a connection to the major city Dortmund and the Ruhrgebiet. There is also a regional airport, located in the city district of Vosswinkel, which is exclusively used for small private aircraft.

The municipal territory spans a distance of up to 13 km from the southern to the northern limits.

Neighbouring municipalities

 * Ense
 * Möhnesee
 * Warstein
 * Meschede
 * Sundern
 * Balve
 * Menden

Subdivisions
After the local government reforms of 1975 Arnsberg consists of 15 boroughs (Ortsteile):
 * Neheim (23,448 inhabitants)
 * Arnsberg (19,355 inhabitants)
 * Hüsten (11,304 inhabitants)
 * Oeventrop (6,713 inhabitants)
 * Herdringen (4,118 inhabitants)
 * Bruchhausen (3,337 inhabitants)
 * Müschede (2,870 inhabitants)
 * Voßwinkel (2,523 inhabitants)
 * Niedereimer (2,082 inhabitants)
 * Holzen (2,022 inhabitants)
 * Rumbeck (1,305 inhabitants)
 * Wennigloh (1,004 inhabitants)
 * Bachum (959 inhabitants)
 * Breitenbruch (219 inhabitants)
 * Uentrop (346 inhabitants)

Beginnings
Arnsberg was first mentioned in 789 in the Carolingian records (Urbar) as belonging to the abbey of Werden.

Arnsberg was the seat of the Counts of Arnsberg from around 1070 and received city rights in 1238. In 1368 the last of the Counts of Arnsberg, Count Gottfried IV, handed over the city and county to Kurköln as he had no heir.

They built a castle there whose remains can still be visited and are occasionally used for public celebrations.

In the 12th century, old Arnsberg became the seat of Westphalian jurisdiction (whose coat of arms is still used today by the Hochsauerlandkreis). Later, the city lost its independence and was subject to the Archbishops of Cologne.

18th/19th Century
Arnsberg Castle was reconstructed by Johann Conrad Schlaun as a residential palace and hunting lodge for Elector Clemens August of Bavaria. It was destroyed in the Seven Years' War in 1769.

In 1794 the French attacked Cologne, so parts of the treasure of the Cologne Cathedral were brought to safety in Arnsberg, along with the relics of the Biblical Magi. In 1804, the treasure was returned to Cologne, as commemorated by a plaque in the Propsteikirche.

In 1816, Arnsberg came under Prussian rule and was made a local administrative centre.

World War Two
Neheim and Hüsten were merged in 1941.

During the Second World War, Arnsberg first suffered widespread destruction and catastrophic loss of lives when RAF Lancasters breached the dam of the Möhne Reservoir in the night of the 16 to 17 May 1943 (Operation Chastise). The nearby Abbey Himmelpforten was completely washed away.

Later, dozens of Arnsberg's citizens were killed in several British air raids aimed at destroying the railway viaduct. The targets were finally destroyed on 19 March 1945 using a 'Grand Slam' bomb.

Contemporary history
The current city of Arnsberg was created in 1975 by merging 12 surrounding municipalities (Bachum, Breitenbruch, Herdringen, Holzen, Müschede, Niedereimer, Oeventrop, Rumbeck, Uentrop, Voßwinkel and Wennigloh) into one city.

Old Arnsberg itself and Neheim-Hüsten are the two main urban areas, while the other parts are mainly rural areas.

Religion
Arnsberg's population is mostly Roman Catholic. Arnsberg belongs to the Archdiocese of Paderborn. Catholic churches include the "Propsteikirche" or the "Heilig-Kreuz Kirche" and the "Auferstehungskirche", which is a Protestant church. There is also a New Apostolic congregation.

In recent years Arnsberg's Muslim minority grew considerably. The town has a mosque.

The cemeteries are mostly Catholic but there is also a Jewish cemetery.

Arts and culture
The Kunstverein Arnsberg operates in Arnsberg. Founded in 1987 and devoted to contemporary art, Kunstverein Arnsberg has presented solo exhibitions by artists including Georg Baselitz, Thomas Ruff, Karin Sander, Dan Perjovschi, Boris Mikhailov, Gregor Schneider, Erwin Wurm, the Turner Prize winner Susan Philipsz and the Marcel Duchamp Prize winner Laurent Grasso.

City arms
The arms of the city depict a white eagle on a blue field. Earlier it was a white eagle on a red field, introduced in 1278 and as used by the counts of Arnsberg. In the 17th century the red was changed to blue, reflecting the Bavarian blue of the House of Wittelsbach.

Mayors
Mayors of the new town Arnsberg

Twin towns – sister cities
Arnsberg is twinned with:
 * 🇷🇴 Alba Iulia, Romania
 * Deventer, Netherlands
 * 🏴 Bexley, England, United Kingdom
 * 🇵🇱 Olesno, Poland
 * 🇮🇹 Caltagirone, Italy

Notable people

 * Franz von Fürstenberg (1729–1810), statesman and reformer school in Archbishopric Münster, founder of the Münster University
 * Wilhelm Hasenclever, (1837–1889), politician
 * Karl Brüggemann (1896–1977), honorary district in Kreis Arnsberg from 1961 to 1969
 * Franz Stock (1904–1948), since 1934 pastor of the German Catholic community in Paris, during the German occupation chaplain for French prisoners (companion sentenced to death), 1945 head of a prisoner of war seminar in Chartres
 * Hans Bernd Gisevius, (1904–1974), diplomat
 * Fritz Cremer, (1906–1993), artist
 * Betsy von Furstenberg, (1931–2015), actress
 * Günter Wewel, (1934–2023), operatic bass and television presenter
 * Franz Müntefering, (born 1940), politician (SPD)
 * Mike de Vries, (born 1958), brand and business manager
 * Andrea Fischer (born 1960), politician (Alliance 90/The Greens) and journalist, former Federal Minister of Health
 * Meinolf Finke, (born 1963), poet
 * Helena Fromm (born 1987), taekwondo athlete, Olympic medalist
 * Georg Poplutz, tenor
 * Georg Poplutz, tenor

People related to Arnsberg

 * Paul Moder (1896–1942), politician (NSDAP), Freikorps member and SS officer
 * Walther Neye (1901–1989), jurist and rector of the Humboldt University in Berlin
 * Fritz Cremer (1906–1993), sculptor (Buchenwald Memorial)
 * Lothar Collatz (1910–1990), mathematician
 * Günter Keute (born 1955), footballer
 * Friedrich Merz (born 1955), attorney and politician, member of the CDU
 * Meinolf Finke (born 1963), poet
 * Stephan Kampwirth (born 1967), theatre actor, film actor and voice actor
 * Rouven Schröder (born 1975), footballer
 * Philipp Hofmann (born 1993), footballer

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

title: Arnsberg


text:
User:Tzuhou/Using Zyprexa

Facts from http://www.zyprexa.com
Olanzapine (sold by the name of Zyprexa) was introduced to the market by Eli Lilly and Company in 1996 and has become quite popular since.

Facts from real life experience
The doctor will tell you to take your pill every evening so you'll be less whatever they've diagnosed you with this time.

Olanzapine is a nice pharmaceutical, no bad side effects, so you should propably do so. (Well, It does make your mouth dry so have some water handy by the bedside and remember to brush your teeth)

Take the pill approximatelly two hours before you want to start sleeping for Olanzapine is not a sleeping pill, it just happens to make you feel slightly sleepy in a couple hours time.

The prestiged doctor propably forgot to tell you that if you don't have a job or school or something to wake to in the morning you will experience a long (2-3 hours) period of really bad quality sleep which you drift in and out of periodically and finally when you get out of bed you will continue to feel really tired (and usually miserable) for another two or so hours.

On the other hand if you force yourself to wake up after an normal nights sleep (around 8 to 9 hours or whatever works for you) using an alarm clock the sleepiness will subside in a matter of minutes and you'll feel much better then if you stayed in bed for an eternity.

That's about it. Happy healing folks.

I've taken this drug at least 365 times and this is essence of my experience.

outside links:

If you really are crazy go check this industry propaganda out: www.zyprexa.com

title: User:Tzuhou/Using Zyprexa


text:
Talk:Jini

Untitled
I just wanted to point out that the June 24 edit from an anonymous account at 138.246.18.220 is an opinion (rather than fact), inappropriate, and probably off topic as well. I didn't want to go changing things, since I'm just a passer-by, but I did want to bring it to the attention of those who are more involved in maintaining this article than I. 129.34.20.19 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about possible copyright violations here eg. http://wwws.sun.com/software/jini/overview/ Please justify this. Aldie 13:12 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

I would like have a button and/or section for pre-publish articles, where the user can add information from different webpages. Later, the user can create the article. talk

This is a lack for this Jini article. From where can one obtain information about JINI??. Evidently from Sun and the open community. I would like include this Jini article in the pre-publish feature of JINI.

Later, one can erase part, add comments or introduce original sources. What about an article with bad information about JINI???.

Current Status
Per this article, Jini is being (has been?) transferred to Apache. A google search for Jini yields very little, and most articles are hype from 99-01. Why has this technology seemingly fallen flat on its face? Should there be any mention of any of this? A decade ago, this was the best thing since sliced bread. Now it's difficult to find any information on it, and I've yet to discover an instance where it has been implemented. I'd add this stuff, but frankly I don't know the answer to any of it.
 * According to a passing reference at, Microsoft's Universal Plug and Play somehow disrupted the plans. 95.222.155.65 (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That brings me to another question. When I read about Jini, I find myself getting two different definitions of it.  One is that Jini is another plug-and-play type service for connecting peripherals.  Another definition basically says it's a type of SOA.  So which is it?  I mean, there are parallels between the two, but the applications of each are totally different.  One is for everyday users connecting things to their machine and the other is a tool for developers in creating distributed systems.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.198.231 (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, Jini is intended for both hardware and software plug and play, and is being used for both.Robert (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in the history and evolution of software engineering. It's just a hobby (i.e., I don't do IT for a living). But someone asked, "Why has this technology seemingly fallen flat on its face?" Answer: because it's obviously just another infosystems gimmick, little more than a bag of buzzwords with no real novelty. Before even finishing the lede, I knew that it was either very recent with a lot of people all excited about it, or long-abandoned and forgotten.

Look through ancient copies of ComputerWorld, InfoWorld, and Datamation; then throw it on the pile with Structured Programming, .NET, Matrix Management, Agile Development, Business AI, self-documenting code, expert systems, ADA, MS Bob, Genie, Compuserve, AOL, neural networks, SaaS, Big Data Analytics, and all the other world-changing BS. I'm tempted to throw in OOP, but that hasn't burned out yet.

Yes, I'm observing all this from the outside, the fool on the hill, but maybe that makes me more objective. And from where I sit (which never changes), the last truly revolutionary software was relational databases, the spreadsheet, the GUI, web browsers, the LAN, Lisp, Linux, and graphics stuff made possible with asskick vector processing hardware, like 3D modeling, mapping, and games. Since then, nothing but incremental development, hokum and hooey.

I call "bollocks" on it. 09:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Jini birth
"Sun introduced Jini on July, 1998. On November from the same year Sun announced that there were some firms already supporting Jini.". This information was stated by José Manuel Estrada from Sun on November 4th, 1998, at Lotus Symposium 8 hosted in Madrid, Spain. As I recall, this July 1998 date was meant for "first released" rather than "started development". -Ignacio Agulló. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.84.62 (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Real world applications
This article lacks information on real world applications. A web search will find you lots of simple Jini example code but I can't find anything that documents real-world use of Jini in production systems. The JavaSpaces page makes some mention of JavaSpaces (a technology that builds on Jini) being used in the financial and telco industries, but how about plain Jini (without JavaSpaces)? If anyone knows of any such examples please add them in a new section to this article. Robert (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The application notes How to Build J2EE Applications writen by J. Jeffrey Hanson, Chief Architect of Zareus Inc. on 5-1-2002 about Novell (they supported Jini)(copy/paste-quotation): Jini

* Jini is an open architecture defining network-centric services. The Jini architecture specifies a way for Java-based, task-driven services to be published on a network and a way for clients to discover and use these services across any type of remote procedure call (RPC) technology such as RMI, CORBA, or SOAP. JavaSpaces

* JavaSpaces is a Jini-based service defined by Sun Microsystems. The JavaSpaces model defines persistent object-exchange areas in which remote processes can coordinate their actions and exchange data. In a distributed application, the JavaSpaces technology acts as a bridge between providers and requesters of resources that facilitates the exchange of tasks, requests, and data in the form of Java objects. JavaSpaces technology provides process integrity by empowering developers with the ability to create and store persistent objects. --Cosy-ch (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

OSGi?
How does Jini relate to OSGi (if at all)? Does OSGi largely replaced Jini? It seems to service many of the same purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.126.226 (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070726034129/https://rio.dev.java.net/ to https://rio.dev.java.net/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060624161915/http://newton.codecauldron.org/ to http://newton.codecauldron.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Origin
Quote: "..which is also the origin of the English word 'genie'" ..wich('genie') has his origin in french (le) génie the genious, the master.

As everybody knows, a huge part of english vocabulary is origin of french. --Cosy-ch (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jini


text:
Motion control photography

Motion control photography is a technique used in still and motion photography that enables precise control of, and optionally also allows repetition of, camera movements. It can be used to facilitate special effects photography. The process can involve filming several elements using the same camera motion, and then compositing the elements into a single image. Other effects are often used along with motion control, such as chroma key to aid the compositing. Motion control camera rigs are also used in still photography with or without compositing; for example in long exposures of moving vehicles. Today's computer technology allows the programmed camera movement to be processed, such as having the move scaled up or down for different sized elements. Common applications of this process include shooting with miniatures, either to composite several miniatures or to composite miniatures with full-scale elements.

The process is also commonly used when duplication of an element which cannot be physically duplicated is required; motion control is the primary method of featuring multiple instances of the same actor in a shot that involves camera movement. For this technique, the camera typically films exactly the same motion in exactly the same location while the actor performs different parts. A blank take (with no actor in the shot) is sometimes also taken to give compositors a reference of what parts of the shot are different in each take. This, in common film-making language, is also known as shooting a "plate". In today's film, the reference take is also useful for digital manipulation of the shots, or for adding digital elements. A simple duplication shot confines each "copy" of an element to one part of the screen. It is far more difficult to composite the shots when the duplicate elements cross paths, though digital technology has made this easier to achieve. Several basic camera tricks are sometimes utilized with this technique, such as having the hand of a body double enter a shot to interact with the actor while the duplicate's arm is to be off-screen. For the sake of compositing, the background elements of the scene must remain identical between takes, requiring anything movable to be locked down; the blank reference take can aid in resolving any discrepancies between the other shots.

Similar technology in modern film allows for a camera to record its exact motion during a shot so that the motion can be duplicated by a computer in the creation of computer generated elements for the same shot.

History
Modelmaking for scenery has long been used in the film industry, but when a model is too small it often loses its illusion and becomes "obviously a model". Solving this by building a larger model introduces a dilemma: larger models are more difficult to build and often too fragile to move smoothly. The solution is to move the camera, rather than the model, and the advent of compact lightweight 35mm cameras has made machine-controlled motion control feasible. Motion-control also requires control over other photographic elements, such as frame rates, focus, and shutter speeds. By changing the frame rates and the depth of field, models can seem to be much larger than they actually are, and the speed of the camera motion can be increased or decreased accordingly.

Early attempts at motion control came about when John Whitney pioneered several motion techniques using old anti-aircraft analog computers (Kerrison Predictor) connected to servos to control the motion of lights and lit targets. His film Catalog (1961) and his brother James Whitney's film Lapis (1966) were both achieved with John's pioneering motion control system. The 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey pioneered motion control in two respects. The film's model photography was conducted with large mechanical rigs that enabled precise and repeatable camera and model motion. The film's finale was created with mechanically controlled slit-scan photography, which required precise camera motion control during the exposure of single frames. The first large-scale application of motion control was in Star Wars (1977), where a digitally controlled camera known as the Dykstraflex performed complex and repeatable motions around stationary spaceship models. This enabled a greater complexity in the spaceship-battle sequences, as separately filmed elements (spaceships, backgrounds, etc.) could be better coordinated with one another with greatly reduced error.

In the UK The Moving Picture Company had the first practical motion control rig. Designed and built in-house in 1981, it used the IMC operating system to control its various axes of movement. Peter Truckel, MPC's first in-house VFX supervisor, operated it for several years before leaving to pursue a career as a successful commercials director.

The simultaneous increase in power and affordability of computer-generated imagery in the 21st century, and the ability for CGI specialists to duplicate even hand-held camera motion (see Match moving), initially made the use of motion control photography less common. However film producers and directors have come to realise the cost-saving benefit of using motion control to achieve the effects in a reliable and realistic way. CGI still struggles to be 100% photorealistic, and the time and cost to achieve photo-realistic shots far exceeds the cost of shooting the live action itself.

With the resurgence of 3D as a medium motion control has also an important role to play, especially in the production of 3D background plates on scaled-sets. Using high resolution still cameras, backgrounds can be easily shot for further use with live action and CGI character animation.

title: Motion control photography


text:
Qubilah Shabazz

Qubilah Bahiyah Shabazz (born December 25, 1960) is the second daughter of Malcolm X and Betty Shabazz. In 1965, she witnessed the assassination of her father by three gunmen. She was arrested in 1995 in connection with an alleged plot to kill Louis Farrakhan, by then the leader of the Nation of Islam who she believed was responsible for the assassination of her father. She has maintained her innocence. She accepted a plea agreement under which she was required to undergo psychological counseling and treatment for her substance use disorders to avoid a prison sentence.

Early years
Shabazz was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1960. Her father named her after Kublai Khan. Photographer and film-maker Gordon Parks was her godfather.

In February 1965, when Qubilah was four years old, she roused her parents in the middle of the night with her screams: the family's house had been set on fire. One week later, together with her mother and sisters, she witnessed the assassination of her father.

As a youth, Qubilah Shabazz attended a Quaker-run summer camp called "Farm and Wilderness" in Vermont. At age 11, she became a Quaker, converting from Islam. With her sisters, she joined Jack and Jill, a social club for the children of well-off African Americans. As a teenager, Shabazz attended the United Nations International School in Manhattan.

After high school, she enrolled at Princeton University but was uncomfortable there, feeling that the white students were shunning her and that the African-American students resented her apparent lack of interest in their efforts to force the university to divest its investments in South Africa. She left Princeton after two semesters and moved to Paris, where she studied at the Sorbonne and worked as a translator. In Paris, she met an Algerian man with whom she had a child, Malcolm, in 1984. Their relationship subsequently ended.

When Malcolm was a few months old, Qubilah Shabazz moved with him to Los Angeles. In 1986, they went to New York City, where they lived in a series of apartments in bad neighborhoods. Shabazz drifted from city to city and job to job, supporting herself by waiting tables, selling advertising for a directory, telemarketing, and proof-reading texts at a law firm. She began to drink heavily, and her mother and sisters often cared for Malcolm while Shabazz lived with various friends.

Attempted murder of Louis Farrakhan
For many years, Shabazz's mother, Betty, harbored resentment toward the Nation of Islam—and Louis Farrakhan in particular—for what she felt was their role in the assassination of her husband. In a 1994 interview, her mother was asked whether Farrakhan "had anything to do" with Malcolm X's death. She replied: "Of course, yes. Nobody kept it a secret. It was a badge of honor. Everybody talked about it, yes."

Shabazz began to obsess about Farrakhan. Like her mother, she believed he was responsible for killing her father. Now, she feared, he would kill her mother. In May 1994, she contacted Michael Fitzpatrick, a friend from high school, and asked if he would kill Farrakhan for her. She later told the FBI that she chose Fitzpatrick because "I knew he was capable of doing it". However, Fitzpatrick became an FBI informant. He sometimes acted on their behalf as an agent provocateur. He had been arrested for drug possession shortly before Shabazz called him. He reported their conversation to the FBI. Fitzpatrick and Shabazz spoke frequently during June and July. She believed he was romantically interested in her. She told her neighbors that he had proposed marriage. Fitzpatrick encouraged her, allowing Malcolm to call him "my dad". In September, Qubilah and her son moved to Minneapolis, where Fitzpatrick lived. Fitzpatrick asked for money and she gave him $250. When Shabazz tried to contact him, however, his roommates told her they had evicted him. When they finally spoke, she said she was "leery" and that she was "afraid to have any involvement". She asked Fitzpatrick if he was a government informant, which he denied.

In January 1995, Shabazz was indicted on charges of using telephones and crossing state lines in the plot to kill Farrakhan. If convicted, she faced a possible sentence of 90 years in prison and fines in excess of $2 million. Farrakhan surprised Betty Shabazz when he defended Qubilah, saying he did not think she was guilty and that he hoped she would not be convicted.

Shabazz accepted a plea agreement with respect to the charges on May 1. Under the terms of the plea, she was required to undergo psychological counseling and treatment for her substance use disorders, to attend school or become employed, and to avoid further legal trouble for two years. Provided that Shabazz satisfied these conditions, the indictment against her would be dropped.

Later that month, Betty Shabazz and Farrakhan shook hands on the stage of the Apollo Theater during a public event intended to raise money for Qubilah Shabazz's legal defense. Some heralded the evening as a reconciliation between the two, but others thought Betty Shabazz was doing whatever she had to in order to protect her daughter. Regardless, nearly $250,000 was raised that evening.

Death of Betty Shabazz and Malcolm Shabazz
Shabazz moved to San Antonio to undergo treatment. She worked at a radio station owned by Percy Sutton, a family friend. She married in December 1996, but the marriage was over by the end of the following month.

For the duration of Shabazz's treatment, her son Malcolm, then ten years old, was sent to live with her mother Betty in Yonkers, New York. Two years later, on June 1, 1997, Malcolm set a fire in his grandmother's apartment. Betty Shabazz suffered burns over 80% of her body and died from her injuries three weeks later. Malcolm Shabazz pleaded guilty to the juvenile equivalents of arson and manslaughter and received a sentence of 18 months in juvenile detention.

Then, in 2013, at the age of 28, her son Malcolm died due to injuries sustained in a fight over a bill at a bar in Mexico City.

title: Qubilah Shabazz