text:
Safari

A safari ( originally ) is an overland journey to observe wild animals, especially in East Africa. The so-called "Big Five" game animals of Africa – lion, leopard, rhinoceros, elephant, and Cape buffalo – particularly form an important part of the safari market, both for wildlife viewing and big-game hunting.

Etymology
The Swahili word safari means "journey", originally from the Arabic noun سفر, meaning "journey", "travel", "trip", or "tour"; the verb for "to travel" in Swahili is kusafiri. These words are used for any type of journey, e.g., by bus from Nairobi to Mombasa or by ferry from Dar es Salaam to Unguja. Safari entered the English language at the end of the 1850s thanks to explorer Richard Francis Burton.

The Regimental March of the King's African Rifles was "Funga Safari", literally 'set out on a journey', or, in other words, pack up equipment ready for travel.

"Funga safari, funga safari. Funga safari, funga safari. Amri ya nani? Amri ya nani? Amri ya Bwana Kapteni, Amri ya KAR."

Which is, in English:

"Set out on a journey, Set out on a journey. On whose orders? On whose orders? On the order of the boss captain, On the order of the KAR."

On Kenya's independence from the United Kingdom, "Funga Safari" was retained as the Regimental March of the Kenya Rifles, the successor to the KAR.

History
The origins of safari can be traced back to the first arrivals of Europeans and Arabs in Africa, long before the colonization era, but the big history of it began in the 19th century, when academic and economic interest to Africa increased in Western society, and technological advances and medicine (most notably the discovery of quinine as a remedy against malaria) allowed foreigners to step up deep into the continent safely enough. These expeditions established the concept of safari-style travel. While the goal of most was geographical discovery, the search for minerals and new routes of communication, others were primarily aimed at hunting animals, and elephant tusks at the first.

In 1836, William Cornwallis Harris led an expedition to observe and record wildlife and landscapes. Harris established the safari style of journey, starting with a not-too-strenuous rising at first light, an energetic day walking, an afternoon rest, and concluding with a formal dinner and telling stories in the evening over drinks and tobacco. The hunting aspect traditionally associated with the safari is said to have its origins in the early 17th century in the region of Évora, Alentejo, where villagers got together to hunt wild boar and reclaim land for farming.

The firm of Newland & Tarlton Ltd (founded 1904) pioneered luxury tented safaris.

Literary genre
Jules Verne's first novel Five Weeks in a Balloon published in 1863 and H. Rider Haggard's first novel King Solomon's Mines published in 1885, both describe journeys of English travellers on safari and were best sellers in their day. These two books gave rise to a genre of Safari adventure novels and films.

Ernest Hemingway wrote several fiction and nonfiction pieces about African safaris. His short stories "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber" and "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" are set on African safaris and were written after Hemingway's own experience on safari. His books Green Hills of Africa and True at First Light are both set on African safaris.

Cinematic genre
The safari provided countless hours of cinema entertainment in sound films from Trader Horn (1931) onwards. The safari was used in many adventure films such as the Tarzan, Jungle Jim, and Bomba the Jungle Boy film series up to The Naked Prey (1965) where Cornel Wilde, a white hunter, becomes game himself. The safari genre films were parodied in the Bob Hope comedies Road to Zanzibar and Call Me Bwana. A short 15-minute helicopter safari was shown in Africa Addio, where clients are armed, flown from their hotel, and landed in front of an unlucky and baffled elephant. Out of Africa has Karen Blixen and famous hunter Denys Finch Hatton travelling, with Denys refusing to abandon home comforts using fine china and crystal, and listening to Mozart recordings over the gramophone while on safari trip.

Fashion
The safari style originated from British officers and the jackets worn during their campaigns in Africa. There is a particular theme or style associated with the word, which includes khaki clothing, belted bush jackets, pith helmets or slouch hats, and animal skin patterns. Pith helmet was initially worn by the British military in the tropics and was adopted as streetwear between 1870 and 1950. Condé Nast describes safari jackets as, "crisp drill cotton with pockets, buttons, epaulets, belt", and a part of Kenyan colonial style.

For Theodore Roosevelt's 1909–1910 safari trip, he was "outfitted" in safari-style by his friend Lord Cranworth during his post-presidential trip. Lord Cranworth's firm, Newland & Tarlton, is a luxury safari outfitter, creating safari-style clothing. Additionally, other sources state Roosevelt was outfitted by Willis & Geiger in 1908. Hemingway, like Roosevelt on safari, chose to use British style rifles produced by Holland & Holland or Westley Richards. Within Hollywood, celebrities like Grace Kelly and Johnny Weissmuller wore safari jackets. Ernest Hemingway wore safari-style jackets, communicating a form of adventure also echoed in Hollywood. According to Conde Nast, the Safari jacket is still a part of contemporary fashion.

In the 2005 spring/summer edition of British Vogue, an article titled "World Vision: the grown-up approach to global style" featured haute safari style clothing. Contemporary American public figures such as Melania Trump have worn safari fashion. Mrs. Trump wore a safari-style dress and jackets during her 2018 trip to Africa. On this trip Mrs. Trump went on a safari in Kenya, she wore a pith helmet. Some have criticized the choice as evoking colonial ideals. In 2014, Harper's Bazaar announced trend alerts featuring animal prints and a “safari sleek" style. Couture designers in their 2015 fashion shows featured variations of safari-style in their collections. Designer Yang Lei featured a silk safari-style evening gown in his Spring/Summer collection during Paris Fashion Week. Alexander Wang's collection focused on a variety of white shirts, including a safari-style white shirt dress. The New York Times described designer Alberta Ferretti's 2015 daywear collection as "safari-sleek".

In John Molloy's history of the leisure suit, he details that safari-style originated from British Officers wearing their uniforms outside military uses as "a status symbol, but only in casual settings." Molloy stated in 1975 that it continues to be a form of casual menswear. Alternatively, in Malindi Kenya, professional wear in the 1990s included safari-style clothing. Yves Saint Laurent's 1967 Africa collection featured the "Saharienne" safari jacket. In later collections, Yves Saint Laurent produced an iconic safari top. According to Harper's Bazaar, the collection was "a fantasy of primitive genius." On the other hand, differing fashion historians believe He had the gift of borrowing from one culture without being condescending to the other.

The term safari chic arose after the release of the film Out of Africa. It included not only clothing but also interior design and architecture. Safari-style interiors feature African decor, various hues of brown, natural materials, animal print furniture, rugs and wallpaper. In 2005 Architectural Digest released a list of luxurious safari camps. Newland, Tarlton & Co. Furniture Collection, creates luxury safari-style furniture in featured safari camps, hotels and private homes. Safari fashion also extends to fragrance collections by American designer Ralph Lauren; The Safari fragrance created in 1990 was advertised as "a floral aroma with a light breeze scented by grasses, freedom, and the romance of vast open spaces."

title: Safari


text:
Talk:Z3 (computer)

Info wanted on Z1, Z2, Z4, and Z5
What about the other computers Z1, Z2 and Z4 and Z5? --HJH

 * Re: the above, I note that the Z1 is also mentioned on Computer. -- IMSoP 23:36, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Z3 and computer criteria; Turing
[Also,] I've weakened the claim about "criteria for a computer", since several definitions of "computer" are in wide use. However, does anyone know if the Z3 was Turing-complete, and whether it was [one of] the first to achieve this classification, as I feel that would be worth mentioning. -- IMSoP 23:36, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * It was proven to be Turing complete in 1998. It is capable of doing any computation that can be done by a Turing machine on a finite tape.  It's just terribly inefficient at it since it has no branch instruction and has to simulate it arithmetically with large amounts of program tape, but that's irrelevant to the question.  Andreas B. 00:11, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
 * So would that make it the first 'computer'? Turing-completeness is the only definition I've ever heard to qualify as such...--71.126.156.247 (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As you say it depends on your definition Dmcq (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The word 'computer' itself does not imply Turing completeness. Merely something which can compute. Analogue computers have existed since the ancient Greeks. Babbage designed both the difference engine and subsequently the analytical engine, the latter unfortunately never constructed in his lifetime. The difference engine was a functional digital mechanical computer, but not Turing complete. The analytical engine would have been Turing complete and fully programmable and would have been the first fully programmable, mechanical digital computer. It is therefore important to be more specific when making claims about early computers. In the Colossus computer Wiki article there is also the claim "Colossus is thus regarded as the world's first programmable, electronic, digital computer." However it was constructed 2 years after the Z3 which could make the same claim.Lkingscott (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

No. of relays in Z3 implementation
According to the TU-Berlin Z3 web page, the machine had 600 relays in its FPU plus 1600 in its "constant & variable memory" (actually, 1408 for the 64 words of 22 bits, and some read/write access logic I guess, making the total roughly 1600 gates). Hence, I get 600 + 1600 = 2200. --Wernher 23:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * This is wrong. I have his book (reference given in article). It reads: "600 Relais im Rechenwerk, 1400 Relais im Speicherwerk"). Which is 2000. I think we should give the book more trust than the TU-Berlin webpage—until we know more :). I have thus changed the article. --Ligulem 12:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Operational use
Does anyone have any authoritative sources that describe what the Z3 was intended for and whether it was put into operational use? It would be good to have this information in the article. Adrian Robson 16:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

 * AFAIK was Zuse an civil engineer, and his main goal was to create a device to lift of him the burden of calculating boring statics. --195.82.76.228 14:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Was Z3 part of war effort?
The ENIAC article says: "The Z3, Colossus and ENIAC were developed independently and in secret as part of each country's war effort in World War II. The Z3 was destroyed by Allied bombing of Berlin in 1944.... For these reasons, histories of computing formerly mentioned only ENIAC and the Harvard Mark I from this period."

Certainly Colossus was part of the war effort but is this true for the Z3? The Z3 article is rather sparse and doesn't mention it. But the Konrad Zuse article says: "Zuse never received the official support that computer pioneers in Allied countries, such as Alan Turing, managed to get. The telephone relays used in his machines were largely collected from discarded stock. A request by his co-worker Helmut Schreyer to the war-time government for federal funding for an electronic successor to the Z3 was denied as 'strategically unimportant'."

Does anyone know which article is correct? Was the Z3 part of the war effort or not? As for "histories of computing (mentioning) only ENIAC and the Harvard Mark I", maybe this statement is just based on English language histories. Is it certain that German language histories of computing mentioned only ENIAC and the Harvard Mark I? Adrian Robson 16:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * While building the Z3 Zuse received financial support from the federal DVL (Deutschen Versuchsanstalt für Luftfahrt, i.e. German Experimentation-Institution for Aviation), who desired automating their extensive calculations. But this restricted official financing does not make the Z3 a German wartime effort. The Zuse article is right. Christian Storm 18:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Is it correct to use the word "federal" when talking about the German Government (of the Nazi era)? Sounds a bit too American to my ears. 213.169.27.166 22:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

 * "Federal" is used in the sense of "referring to the central government", meaning that it was a nationwide organization and not part of a "Gau" etc. When using the word federal there's obviously no bijective mapping possible. Christian Storm 15:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote that dodgy paragraph you've all kindly fixed. Mea culpa, it was sloppy phrasing on my part. I've just had another go at the whole paragraph, to try to cover the concerns here plus the original concerns - which were that the ENIAC article was getting junk from people saying "My history book says ENIAC was first." Please do check that my current version isn't as lousy as the first! Cheers, JackyR | Talk 01:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this needs further exploration here, and then some sort of elaboration in the article. I would find it surprising that the development or usage of the Z3 had nothing to do with the the war raging at the time. Regardless, who built it, why they built it, and what it was actually used for (if different from the original intent), needs to be discussed in the actual article. 67.174.202.231 (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect information about Babbage
This section about Charles Babbage is incorrect: 'A working model was not made in his lifetime, presumably because its decimal design was much more complicated than the binary Z3.'

The decimal design was no more complicated for a mechanical computer than binary would have been. Babbage considered using binary but decided that it would be inefficient and with not enough of a benefit in speed to be worthwhile.

This bit is also incorrect: 'If Babbage's friend Ada Lovelace was the first theoretical programmer, writing programs for a machine that did not exist, then Zuse was the first practical programmer.'

Lovelace wasn't the first programmer (as nice as that myth is) - Babbage was.

My sources for this are a paper by Allan Bromley called 'Charles Babbage's Analytical Engine, 1838' and a book called 'Charles Babbage: Pioneer of the Computer' by Anthony Hyman (though I can probably produce more if you need it...) 144.138.81.100 12:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Presentation
The "On this day..." on the main page, and the article, note (without citation) that "on May 12 [of 1941], [the Z3] was successfully presented to an audience of scientists in Berlin". I'm interested in this. Which scientists were present, where was the unveiling made, and what capabilities were demonstrated? Was there any press of the presentation? Did news of the demonstration reach beyond Germany? Does any documentary evidence exist of the presentation (writings, photographs)? Robert K S 17:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Chronology
How can Claude Shannon have introduced the idea the article implies the Z1 used in 1937 if Zuse started building and probably finished the Z1 in 1936? Looks to me as if he introduced the idea and Mr. Shannon merely got the same idea one year later? Then, I don't see his work as worth mentioning? --77.57.201.49 (talk) 08:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Destruction Date
Can someone research it's date of destruction? This page says it was in 1943. The ENIAC page says 1941. Encyclopedia Britannica says April 5, 1945 and the Zuse article says 1944 (see above discussion). Or maybe we should just be generic and say "destroyed in World War II" and cite both Zuse and EB? --Aaronp808 (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Conditional Branch
The first sentence of the summary suggests the Z3 was the "world's first working programmable, fully automatic computing machine" because of it's conditional branching. Yet, the last section (Relation to Turing machine) seems to directly contradict ... "there was no conditional branch instruction". I've no idea whether it had or did not have "conditional branching", except to point out that the text from different sections seems self contradictory. R Comroe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.251.138 (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

 * what the statement is saying is that many people consider conditional branching is one of the characteristics of a programmable computer and the Z3 had all the characteristics except that one. Conditional branching was in Zuse's original plans in 1936 but just wasn't important enough to implement for the Z3. The hardware microcode by the way did have conditional branching. The closest the user programming had to branching was stopping on exception conditions, the design of which was very advanced indeed. Dmcq (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

 * If you read talk::Turing completeness I prove conclusively that you can emulate a "SUBLEQ" machine on a computer that has no conditional branch (I include working C source code for such an emulators - which self-evidently has no conditionals in it!).   So long as a program can loop - even totally unconditionally - and even if it could only loop by wrapping it's program counter from the last instruction in memory back to the first - then it can emulate SUBLEQ - which is in itself known to be turing complete.  Since Church-Turing thesis says that anything that can emulate a turing engine is turing complete - then we can definitively say that the Z3 was indeed turing complete without the need for conditional branching.  Trouble is - finding a reference for my WP::NOR problem. SteveBaker (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thats not true! (Z3 use)
The Z3 was used by the German Aircraft Research Institute to perform statistical analyses of wing flutter in aircraft design. Dr. Joseph Jennissen, member of the Reich Air Ministry acted as the federal supervisor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.133.54.132 (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

 * How do you know? The link for the first statement is dead.
 * Zuse himself mentions Dr. Jenissen (with one 'n') and Herr Seibt as members of the Reichsluftfahrtministerium who supervised orders to Zuse's company by this institution (link).
 * Thus both statements need (more comprehensive) sources. 217.236.200.244 (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

 * It certainly wasn't used on everyday basis:
 * 75 years ago: Computer Z3 is demonstrated
 * dewiki Z3#Operation
 * Konrad Zuse (search for 1941) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.25.210.104 (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Z3 in science fiction literature
The main page of this article would be improved if there were a discussion of the Z3 in science fiction literature.

Has this computer ever been mentioned in science fiction? Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 03:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 * It would have to contribute in a significant way to a story, not just be incidental. I haven't heard of such a use and I don't think not having a science fiction link is much of a loss. Dmcq (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I think a section on potential uses that the Z3 might have been put to, had it gained official backing, might be interesting and worthwhile. Funding for research is always a problem and examples of missed opportunities are good ammunition when making a case for finance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.68.76.108 (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Production figures?
How many Z3s were made? Manufacturing lends credence. 171.66.161.158 (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just the one I believe. What do you mean by credence here? Dmcq (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

@Guy Harris, apropos direct link to Turing-completeness
Quote from where you pointed: "This has two added advantages: first, if an article is written later about the more specific subject ..., fewer links will need to be changed to accommodate the new article; second, it indicates that the article is wanted." Both do not apply here - there is an article about "Turing completeness" and neither will there be a further article about "Turing-complete" nor is it wantend. Further a direct link does not hamper the reader's understanding. If you understand MOS:NOPIPE in a different way which makes sense -- are you able to phrase how? 87.159.108.164 (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I understand that it's completely irrelevant whether they apply - those aren't the reasons for not using piping, those are additional advantages to not using piping. That's what the word "added" means there.

 * The main reason is that it's simpler ("write simply A Dirge for Sabis ") and the MediaWiki engine does the work for you ("and let the system handle the rest.").

 * The point is that there's nothing inherently unclean about a link that happens to be a redirect. The work done to eliminate them is wasted effort. Guy Harris (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

 * "Simple" is not mentioned in that paragraph -- and in no way did inserting a direct link (once) imply any complexity -- and it was not a huge effort, too -- furthermore the MediaWiki engine does the work again and again; thus -- "let the system handle the rest" makes sense, if an extra article can be expected or is wanted or if the direct link could confuse the reader. Cheers. 87.145.111.8 (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

 * The MediaWiki engine does a lot of work again and again, including displaying A|B as just "B" and making it a link to the page for "A"; I really don't think processing redirects is such a burden that there's any good reason whatsoever to throw in piping to avoid them.

 * As for how huge an effort it is to pipe the redirect away, any attempt to divide the editing work put into piping the redirect away by the editing work involved in not piping the redirect away results in a zero divide error, so.... Guy Harris (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Z3 requiring rewiring?
The claim that it required rewiring cites a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry that, I think, too narrowly categorizes "program-controlled computers". The other references for the Z3 speak of it being controlled by programs stored on punched celluloid film. I've sent the person I think is the author of that entry an e-mail asking about this, and suggesting that the entry be changed to more broadly categorize "program-controlled computers". Guy Harris (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I already removed the false claim regarding rewiring. People who like to learn how the Z3 works may get a private demonstration by Horst Zuse at Technik Museum Berlin on the Z3 replica he created. Even the Z1 (fully mechanical and located nearby the Z3 replica) was using program code in punched 35mm film. The Z3 was build with relais because the the Z1 had instructions that could jam the whole mechanics and only Konrad Zuse did know how to fix this by knocking at the right places. Now that Konrad Zuse is dead, the laser cutted but otherwise original Z1 replica is no longer usable. Schily (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Z3 doesn't required rewiring, but wasn't fully automatic either: program code was on film, but not (initial) constants - that were only added to Z4 (computer) in 1947.
 * See:
 * (in German, enable subtitle translation) - from 2:52, Z3 in action
 * Konrad Zuse’s Legacy: The Architecture of the Z1 and Z3: TABLE 1 INSTRUCTION SET AND OPCODES OF THE Z3 and Programming Model, pp. 7-8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.25.210.104 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

"The Deutsches museum" vs. "Deutsches museum"
1. Just because "das Deutsches Museum" is grammatically incorrect in German, that doesn't mean "the Deutsches Museum" is necessarily incorrect in English. There are no definite or indefinite articles in Russian, but we still refer to "the Hermitage Museum" or "the State Hermitage", not just "Hermitage Museum" or "State Hermitage" in English. Using one language's grammatical rules for a name in another language isn't always appropriate. "Deutsches Museum" is somewhat of an opaque token for the museum in English.

2. There is a long note about this on the Deutsches Museum page:

 * "The English language expression "the Deutsches Museum" is a troublesome translation, because it uses a declension that is grammatically inappropriate in both English (which normally lacks such declensions) and German (which would use a different declension). In German, the adjective deutsch, if preceded by the neutral definite article "das" (one of the equivalents of the English language word "the"), is declined by the addition of the suffix "e", and not the suffix "es", which is used only if the definite article is omitted (ie Das Deutsche Museum or Deutsches Museum, but not Das Deutsches Museum). However, the English language expression "the Deutsches Museum" is so commonly used, including by the Museum itself, that it is long accepted as the conventional English translation of Das Deutsche Museum."

If you consider "the Deutsches Museum" incorrect on this page, you presumably also consider it incorrect on Deutsches Museum, and should therefore fix it, and update the note in question to indicate why what it says is incorrect. Guy Harris (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

 * English is a language derived from the lower saxonian, so English is related to German - in contrary to indogermanic languages vs. Russian.

 * "the Deutsches Museum" sounds really strange besides the grammatical problems. If I ask Google to translate: in dem "Deutschen Museum", I get: in the "German Museum". Maybe this is an idea to develop a better wording. What do you think about "in Deutsches Museum"?

 * BTW: do you have a pointer where the museum uses the term "at Deutsches Museum"? Schily (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

 * English, German, and Russian are all related, as they're all descended from Proto-Indo-European. English and German are closer to each other than to Russian, but English has been much changed courtesy of the Norman French influence; for example, it's lost almost all grammatical grammar (inanimate objects are all neuter) and almost all declensions.

 * And, yes, the museum in question says "Welcome to the Deutsches Museum" on their English-language Information page and says "the Deutsches Museum" in several places on the English-language "About us" page. Guy Harris (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

 * Thank you for reminding that most languages are derived from the indo-german base.

 * BTW: I just asked a US person from the other side of the corridor who lives in Germany since 30 years and he came up with this link with a collection of German -> English translations. He believes that something like "is shown at the German Museum in Munic" is the best way to do it. Schily (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

 * (Indo-European - Proto-Germanic was one of the languages that split off from Proto-Indo-European, but there were other branches as well, such as Proto-Balto-Slavic, whence Slavic languages such as Russian came, and Proto-Italic, whence that language that helped push English in some non-Germanic directions came, albeit with some Germanic and Celtic contributions, and Proto-Indo-Aryan, descendants of which are spoken as a first language by at least 300 million people. Of course, over 1.2 billion people speak Sino-Tibetan languages, and 200-300 million speak Afroasiatic languages, and so on, so a large number of people speak non-Indo-European languages as their primary languages.) Guy Harris (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

 * Although I'm a native German speaker, I do not think "the Deutsches Museum" sounds strange. I consider "Deutsches Museum" as a proper noun in English, thus an article is appropriate, and it should not be translated as "German Museum" (or "German museum")? For me it's the same case as, e.g., the Kleiner Feldberg that should not be translated as "little Feldberg" or "little Feldmountain" or "little field mountain". --Cyfal (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Z3 (computer). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crash-it.com/crash/index.php?page=73
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213222711/http://www2.tu-berlin.de/alumni/parTU/00dez/zuse.htm to http://www2.tu-berlin.de/alumni/parTU/00dez/zuse.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090406014626/http://www.computer50.org/kgill/mark1/natletter.html to http://www.computer50.org/kgill/mark1/natletter.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071210232351/http://www.epemag.com/zuse/default.htm to http://www.epemag.com/zuse/default.htm

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) 21:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Z3 (computer). 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/20080617234903/http://www.computermuseum.li/Testpage/Z3-Computer-1939.htm to http://www.computermuseum.li/Testpage/Z3-Computer-1939.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130522022610/http://www.monstersandcritics.com/tech/features/article_1566782.php/Z-like-Zuse-German-inventor-of-the-computer to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/tech/features/article_1566782.php/Z-like-Zuse-German-inventor-of-the-computer
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719110029/http://cs.uni-muenster.de/Professoren/Lippe/lehre/skripte/geschichte/pdf/Kap14.pdf to http://cs.uni-muenster.de/Professoren/Lippe/lehre/skripte/geschichte/pdf/Kap14.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928123346/http://www.zib.de/zuse/Inhalt/Texte/Chrono/60er/Html/0315/0315.html to http://www.zib.de/zuse/Inhalt/Texte/Chrono/60er/Html/0315/0315.html

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) 18:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Z3 (computer)


text:
Contact binary

In astronomy, a contact binary is a binary star system whose component stars are so close that they touch each other or have merged to share their gaseous envelopes. A binary system whose stars share an envelope may also be called an overcontact binary. The term "contact binary" was introduced by astronomer Gerard Kuiper in 1941. Almost all known contact binary systems are eclipsing binaries; eclipsing contact binaries are known as W Ursae Majoris variables, after their type star, W Ursae Majoris.

In a contact binary, both stars have filled their Roche lobes, allowing the more massive primary component to transfer both mass and luminosity to the secondary member. As a result, the components in a contact binary often have similar effective temperatures and luminosities, regardless of their respective masses. The rate of energy transfer between the components is dependent on their mass ratio and luminosity ratio. In cases where the stars are in geometric contact but the thermal contact is poor, there can exist wide differences between their respective temperatures.

Contact binaries are not to be confused with common envelopes. Whereas the configuration of two touching stars in a contact binary has a typical lifetime of millions to billions of years, the common envelope is a dynamically unstable phase in binary evolution that either expels the stellar envelope or merges the binary in a timescale of months to years.

title: Contact binary


text:
George Monck, 1st Duke of Albemarle

George Monck, 1st Duke of Albemarle KG PC JP (6 December 1608 – 3 January 1670) was an English soldier, who fought on both sides during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. A prominent military figure under the Commonwealth, his support was crucial to the Restoration of Charles II in 1660, who rewarded him with the title Duke of Albemarle and other senior positions.

The younger son of an impoverished Devon landowner, Monck began his military career in 1625 and served in the Eighty Years' War until 1638, when he returned to England. Posted to Ireland as part of the army sent to suppress the Irish Rebellion of 1641, he quickly gained a reputation for efficiency and ruthlessness. After Charles I agreed to a truce with the Catholic Confederacy in September 1643, he was captured fighting for the Royalists at Nantwich in January 1644 and remained a prisoner for the next two years.

Released in 1647, he was named Parliamentarian commander in Eastern Ulster, fought in Scotland under Oliver Cromwell in the 1650 to 1652 Anglo-Scottish War, and served as General at sea during the 1652 to 1654 First Anglo-Dutch War. From 1655 to 1660, he was army commander in Scotland, and his support for moderates in Parliament who wanted to restore the monarchy proved decisive in Charles II regaining his throne in May 1660.

Due to a combination of illness and lack of interest in politics, Monck faded into the background after 1660, but he returned to sea during the Second Anglo-Dutch War and played an important leadership role during the 1665 Great Plague of London, as well as the Great Fire of London in 1666. He lived in retirement for the last three years of his life and died in January 1670.

Personal details

Monck was born 6 December 1608 on the family estate of Potheridge in Devon, second son of Sir Thomas Monck (1570–1627) and Elizabeth Smith, daughter of Sir George Smith, three times Mayor of Exeter and reputed to be the richest man in Exeter. His siblings included an elder brother Thomas (died 1647) and a younger, Nicholas Monck (1609–1661), later Bishop of Hereford and Provost of Eton College.

One of the oldest families in Devon, the Moncks were relatively poor while Smith allegedly failed to pay the dowry promised for his daughter, leading to a series of expensive legal disputes with his son-in-law. In 1625, Sir Thomas was imprisoned for debt and died in jail two years later.

In January 1653, Monck married Anne Clarges (1619–1670), daughter of a London farrier and widow of Thomas Radford; his death was not legally confirmed until a year after their marriage, a fact which was later used against her. Her brother Thomas (1618–1695) was a committed Royalist who was knighted after the Stuart Restoration and had a long career in Parliament. They had one son who survived into adulthood, Christopher Monck, 2nd Duke of Albemarle (1653–1688).

Early career, pre-1641
Monck became a professional soldier, a common career choice for younger sons of impoverished gentry. His first experience was the failed attack on Cádiz in November 1625, when he served as an ensign in a company commanded by his cousin Sir Richard Grenville. He later joined the equally disastrous expedition against St Martin-de-Ré in July 1627; it is suggested one reason for doing so was his arrest for attempted murder in late 1626, when he and his brother Thomas assaulted Nicholas Battyn, the undersheriff responsible for jailing their father.

He spent most of the next decade serving in the Dutch States Army, then considered the best place to learn the 'art of war' due to its success in the Eighty Years' War against Spain. Many officers who later fought on both sides during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms did the same, among them Sir Thomas Fairfax and Sir Philip Skippon. During the capture of Maastricht in 1632, he served in a regiment commanded by the Earl of Oxford, who was killed in the final assault and replaced by George Goring. By 1637, Monck was lieutenant colonel under Goring and played a decisive role in storming Breda, a Dutch success which was one of the last major actions of the war. After quarrelling with the civil authorities of Dordrecht, he surrendered his commission and returned to England in 1638.

During the 1639 and 1640 Bishops' Wars, he was lieutenant colonel in a regiment raised by Mountjoy Blount, 1st Earl of Newport, who was also Master-General of the Ordnance. Monck was one of the few to emerge with any credit from the Battle of Newburn in 1640, when he saved the English artillery from capture. Lack of money meant the army was dissolved. Monck spent the next year unemployed.

Ireland and England, 1641–1646

Following the Irish Rebellion of 1641, Parliament approved the recruitment of a Royal Army to suppress it. Monck was made colonel of a regiment raised by his distant relative Robert Sidney, 2nd Earl of Leicester, which landed in Dublin in January 1642 and served under the Earl of Ormond. Over the next eighteen months, he campaigned against rebel strongholds in Leinster, during which he was responsible for several alleged massacres in County Kildare and also took part in the March 1643 Battle of New Ross. However, the outbreak of the First English Civil War in August 1642 meant Ormonde could no longer receive reinforcements or money from England, and by mid-1643, the Catholic Confederacy controlled most of Ireland, with the exception of Ulster, Dublin and Cork City.

Most of Ormond's officers, including Monck, argued the Irish Army should remain neutral between Parliamentarians and Royalists but Charles was anxious to use these troops to help him win the war in England and in September 1643, Ormonde agreed a truce or "Cessation" with the Confederacy. Factions on both sides objected to the terms, which included negotiations on freedom of worship for Catholics and constitutional reforms. Protestants saw this as a threat, while many Confederates felt they were on the verge of victory and gained nothing from the truce; they were also well aware any concessions Charles made to Catholics in Ireland undermined his position in England and Scotland.

Monck was among those who refused to swear allegiance to the king and was sent by Ormonde as a prisoner to Bristol, where he eventually agreed to support the Royalists before being captured at Nantwich in January 1644. Although prisoners were commonly exchanged, his experience and ability were so highly regarded that he remained in custody for the next two years, during which he wrote a military manual entitled Observations on Military and Political Affairs. Following Charles' surrender in May 1646, he accepted an appointment in one of the regiments sent to Ireland by Parliament as reinforcements; in September 1647, he was appointed Parliamentarian commander in Eastern Ulster.

The Interregnum

Monck proved his loyalty to Parliament by refusing to take part in the Second English Civil War and requiring all his officers to sign a declaration of support. However, his position in Ulster became extremely precarious following the execution of Charles I in January 1649, since it was dominated by Scots Presbyterian settlers, supported by a Covenanter army under Robert Monro. The Scots did not only object to the English killing their king without consultation. As Calvinists, they viewed monarchy as divinely ordained, making the execution sacrilegious. As a result, they defected to the Royalist–Confederate alliance led by Ormond and in desperation, Monck agreed to a secret truce with Eoghan Ó Néill, the Catholic leader in Ulster, which he did not communicate to Parliament until May.

Recalled to London, he was reprimanded by a Parliamentary committee, although they privately recognised the desperate circumstances which made it necessary. Although some mistrusted Monck as a former Royalist, Oliver Cromwell gave him command of a regiment in the 1650 to 1651 Anglo-Scottish War, which fought at Dunbar, then stormed Dundee, an action in which 800 civilians were allegedly killed. Throughout the Protectorate, Monck remained loyal to Cromwell, who appointed him military commander in Scotland until February 1652. At that time, Monck became seriously ill and retired to Bath in order to recover. Due to his expertise in utilising artillery, when the First Anglo-Dutch War began in November, Monck was made a General at Sea, along with Robert Blake and Richard Deane. He fought in the 1653 naval battles of Portland, the Gabbard and Scheveningen.

In April 1653, Cromwell dissolved the Rump Parliament and in June Monck was nominated MP for Devon in Barebone's Parliament. Although the Dutch war did not formally end until the February 1654 Treaty of Westminster, Monck was recalled and sent to Scotland to suppress the Royalist Glencairn's rising. Appointed military commander, he employed the ruthless tactics demonstrated in his previous assignments and by the end of 1655 the country had been pacified. He retained this position for the next five years, demonstrating his loyalty by removing any officers who expressed opposition to government policy and arresting religious dissidents.

The Restoration
When Oliver Cromwell died in September 1658, Monck transferred his support to his son Richard, who was appointed Lord Protector. The Third Protectorate Parliament elected in January 1659 was dominated by moderate Presbyterians like Monck and Royalist sympathisers, whose main objective was to reduce the power and expense of the military. In April, army radicals led by John Lambert and Charles Fleetwood dissolved Parliament and forced the resignation of Richard Cromwell. Sometimes known as the Wallingford House party, the new regime abolished the Protectorate, reseated the Rump Parliament dismissed by Cromwell in 1653 and began removing officers and officials of suspect loyalty, including many of those serving in Scotland.

Monck was left in place largely because rumours of another Royalist rising made it preferable to retain him. Both his cousin John Grenville and brother Nicholas were connected with the Royalist underground and in July 1659, Nicholas brought him a personal appeal from Charles II, asking for his help and offering up to £100,000 per year for his assistance. When Booth's Uprising broke out in August 1659, Monck considered joining it but the revolt collapsed before he had time to commit himself. In October, the Wallingford House group dismissed the Rump before being forced to reinstate it in early December.

By the end of 1659, England appeared to be drifting into anarchy, with widespread demands for new elections and an end to military rule. Monck declared his support for the Rump against the Republican faction led by Lambert, while co-ordinating with Sir Theophilus Jones, a former colleague in Ireland who seized Dublin Castle in late December. At the same time, he marched his army to the English border, supported by a force raised by former New Model Army commander Sir Thomas Fairfax. Outnumbered and unpaid, Lambert's troops melted away; on 2 February Monck entered London and in April elections were held for a Convention Parliament.

While his backing was essential to the Restoration, modern historians question whether the policy was initiated by Monck as opposed to following majority opinion, which by now was overwhelmingly in favour of reinstating the monarchy. Although elected MP for Devon, external observers noted he had little interest in politics while the lack of a regional power base in England and the proposed reduction of the army mitigated his future influence.

Nevertheless, the Declaration of Breda issued by Charles on 4 April 1660 was largely based on Monck's recommendations. It promised a general pardon for actions committed during the civil wars and Interregnum, with the exception of the regicides, retention by the current owners of property purchased during the same period, religious toleration and payment of arrears to the army. Based on these terms, Parliament resolved to proclaim Charles king and invited him to return to England; he left Holland on 24 May and entered London five days later.

Later career and death
In July 1660, Monck was made Duke of Albemarle and appointed to the Privy Council; he also received the former Palace of Beaulieu, lands in Ireland and England worth £7,000 per year, an annual pension of £700 and various offices, including Lord Lieutenant of Devon. He also obtained significant positions for his dependents and connections; John Grenville became Earl of Bath, while Nicholas Monck was appointed Bishop of Hereford, his cousin William Morice Secretary of State for the Northern Department and his brother-in-law Thomas Commissary General of Musters.

Although appointed Lord Deputy of Ireland, Monck fell seriously ill once again in August 1661 and was replaced by Ormond, being "compensated" with the additional office of Lord Lieutenant of Middlesex. Thereafter he avoided front-line politics and focused on maximising his personal wealth; his wife was notorious for selling offices, although this was a common practice and probably reflected resentment at her humble origins. In his diary, Samuel Pepys attacks her as a "homely, plain dowd" and "filthy woman"; however, his views were coloured by the rivalry between Monck and his cousin Edward Montagu, 1st Earl of Sandwich, for control of the Admiralty.

In 1663, Monck was allocated lands in the Province of Carolina, now the modern US states of South and North Carolina, whose Albemarle Sound is named after him. He was also made a shareholder in the Royal African Company, established to challenge Dutch control of the Atlantic slave trade and a major factor in the commercial tensions between the two countries that eventually led to the Second Anglo-Dutch War in 1665. The conflict was backed by Monck and other investors within the government, including George Carteret, Shaftesbury and Arlington.

Command of the fleet was given to James, Duke of York, with Sandwich as his deputy and Monck took over his administrative duties at the Admiralty. He also gained a great deal of popularity for remaining in London throughout the 1665 Great Plague when most of the government fled to Oxford. Monck and Prince Rupert shared command during the 1666 campaign; the Four Days' Battle in June was a Dutch victory, offset by English success at the St. James's Day Battle in July. In September he was recalled to help maintain order in the chaos created by the Great Fire of London.

This was his last active command; the fleet had to be laid up due to lack of money, culminating in the humiliating raid on the Medway in June 1667 which ended the war. One of the few to escape censure by Parliament, Monck was appointed First Lord of the Treasury but he was now suffering from severe edema which limited his ability to attend meetings. He died on 3 January 1670, followed three weeks later by his wife, and was buried in Westminster Abbey. Some years later a monument, by William Kent and Peter Scheemakers, was erected in the Abbey in Monck's honour.

title: George Monck, 1st Duke of Albemarle


text:
Don Norman

Donald Arthur Norman (born December 25, 1935) is an American researcher, professor, and author. Norman is the director of The Design Lab at University of California, San Diego. He is best known for his books on design, especially The Design of Everyday Things. He is widely regarded for his expertise in the fields of design, usability engineering, and cognitive science, and has shaped the development of the field of cognitive systems engineering. He is a co-founder of the Nielsen Norman Group, along with Jakob Nielsen. He is also an IDEO fellow and a member of the Board of Trustees of IIT Institute of Design in Chicago. He also holds the title of Professor Emeritus of Cognitive Science at the University of California, San Diego. Norman is an active Distinguished Visiting Professor at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), where he spends two months a year teaching.

Much of Norman's work involves the advocacy of user-centered design. His books all have the underlying purpose of furthering the field of design, from doors to computers. Norman has taken a controversial stance in saying that the design research community has had little impact in the innovation of products, and that while academics can help in refining existing products, it is technologists that accomplish the breakthroughs. To this end, Norman named his website with the initialism JND (just-noticeable difference) to signify his endeavors to make a difference.

Early academics
In 1957, Norman received a B.S. degree in electrical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Norman received an M.S. degree in electrical engineering from the University of Pennsylvania. He received a PhD in psychology from the University of Pennsylvania. He was one of the earliest graduates from the Mathematical Psychology group at University of Pennsylvania and his advisor was Duncan Luce.

After graduating, Norman took up a postdoctoral fellowship at the Center for Cognitive Studies at Harvard University and within a year became a lecturer.

After four years with the Center, Norman took a position as an associate professor in the Psychology Department at University of California, San Diego (UCSD). Norman applied his training as an engineer and computer scientist, and as an experimental and mathematical psychologist, to the emerging discipline of cognitive science. Norman eventually became founding chair of the Department of Cognitive Science and chair of the Department of Psychology.

At UCSD, Norman was a founder of the Institute for Cognitive Science and one of the organizers of the Cognitive Science Society (along with Roger Schank, Allan Collins, and others), which held its first meeting at the UCSD campus in 1979.

Together with psychologist Tim Shallice, Norman proposed a framework of attentional control of executive functioning. One of the components of the Norman-Shallice model is the supervisory attentional system.

Cognitive engineering career
Norman made the transition from cognitive science to cognitive engineering by entering the field as a consultant and writer. His article "The truth about Unix: The user interface is horrid" in Datamation (1981) catapulted him to a position of prominence in the computer world. Soon after, his career took off outside of academia, although he still remained active at UCSD until 1993. Norman continued his work to further human-centered design by serving on numerous university and government advisory boards such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). He currently serves on numerous committees and advisory boards like at Motorola, the Toyota National College of Technology, TED Conference, Panasonic, Encyclopædia Britannica and many more.

Norman was also part of a select team flown in to investigate the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident.

In 1993, Norman left UCSD to join Apple Computer, initially as an Apple Fellow as a User Experience Architect (the first use of the phrase "User Experience" in a job title ), and then as the Vice President of the Advanced Technology Group. He later worked for Hewlett-Packard before joining with Jakob Nielsen to form the Nielsen Norman Group in 1998. He returned to academia as a professor of computer science at Northwestern University, where he was co-director of the Segal Design Institute until 2010. In 2014, he returned to UCSD to become director of the newly established The Design Lab housed at the California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology.

Awards and honors
Norman has received many awards for his work. He received two honorary degrees, one "S. V. della laurea ad honorem" in Psychology from the University of Padua in 1995 and one doctorate in Industrial Design and Engineering from Delft University of Technology. In 2001, he was inducted as a Fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and won the Rigo Award from SIGDOC, the Association for Computing Machinery's Special Interest Group (SIG) on the Design of Communication (DOC). In 2006, he received the Benjamin Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science. In 2009, Norman was elected an Honorary Fellow of the Design Research Society. In 2011 Norman was elected a member of the National Academy of Engineering for the development of design principles based on human cognition that enhance the interaction between people and technology.

Nielsen Norman Group
Norman, alongside colleague Jakob Nielsen, formed the Nielsen Norman Group (NN/g) in 1998. The company's vision is to help designers and other companies move toward more human-centered products and internet interactions, and are pioneers in the field of user experience design.

User-centered design
In 1986, Norman introduced the term "user-centered design" in the book User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-computer Interaction , a book edited by him and by Stephen W. Draper. In the introduction of the book, the idea that designers should aim their efforts at the people who will use the system is introduced:"People are so adaptable that they are capable of shouldering the entire burden of accommodation to an artifact, but skillful designers make large parts of this burden vanish by adapting the artifact to the users."In his book The Design of Everyday Things, Norman uses the term "user-centered design" to describe design based on the needs of the user, leaving aside what he deems secondary considerations, such as aesthetics. User-centered design involves simplifying the structure of tasks, making things visible, getting the mapping right, exploiting the powers of constraint, designing for error, explaining affordances and the seven stages of action.

In his book The Things that Make Us Smart: Defending the Human Attribute in the Age of the Machine, Norman uses the term "cognitive artifacts" to describe "those artificial devices that maintain, display, or operate upon information in order to serve a representational function and that affect human cognitive performance". Similar to his The Design of Everyday Things book, Norman argues for the development of machines that fit our minds, rather than have our minds be conformed to the machine.

On the Revised Edition of The Design of Everyday Things, Norman backtracks on his previous claims about aesthetics and removed the term User-Centered Design altogether. In the preface of the book, he says :"The first edition of the book focused upon making products understandable and usable. The total experience of a product covers much more than its usability: aesthetics, pleasure, and fun play critically important roles. There was no discussion of pleasure, enjoyment and emotion, Emotion is so important that I wrote an entire book, Emotional Design, about the role it plays in design."He instead currently uses the term human-centered design and defines it as: "an approach that puts human needs, capabilities, and behavior first, then designs to accommodate those needs, capabilities, and ways of behaving."

Other publications

 * The Trouble with Unix: The User Interface is Horrid.  Datamation, 27 (12) 1981, November, pp. 139–150. Reprinted in Pylyshyn, Z. W., & Bannon, L. J., eds. Perspectives on the Computer Revolution, 2nd revised edition, Hillsdale, NJ: Ablex, 1989.
 * Direct manipulation interfaces (1985) about direct manipulation interfaces in collaboration with E. L. Hutchins (first author) and J.D. Hollan
 * User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction (1986) (editor in collaboration with Stephen Draper)
 * Combining his books, Design of Everyday Things, Turn Signals Are the Facial Expressions of Automobiles, Things That Make Us Smart, with various technical reports.

title: Don Norman


text:
Talk:Don Norman

The Design Of Everyday Things
I think of the Design of Everyday Things as by far the best of these books by D. Norman -- paradigm shattering, rather than preaching to the converted. To make that perception encylopaedic, can we back it empirically somehow? Sales figures from somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelavarre (talk • contribs) 19:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"More than 100000 sold". See link--Aravn (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Date Of Birth
Does anyone have a birth date for this individual?
 * Yes, someone did add it. Spalding (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Interlock
I expected to see Interlock_(engineering) linked here, because of how "The Design of Everyday Things" celebrates the useful "first say please" interlocks over the useless "are you sure" prompts that people rapidly learn to answer without thought, e.g., three-year-olds who learn how to click thru software license agreements before learning how to read.

The intro
The intro is currently a bit of a hodge-podge of CV information about Norman. Wikipedia intros should establish the article topic's notability and give a brief summary (WP:INTRO). I'm going to move most of the details from the intro into the main article text. Ashmoo (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Don Norman. 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/20140903085015/http://blip.tv/want-magazine/don-norman-the-want-interview-3476091 to http://blip.tv/want-magazine/don-norman-the-want-interview-3476091

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Don Norman. 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/20050418233410/http://www.interaction-design.org/references/authors/donald_a_norman.html to http://www.interaction-design.org/references/authors/donald_a_norman.html

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) 14:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

User-centered design section
I believe citation is needed on the claim that the term "User-Centered Design" was removed altogether from the revised version of the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigjs99 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Norman, D. A. The Trouble with Unix: The User Interface is Horrid
Norman, D. A. The Trouble with Unix: The User Interface is Horrid. Datamation, 27 (12) 1981, November, pp. 139-150. Reprinted in Pylyshyn, Z. W., & Bannon, L. J., eds. Perspectives on the Computer Revolution, 2nd revised edition, Hillsdale, NJ, Ablex, 1989.

3MRB1 (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Don Norman


text:
Nominet UK

Nominet UK is currently delegated by IANA to be the manager of the .uk domain name. Nominet directly manages registrations directly under .uk, and some of the second level domains .co.uk, .org.uk, .sch.uk, .me.uk, .net.uk, .ltd.uk and .plc.uk.

Nominet also manages the .wales and .cymru domains.

As of February 2021, the .uk register held 10,922,477 .uk domain names. This represents a year-on-year downward trend, when compared to February 2020, this is mainly due to the lapsing of the recently launched .uk domain names.

Nominet was founded by Dr. Willie Black and five others on 14 May 1996 when its predecessor, the "Naming Committee" was unable to deal with the volume of registrations then being sought under the .uk domain. Nominet is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee. It has members who act as shareholders,but without the right to participate in the profits of the company. Anyone can become a member, but most members are internet service providers who are also registrars.

Customers wishing to register a domain can approach Nominet directly but will generally register the domain via a domain registrar – a business entity authorized by Nominet to register and manage .uk domains on behalf of customers. Registrars for .uk domains were formerly known as "tagholders".

Nominet also deals with disputes about registrations of .uk domain names, via its Dispute Resolution Service (DRS) which is similar to the UDRP system used for generic Top Level Domain Names, but with certain innovations such as a free mediation service.

In 2008 Nominet launched a charitable foundation, the Nominet Trust, and contributed some of its profits to it. In May 2018 Nominet relinquished control over the organisation, which was renamed Social Tech Trust and announced a "strategic partnership with Social Tech Business". By 2020 the income of Social Tech Trust had fallen to £99,000 from £5.6 million in 2018.

In February 2021 over 140 members requested an extraordinary general meeting to vote on removing five board directors, including the chair, and to appoint Michael Lyons, former Chairman of the BBC, and Axel Pawlik, former Managing Director of RIPE NCC. The EGM was held on 22 March 2021 and the five directors were removed. Rob Binns, a former Group Treasurer at HP Inc. and then CFO at The Access Group, was appointed as acting chair.

History
Most countries have their own top-level domain (TLD). The .uk TLD was first used in 1985. and at that time a voluntary group called the "Naming Committee" managed the registration of .uk domain names. This consisted of members of LINX as full members (the main ISPs in the UK), and their resellers as guest members. By the mid-1990s, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) who registered domains for their customers were joined by a new breed of domain name specialists who had an entrepreneurial attitude to domain names. The Naming Committee operated a ruleset that forced all name registrations to 'exactly' match the name of the registering company and also limited all companies to a single domain name. The growth of the commercial internet soon brought these restrictions into close focus. As demand for domain name registrations grew, it became clear that a voluntary group could no longer cope with the volume of registrations being requested. It also became clear that the existing ruleset was not sustainable and the Naming Committee was going to break down under the pressure of registrations.

Forming of Nominet UK
When it became clear that a new organization with a new approach was needed to manage the .uk TLD, the Naming Committee mailing list had mutated into a discussion group for domain name issues and many discussions about what type of corporation the Registry should be were held. Meanwhile, at UKERNA, Dr. Willie Black and John Carey were watching the situation and in 1996 John Carey wrote a proposed plan for a new organization to be called Nominet. This was distributed widely, and a meeting to discuss ways forward was held at a hotel at Heathrow Airport on 11 April 1996.

The options to set up as a profit-making company or a charity were rejected, and Nominet was established on 14 May 1996 as a private, not-for-profit membership company, limited by guarantee. Whilst the move was generally popular, there was strong resistance from some parts of the industry. Although formed with a board composed of Dr. Black (who became the first CEO of the new company), John Carey, and the four co-founders drawn from the internet industry, elections were held by the new membership which resulted in the first elected board members to oversee the growth of the UK domain name industry. John Carey resigned before taking up his role following a disagreement over the creation of police.uk

Pre-Nominet domain names
From Nominet's inception on 1 July 1996 until 2002 domains registered pre-Nominet were provided free of charge. In 2002, as had been hinted at its inception in 1996, Nominet began a process over two years of migrating those domains onto Nominet standard terms and conditions and implementing charging. Those domains can be identified within the whois results as having a registration date of before August 1996.

Controversy
In 2011 The Independent published an article containing quotes about people trying to demutualize Nominet for their own benefit.

Failure of investments
Under the tenure of Russell Haworth, a former mergers and acquisition specialist, Nominet invested heavily into autonomous vehicles, the Internet of things, and white-space spectrum management which did not pan out. Despite these outcomes, board salaries continued to rise.

Structural issues
Nominet's success brought with it several structural concerns. Over time, it built considerable cash reserves. In 1999, candidates stood for the board on a platform similar to 'carpetbagging' attempts with mutual building societies; whilst this was defeated, following a financial report from Alex Bligh, one of the founders, covering the potential conflict between turning a profit to maintaining sufficient financial reserves and its goal of maintaining long-term profit and loss neutrality.

Nominet has consistently increased the salaries of its employees, especially directors. Average salaries have increased from £28,542 in 2002 to £60,276 in 2014. In the same period, the highest-paid director went from £125,000 to £308,000.

Closure of Members' Forum
Speaking at Nominet's 2020 annual general meeting (AGM), the organization's CEO Russell Haworth shocked members by announcing he was shutting down its internal web forum – the only means of independent communication between members – effective immediately.

Voting irregularities
Nominet admitted it wrongly calculated election results for its board of directors in 2018 and 2019.

Domain names
In 2019, customers of 123-Reg and Namesco were invoiced for domain names that were reserved for free by Nominet.

Eagle-eyed .uk registry watchers noticed unexpected changes in ownership of various .uk names, including sunset.uk, waterfall.uk, pad.uk and trending.uk, all of which were sold by Fasthosts to one or more industry insiders in advance of the domains being released by Nominet rather than going through the proper public process.

Nominet introduction of .uk to compete with .co.uk and .org.uk has resulted in increased cost to UK brand owners and caused much confusion amongst registrants.

In July 2020 Nominet announced a new policy consultation for expiring.UK domain names, but it has been mired with controversy as it seems not to be in the public's benefit.

2021 removal of directors
On 29 January 2021, an email request was made to Rory Kelly, the Nominet company secretary to provide a list of members of Nominet.

On 3 February 2021, Rory Kelly, company secretary responded to the request by printing out the Nominet members list on 575 sheets of A4 paper, omitting the contact email addresses of members, and posting the bundle to the registered company address of the original requester. In response, the recipient Krystal Hosting arranged for 575 trees to be planted "to offset Nominet's nonsense".

On 2 February 2021, over 140 members wrote to the board of directors via Rory Kelly the company secretary calling for a general meeting to propose two ordinary resolutions:

 * 1) Remove Eleanor Bradley, Russell Haworth, Ben Hill, Jane Tozer and Mark Wood as directors before expiration of their respective periods of office and despite anything in any agreement between them and Nominet UK; and
 * 2) Appoint Sir Michael Lyons and Axel Pawlik as directors.

Rory Kelly, Company Secretary stated that the number of votes each member was entitled to cast would not be released until the results had been published.

Following the EGM the motion to remove the directors was passed, confirming the removal of the five board directors. Nominet stated that "Eleanor Bradley and Ben Hill remain in their executive posts."

Voting pledges
Nominet announced that they would not release the number of votes each member is entitled to cast, including to the members themselves, until after the vote had taken place. The voting rights of the members were subsequently released after the EGM.

In the lead up to the vote at the EGM a number of Nominet members publicly announced their position on the resolution to be tabled at the EGM:

Publicly for:
 * 1) Tucows, the largest domain registrar, announced they would support the removal of the directors.
 * 2) Namecheap
 * 3) LINX, the UK's largest Internet peering point, following a unanimous board decision.
 * 4) Krystal Hosting, the company whose owner started the campaign.

Publicly against:
 * 1) Blacknight

Publicly abstained:
 * 1) Google announced that it did not intend to vote on the motion.

Result
The Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) was held on 22 March 2021. The motion to remove the five directors from the board was carried with 53.5% of the votes for the motion, and 47.26% against.

Five of the original Nominet founders (Richard Almeida, Willie Black, Alex Bligh, Keith Mitchell, and Nigel Titley) pledged their "commitment to support Sir Michael Lyons and Axel Pawlik if they are appointed to the board of Nominet UK, in whatever way we reasonably can with matters relating to the future of Nominet".

Response
By 31 March 2021, Nominet had made four internal appointments:
 * 1) Rob Binns, as acting chair of the Board (a previous board member)
 * 2) Eleanor Bradley, as interim CEO (Nominet COO, and former board member)
 * 3) Rory Kelly, as board member (Nominet Company Secretary)
 * 4) Adam Leach, as board member (Nominet Chief Information Officer)

Appointment of Kelly and Leach to the board had occurred on 22 March 2021, corresponding to the date of the EGM.

On 7 April 2021, Bradley, as interim CEO, stated that Nominet would begin to regularly publish the voting rights of members.

On 12 April 2021 Sir Michael Lyons and Alex Pawlik sent a joint letter to the acting Chair Rob Binns. The remnant board of Nominet subsequently announced: "After much careful consideration, the board has decided not to invite Sir Michael to be acting chair".

By 13 April 2021 Nominet had selected Russell Reynolds Associates to seek a replacement chair of Nominet on an initial three-year term.

By 15 April 2021 survey responses from 200 Nominet members that had supported the earlier EGM, showed 97% support for calling a second EGM, with confidence in the board decreasing to 1.3 out of 10.

On 22 July 2021, Nominet stated that Andy J. Green CBE had been appointed new chair of the board, along with Eva Lindqvist as a new independent director, from 21 July 2021. Priorities would be reduction of costs and executive pay, re-building of trust with the membership, and restoration of Nominet's public benefit purpose and charitable proceeds.

2021 Annual General Meeting
Nominet's Annual General Meeting (AGM) was scheduled for 18 November 2021. Prior to the AGM, elections were held to appoint two new member-elected non-executive directors to the Nominet board. Public Benefit candidates received the highest votes, having Simon Blackler elected immediately with over 50 percent of first-preference votes, followed by Ashley La Bolle of Tucows taking 35% of the vote. Blackler and La Bolle replaced out-going directors James Bladel of GoDaddy (who had not stood for re-election), and David Thornton, who "defended the previous management's actions", had received six percent of the votes. It was announced that BCS CEO Paul Fletcher would takeover as Nominet CEO from February 2022.

Votes held at the 2021 AGM formally appointed Andy Green and Eva Lindqvist, both for three years, with over 94% of votes. Stephen Page (who "was opposed by the Public Benefit campaign") received 51.4% of weighted votes for an extension of one year as a director.

2022
Paul Fletcher was appointed as replacement CEO of Nominet starting in February 2022. In the first days Fletcher joined the board and held a meeting with members.

On 10 March 2022, Nominet announced it would be "not accepting registrations from registrars in Russia – we are suspending the relevant tags" and in doing so became the first previously neutral ccTLD in history to reposition itself as non-neutral.

Non-core activities
Nominet also delivers the National Cyber Security Centre's Protective Domain Name Service (PDNS) since 2016, protecting the UK public sector's internet traffic.

A £4 million investment into registry services was announced in February 2020 alongside the acquisition of US-based cyber security company CyGlass.

Top-level domains
Nominet manages the registry of the following top-level domains:
 * – top-level domain for the United Kingdom
 * – top-level domain for Wales
 * – top-level domain for Wales

Second-level domains managed by Nominet
Nominet manages the following second-level domains:
 * – unrestricted, intended for businesses
 * – unrestricted, intended for non-profit organisations
 * – reserved exclusively for UK internet service providers
 * – reserved exclusively for UK limited liability companies; subdomain must correspond to the company's registered name
 * – reserved exclusively for UK public limited companies; subdomain must correspond to the company's registered name
 * – reserved exclusively for primary and secondary schools
 * – unrestricted, intended for personal use

Second-level domains managed by other organisations

 * – operated by the Ministry of Defence
 * – operated by the Ministry of Defence

Quasi second-level domains
The following are widely used as second-level domains but are registered with Nominet as top-level domains:
 * was used as a second-level domain for UK government agencies until 2012 when  started functioning as a Nominet-registered independent domain.
 * is commonly used as a second-level domain for UK education and research establishments, but  is actually a Nominet-registered domain held by JANET.

title: Nominet UK


text:
Urga

Urga may refer to:

 * former name of Ulaanbaatar, the capital of Mongolia
 * the former Catholic missio sui iuris of Urga
 * Ürgə, a village and municipality in Lankaran Rayon of Azerbaijan
 * Urga (movie) aka Close to Eden, a 1991 film by Nikita Mikhalkov
 * Urga (Cazin), Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * Urga (music group), an alternative music group from Sweden.

title: Urga


text:
Arnsberg (region)

Arnsberg is one of the five Regierungsbezirke of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, located in the west-central part of the country. It covers the Sauerland hills as well as the east part of the Ruhr area.

The region was founded in 1815 as a subdivision of the Prussian Province of Westphalia.

Kreise (counties)
 * 1) Ennepe-Ruhr
 * 2) Hochsauerland
 * 3) Märkischer Kreis
 * 4) Olpe
 * 5) Siegen-Wittgenstein
 * 6) Soest
 * 7) Unna

Kreisfreie Städte (independent cities)
 * 1) Bochum
 * 2) Dortmund
 * 3) Hagen
 * 4) Hamm
 * 5) Herne

Economy
The Gross domestic product (GDP) of the region was 124.8 billion € in 2018, accounting for 3.7% of German economic output. GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power was 32,000 € or 106% of the EU27 average in the same year. The GDP per employee was 95% of the EU average.

title: Arnsberg (region)


text:
Eurovision Song Contest 1992

The Eurovision Song Contest 1992 was the 37th edition of the Eurovision Song Contest, held on 9 May 1992 at the Malmö Isstadion in Malmö, Sweden. Organised by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and host broadcaster Sveriges Television (SVT), and presented by Lydia Capolicchio and Harald Treutiger, the contest was held in Sweden following the country's victory at the with the song "Fångad av en stormvind" by Carola.

Twenty-three countries participated in the contest – a new record number of participating countries – with the returning to the contest following a one-year break to join the twenty-two countries which had participated in the previous year's event.

The winner was with the song "Why Me", written by Johnny Logan and performed by Linda Martin. This marked Ireland's fourth contest win, and brought songwriter Logan his third win overall, having previously won the contest in as singer and in  as both singer and songwriter. The, , , and also placed in the top five, with the United Kingdom recording its thirteenth second-place position and Malta and Greece achieving their best ever results in the contest.

Location
The 1992 contest took place in Malmö, Sweden, following the country's victory at the with the song "Fångad av en stormvind", performed by Carola. It was the third time that Sweden had hosted the contest, following the and  events held in Stockholm and Gothenburg respectively. The chosen venue was the Malmö Isstadion, normally used as an indoor ice hockey arena and previously the home stadium of the Malmö Redhawks ice hockey team. Constructed in 1970, the venue had also previously hosted concerts by Frank Sinatra and Julio Iglesias amongst others. With a typical capacity of 5,800 spectators for ice hockey matches, for the contest an audience of around 3,700 was present.

Participating countries
With the making a return to the contest after missing the previous year's contest, and  continuing to participate following its return to the event in 1991, twenty-three countries in total competed in the 1992 contest – a new contest record. Ahead of the 1991 event the Maltese broadcaster had been told by the contest organisers that they would only be allowed to remain in the competition if another nation dropped out of the event, however after placing sixth in the 1991 contest, the organisers instead decided to raise the maximum number of participating countries to twenty-three to make space for continued Maltese participation. 's entry represented the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for the first and only time, following the break-up of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the past year which had been responsible for all previous Yugoslav entries; following the 1992 contest Yugoslavia was excluded from participating and the nation would not return to the contest until, when it competed under its new name. The 1992 contest was notable in the fact that only two countries which had previously participated in past editions of the event were absent from the contest, namely and.

Among the competing entries at this year's contest was the first entry to be performed in a French Creole language, and the first appearance of a song performed in Luxembourgish since.

The 1992 event featured a number of artists who had competed in previous editions: Sigríður Beinteinsdóttir and Grétar Örvarsson, two members of 's entrant Heart 2 Heart, had previously represented the country in as Stjórnin; Rom Heck, a member of the group Kontinent that represented  alongside Marion Welter, had previously competed in the  as a member of the group Park Café; Linda Martin made a second contest appearance for  following the ; Mia Martini also competed for the second time for, after previously participating in ; and the group Wind represented  for the third time, following their previous entries in  and. Additionally, 's Evridiki participated as lead artist after previously performing backing vocals for the Cypriot entries in, and 1987.

Production and format
The Eurovision Song Contest 1992 was produced by the Swedish public broadcaster Sveriges Television (SVT). Ingvar Ernblad served as executive producer, Kåge Gimtell served as producer and director, Göran Arfs served as designer, and Anders Berglund served as musical director leading an assembled orchestra of around 50 musicians. A separate musical director could be nominated by each country to lead the orchestra during their performance, with the host musical director also available to conduct for those countries which did not nominate their own conductor.

Each participating broadcaster submitted one song, which was required to be no longer than three minutes in duration and performed in the language, or one of the languages, of the country which it represented. A maximum of six performers were allowed on stage during each country's performance, and all participants were required to have reached the age of 16 in the year of the contest. Each entry could utilise all or part of the live orchestra and could use instrumental-only backing tracks, however any backing tracks used could only include the sound of instruments featured on stage being mimed by the performers.

Following the confirmation of the twenty-three competing countries, the draw to determine the running order was held on 3 December 1991 and was conducted by Carola.

The results of the 1992 contest were determined through the same scoring system as had first been introduced in : each country awarded twelve points to its favourite entry, followed by ten points to its second favourite, and then awarded points in decreasing value from eight to one for the remaining songs which featured in the country's top ten, with countries unable to vote for their own entry. The points awarded by each country were determined by an assembled jury of sixteen individuals, which was required to be split evenly between members of the public and music professionals, between men and women, and by age. Each jury member voted in secret and awarded between one and ten votes to each participating song, excluding that from their own country and with no abstentions permitted. The votes of each member were collected following the country's performance and then tallied by the non-voting jury chairperson to determine the points to be awarded. In any cases where two or more songs in the top ten received the same number of votes, a show of hands by all jury members was used to determine the final placing.

The stage design for the Malmö contest centred around a large representation of the bow of a Viking ship, flanked on either side by sets of stairs, while a hexagonal design was used for the floor area in front which was painted to resemble the Eurovision network logo. To the left of the stage as seen by the audience sat the orchestra, while to the right stood a large video wall and a smaller stage for use by the presenters to introduce each act and during the voting sequence. Behind the Viking ship the backdrop featured a representation using neon lighting of the span of the Öresund Bridge, the construction of which had yet to begin but which would connect Sweden and Denmark, and thus connecting Sweden with the bulk of the European mainland from 1999.

Rehearsals in the contest venue began on 3 May 1992, focussing on the opening performances and interval act. The participating artists began their rehearsals on 4 May, and each participating delegation was afforded two technical rehearsals in the week of the contest, with countries rehearsing in the order in which they would perform. The first rehearsals, held on 4 and 5 May, saw each country given a 40-minute slot on stage, followed by a press conference. Each delegation was then given a second slot to rehearse on stage, this time for 30 minutes, on 6 and 7 May. Three dress rehearsals were held with all artists, two held in the afternoon and evening of 8 May and one final rehearsal in the afternoon of 9 May. Audiences were present for the latter two dress rehearsals, and the final afternoon dress rehearsal was also recorded for use as a production stand-by. During the contest week the participating delegations were also invited to a welcome reception, which was held in Malmö rådhus.

This year's contest featured a mascot: the "Eurobird", an anthropomorphic bird, featured as a computer animated character during the transition between the competing songs.

Contest overview
The contest took place on 9 May 1992 at 21:00 (CEST) with a duration of 3 hours. The show was presented by the Swedish journalists and television presenters Lydia Capolicchio and Harald Treutiger.

The opening sequence featured a computer-generated animation showing the journey from the previous year's host city Rome to Malmö, including oversized models placed on the European continent representing the Colosseum, the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the Alps, the Eiffel Tower, and structures in Malmö including Malmö Castle, Kronprinsen and the Hyllie Water Tower. This was followed by performances within the venue by the Malmöflickorna rhythmic gymnastics troupe, involving ribbon choreography to an instrumental version of "Fångad av en stormvind", and the previous year's winning artist Carola who sang the song "All the Reasons to Live". The interval act, entitled "A Century of Dance", featured David Johnson, Teresa Ibrahim, the Crazy Feat dance troupe and dancers from the Nöjesteatern, in a performance that showed the evolution of dance in Sweden and worldwide over the previous century; among the music pieces featured during the performance was "It Must Have Been Love" originally recorded by the Swedish duo Roxette. The trophy awarded to the winners was presented at the end of the broadcast by Carola.

The winner was represented by the song "Why Me?", written by Johnny Logan and performed by Linda Martin. This was the fourth time that Ireland had won the contest, following victories in, and. Having come second at the, Martin became the third artist to have placed both first and second in the contest, alongside Lys Assia and Gigliola Cinquetti, and songwriter Logan, who had already won the contest twice as a performer in 1980 and 1987 – the latter win additionally as the songwriter – became the third individual to record two songwriting wins, alongside Willy van Hemert and Yves Dessca, and became the first, and only, individual to record three wins as either singer or songwriter. The finished in second place for a record-extending thirteenth time, while  and  recorded their best ever results to date with third- and fifth-place finishes respectively. Conversely host country recorded one of their worst ever results, finishing 22nd and second-to-last, and  picked up their seventh last-place finish. With Ireland, the United Kingdom and Malta taking the top three places, all entries which were performed in English reached the top positions.

Spokespersons
Each country nominated a spokesperson, connected to the contest venue via telephone lines and responsible for announcing, in English or French, the votes for their respective country. Known spokespersons at the 1992 contest are listed below.

 * – Olivier Minne
 * – Eileen Dunne
 * – Joanna Drake
 * – Jan Jingryd
 * – Colin Berry

Detailed voting results
Jury voting was used to determine the points awarded by all countries. The announcement of the results from each country was conducted in the order in which they performed, with the spokespersons announcing their country's points in English or French in ascending order. The detailed breakdown of the points awarded by each country is listed in the tables below.

12 points
The below table summarises how the maximum 12 points were awarded from one country to another. The winning country is shown in bold. Italy, Malta and the United Kingdom each received the maximum score of 12 points from four of the voting countries, with Ireland receiving three sets of 12 points, France and Greece receiving two sets of maximum scores each, and Austria, Iceland, Israel and Switzerland each receiving one maximum score.

Broadcasts
Each participating broadcaster was required to relay the contest via its networks. Non-participating broadcasters were also able to relay the contest as "passive participants". Broadcasters were able to send commentators to provide coverage of the contest in their own native language and to relay information about the artists and songs to their television viewers. The contest was broadcast in 44 countries, including Australia, New Zealand and South Korea. Known details on the broadcasts in each country, including the specific broadcasting stations and commentators are shown in the tables below.

title: Eurovision Song Contest 1992