text:
Cockney Rejects

Cockney Rejects are an English punk rock band that formed in the East End of London in 1978. Their 1980 song "Oi, Oi, Oi" was the inspiration for the name of the Oi! music genre. The band members are supporters of West Ham United, and pay tribute to the club with their hit cover version of "I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles", a song traditionally sung by West Ham supporters.

Career
Cockney Rejects were formed in 1978 by brothers Jeff and Micky Geggus, with their brother-in-law Chris Murrell on bass and Paul Harvey on drums. Their first demo, "Flares n' Slippers", caught the attention of Small Wonder Records owner Pete Stennett, who introduced the band to Bob Sergeant. With Sergeant, they recorded their single "Flares n' Slippers", which sold out its first pressing. Murrell and Harvey were then replaced by Vince Riordan on bass and Andy Scott on drums, from fellow East End London band, The Tickets. This became known as Cockney Rejects' classic lineup, and its debut at the Bridge House in Canning Town in June 1979 is considered a turning point for the band. In September of that same year, the band signed with EMI and released their album Greatest Hits, Vol. 1 in February 1980. <

Their biggest hit single in the United Kingdom, 1980's "The Greatest Cockney Rip-Off", was a parody of Sham 69's song "Hersham Boys". Other Cockney Rejects songs were less commercial, partly because they tended to be about hard-edged topics such as street fighting or football hooliganism. Other singles to appear in the UK were "Bad Man," "We Can Do Anything," "I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles " and "We Are the Firm" — all from 1980.

The violence depicted in their lyrics was often mirrored at their concerts, and the band members often fought to defend themselves (often from supporters of opposing football teams) or to split up conflicts between audience members. Jeff and Mick Geggus had both been amateur youth boxers, and had fought at national level. Bass player Vince Riordan's uncle was Jack "The Hat" McVitie, a Cockney gangster who was murdered by Reggie Kray.

Cockney Rejects expressed contempt for all politicians in their lyrics, and they rejected media claims that they had a British Movement following, or that the band members supported the views of that far right group. In their first Sounds interview, they mockingly referred to the British Movement as the "German Movement" and stated that many of their heroes were black boxers. Jeff Geggus' autobiography Cockney Reject describes an incident in which the band members and their supporters had a massive fight against British Movement members at one of Cockney Rejects' early concerts.

EMI records released a definitive Rejects retrospective on 29 August 2011. Called Join the Rejects, the Zonophone years '79-'81, it was a three-disc collection of all their EMI recordings including all the Peel sessions and rare demos from the day. Also included was a colour booklet with a blow-by-blow account of the stories behind the music by Micky Geggus.

The Rejects movie East End Babylon and an album of the same name were released in 2013. Tony Van Frater died in October 2015 from a heart attack at the age of 51.

In February 2016, it was announced that former Cockney Reject bass player Vince Riordan had re-joined the band again.

The group were slated to perform their first Australian shows in February 2019, however a family emergency necessitated the postponement of the concerts to July. The concerts were later rescheduled to October and went ahead that month to critical acclaim.

In 2022, the group announced a final world tour, which spanned until December 2023 and also included their second visit to Australia. They announced that after that tour, they would remain active as a band, but only perform festivals. In early 2024, however, Mick, Riordan and Sansome left the group. In March 2024, Jeff unveiled the new lineup, consisting of Ray Bussey from The Business, JJ Pearce from The Last Resort and Michael "Olga" Algar from The Toy Dolls.

Longtime drummer Andrew Laing died on 3 April 2023.

Members

 * Current members
 * Jeff Geggus (Stinky Turner) – vocals (1978–present)
 * Michael (Olga) Algar – guitar (2024-present)
 * JJ Pearce – bass (2024-present)
 * Ray Bussey – drums (2024-present)

 * Former members
 * Mick Geggus – guitar (1978-2024)
 * Vince Riordan – bass (1979–1983, 1987–1991, 2015–2024)
 * Chris Murrell – bass (1978–1979)
 * Paul Harvey – drums (1978–1979)
 * Andy Scott – drums (1979–1980)
 * Nigel Woof – drums (1980)
 * Keith Warrington – drums (1980–1985, 1987–1991)
 * Ian Campbell – bass (1983–1985)
 * Tony Van Frater – bass (1999–2015; died 2015)
 * Andrew Laing – drums (1999–2000, 2007–2017; died 2023)
 * Les Cobb – drums (2000–2007)
 * Joe Perry Sansome – drums (2017–2024)

Albums

 * Greatest Hits Vol. 1 (EMI, 1980)
 * Greatest Hits Vol. II (EMI, 1980)
 * The Power and the Glory (EMI, 1981)
 * The Wild Ones (A.K.A. Records, 1982)
 * Quiet Storm (Heavy Metal Records, 1984)
 * Lethal (Neat Records, 1990)
 * Out of the Gutter (Captain Oi Records, 2002)
 * Unforgiven (G&R Records, 2007)
 * East End Babylon (Cadiz Music, 2012)
 * Power Grab (Cadiz Music, 2022)

EPs and singles

 * "Flares & Slippers" (7-inch, EP) (Small Wonder, 1979)
 * "I'm Not a Fool" (7-inch single) (EMI, 1979) UK No. 65
 * "Bad Man" (7-inch) (EMI, 1980) UK No. 65
 * "The Greatest Cockney Rip Off" (7-inch. Limited Edition in Yellow Vinyl) (EMI/Zonophone, 1980) UK No. 21
 * "I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles" (7-inch) (EMI/Zonophone, 1980) UK No. 35
 * "We Can Do Anything" (7-inch) (EMI/Zonophone, 1980) UK No. 65
 * "We Are the Firm" (7-inch) (EMI/Zonophone, 1980) UK No. 54
 * "Easy Life" (7-inch, Live EP) (EMI/Zonophone, 1981)
 * "On the Streets Again" (7-inch) (EMI/Zonophone, 1981)
 * "Till the End of the Day" (7-inch) (AKA 1982)
 * "Back to the Start" (7-inch) (Heavy Metal Records, 1984)
 * "It's Gonna Kick Off!" (7-inch, EP) (Cadiz Music, 2016)
 * "Goodbye Upton Park" (7-inch) (Cadiz Music,2016)

Compilation and live albums

 * Greatest Hits Vol. 3 (Live & Loud) (1981)
 * Unheard Rejects (1985 - collection of demo tracks recorded between 1979 and 1981)
 * We Are The Firm (1986)
 * The Best Of The Cockney Rejects (1993)
 * The Punk Singles Collection (Dojo, 1997)
 * Oi! Oi! Oi! (Castle, 1997)
 * Greatest Hits Volume 4: Here They Come Again (Rhythm Vicar, 2000 - reissued as Back on the Street - Victory Records, 2000)
 * Join the Rejects, the Zonophone years '79-'81 (EMI, )

Appearances

 * Oi! The Album (1980)
 * Total Noise (7-inch EP - 1983 - as Dead Generation)
 * Lords Of Oi! (Dressed to Kill, 1997)
 * Addicted to Oi! (2001)

title: Cockney Rejects


text:
Gondola

The gondola (, ; góndoła, ) is a traditional, flat-bottomed Venetian rowing boat, well suited to the conditions of the Venetian lagoon. It is typically propelled by a gondolier, who uses a rowing oar, which is not fastened to the hull, in a sculling manner, and also acts as the rudder. The uniqueness of the gondola includes its being asymmetrical along the length, making the single-oar propulsion more efficient.

For centuries, the gondola was a major means of transportation and the most common watercraft within Venice. In modern times, the boats still do have a role in public transport in the city, serving as traghetti (small ferries) over the Grand Canal operated by two oarsmen.

Various types of gondola boats are also used in special regattas (rowing races) held amongst gondoliers. Their primary role today, however, is to carry tourists on rides at fixed rates. There are approximately 400 licensed gondoliers in Venice and a similar number of boats, down from the thousands that travelled the canals centuries ago. However, they are now elegantly crafted, as opposed to the various types of homemade boats of the past.

History and usage
The gondola is propelled by a person (the gondolier) who stands on the stern facing the bow and rows with a forward stroke, followed by a compensating backward stroke. The oar rests in an elaborately carved wooden rest (forcola) shaped to project from the side of the craft so as to allow the slight drag of each return stroke to pull the bow back to its forward course. Because of the vessel's flat bottom it may also be "drifted" sideways when required. Contrary to popular belief, the gondola is never poled like a punt as the waters of Venice are too deep. Until the early 20th century, as many photographs attest, gondolas were often fitted with a "felze", a small cabin, to protect the passengers from the weather or from onlookers. Its windows could be closed with louvered shutters—the original "Venetian blinds".

After the elimination of the traditional felze—possibly in response to tourists' complaining that it blocked the view—there survived for some decades a kind of vestigial summer awning, known as the "tendalin" (these can be seen on gondolas as late as the mid-1950s, in the film Summertime (1955)). While in previous centuries gondolas could be many different colors, a sumptuary law of Venice required that gondolas should be painted black, and they are customarily so painted now.

The gondola has existed in Venice since the 11th century, being first mentioned by name in 1094. It is estimated that there were eight to ten thousand gondolas during the 17th and 18th century, but there are only around four hundred in active service today, with virtually all of them used for hire by tourists. Those few that are in private ownership are either hired out to Venetians for weddings or used for racing. Even though the gondola, by now, has become a widely publicized icon of Venice, in the times of the Republic of Venice it was by far not the only means of transportation; on the map of Venice created by Jacopo de' Barbari in 1500, only a fraction of the boats are gondolas, the majority of boats are batellas, caorlinas, galleys, and other boats. Now, only a handful of batellas survive, and caorlinas are used for racing only.

The historical gondola was quite different from its modern evolution; the paintings of Canaletto and others show a much lower prow, a higher "ferro", and usually two rowers. The banana-shaped modern gondola was developed only in the 19th century by the boat-builder Tramontin, whose heirs still run the Tramontin boatyard. The construction of the gondola continued to evolve until the mid-20th century, when the city government prohibited any further modifications.

In the 1500s an estimated 10,000 gondolas of all types were in Venice; in 1878 an estimated 4000 and now approximately 400.

The origin of the word "gondola" has never been satisfactorily established, despite many theories.

Current design
Today's gondola is up to 11 m long and 1.6 m wide, with a mass of 350 kg. They are made of 280 hand-made pieces using eight types of wood (lime, oak, mahogany, walnut, cherry, fir, larch and elm). The process takes about two months; in 2013, the cost of a gondola was about 38,000 euros. The oar or rèmo is held in an oarlock known as a fórcola. The forcola is of a complicated shape, allowing several positions of the oar for slow forward rowing, powerful forward rowing, turning, slowing down, rowing backwards, and stopping. The ornament on the front of the boat is called the fèrro (meaning iron) and can be made from brass, stainless steel, or aluminium. It serves as decoration and as counterweight for the gondolier standing near the stern. According to a popular urban legend with no factual basis, every detail of the gondola has its own symbolism. The iron prow-head of the gondola, called "fero da prorà" or "dolfin", is needed to balance the weight of the gondolier at the stern and has an "Ƨ" shape symbolic of the twists in the Canal Grande. Under the main blade there is a kind of comb with six teeth or prongs ("rebbi") pointing forward standing for the six districts or "sestieri" of Venice (however, this is contradicted by the fact that old photographs and paintings show gondolas with 4 or 5 teeth). A kind of tooth juts out backwards toward the centre of the gondola symbolises the island of Giudecca. The curved top signifies the Doge's cap. The semi-circular break between the curved top and the six teeth is said to represent the Rialto Bridge. Sometimes three friezes can be seen in-between the six prongs, indicating the three main islands of the city: Murano, Burano and Torcello. This symbolism is likely influenced by the need to explain the shape to tourists, rather than the shape being influenced by those symbols, as they are not mentioned in any writings about the gondola prior to the current evolution of the shape of the Fero.

The gondola is also one of the vessels typically used in both ceremonial and competitive regattas, rowing races held amongst gondoliers using the technique of Voga alla Veneta.

Gondolieri
During their heyday as a means of public transports, teams of four men would share ownership of a gondola – three oarsmen (gondoliers) and a fourth person, primarily shore-based and responsible for the booking and administration of the gondola (Il Rosso Riserva).

However, as the gondolas became more of a tourist attraction than a mode of public transport all but one of these cooperatives and their offices have closed. The category is now protected by the Institution for the Protection and Conservation of Gondolas and Gondoliers, headquartered in the historical center of Venice.

The profession of gondolier is controlled by a guild, which issues a limited number of licenses (approximately 400), granted after periods of training (400 hours over six months) and apprenticeship, and a major comprehensive exam which tests knowledge of Venetian history and landmarks, foreign language skills, and practical skills in handling the gondola. Such skills are necessary in the tight spaces of Venetian canals. Gondoliers dress in a blue or red striped top, red neckerchief, wide-brimmed straw hat and dark pants. A gondolier can earn the equivalent of up to US$150,000 per year.

In August 2010, Giorgia Boscolo became Venice's first fully licensed female gondolier.

Alex Hai had begun work in gondolas earlier than Boscolo, in 2007, as Alexandra, but not with a full license because of failures to pass various tests. In June 2017, Hai came out as transgender and said that he had been working "in the body of a woman". Hai is the first openly transgender person to be a gondola operator in Venice. He continues to work as a private gondola operator for hotels and individual clients in a self-run business, Alex Hai Gondola Tours.

Outside of Venice
There are about a half dozen cities in the United States where gondolas are operated as tourist attractions, including New Orleans, the Charles River in Boston, Stillwater (Minnesota), New York's Central Park, and the Providence River in Rhode Island, as well as several in California. The annual U.S. Gondola Nationals competitions have been held since 2011, and feature American Gondoliers competing in sprints and slalom races,

References in literature and history
Mark Twain visited Venice in the summer of 1867. He dedicated much of The Innocents Abroad, chapter 23, to describing the curiosity of urban life with gondolas and gondoliers.

The first act of Gilbert and Sullivan's two-act comic operetta The Gondoliers is set in Venice, and its two protagonists (as well as its men's chorus) are of the eponymous profession, even though the political irony that makes up the core of the piece has much more to do with British society than with Venice.

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

title: Gondola


text:
Identification friend or foe

Identification, friend or foe (IFF) is a combat identification system designed for command and control. It uses a transponder that listens for an interrogation signal and then sends a response that identifies the broadcaster. IFF systems usually use radar frequencies, but other electromagnetic frequencies, radio or infrared, may be used. It enables military and civilian air traffic control interrogation systems to identify aircraft, vehicles or forces as friendly, as opposed to neutral or hostile, and to determine their bearing and range from the interrogator. IFF is used by both military and civilian aircraft. IFF was first developed during World War II, with the arrival of radar, and several friendly fire incidents.

IFF can only positively identify friendly aircraft or other forces. If an IFF interrogation receives no reply or an invalid reply, the object is not positively identified as foe; friendly forces may not properly reply to IFF for various reasons such as equipment malfunction, and parties in the area not involved in the combat, such as civilian airliners, will not be equipped with IFF.

IFF is a tool within the broader military action of combat identification (CID), the characterization of objects detected in the field of combat sufficiently accurately to support operational decisions. The broadest characterization is that of friend, enemy, neutral, or unknown. CID not only can reduce friendly fire incidents, but also contributes to overall tactical decision-making.

With the successful deployment of radar systems for air defence during World War II, combatants were immediately confronted with the difficulty of distinguishing friendly aircraft from hostile ones; by that time, aircraft were flown at high speed and altitude, making visual identification impossible, and the targets showed up as featureless blips on the radar screen. This led to incidents such as the Battle of Barking Creek, over Britain, and the air attack on the fortress of Koepenick over Germany.

Early concepts

Already before the deployment of their Chain Home radar system (CH), the RAF had considered the problem of IFF. Robert Watson-Watt had filed patents on such systems in 1935 and 1936. By 1938, researchers at Bawdsey Manor began experiments with "reflectors" consisting of dipole antennas tuned to resonate to the primary frequency of the CH radars. When a pulse from the CH transmitter hit the aircraft, the antennas would resonate for a short time, increasing the amount of energy returned to the CH receiver. The antenna was connected to a motorized switch that periodically shorted it out, preventing it from producing a signal. This caused the return on the CH set to periodically lengthen and shorten as the antenna was turned on and off. In practice, the system was found to be too unreliable to use; the return was highly dependent on the direction the aircraft was moving relative to the CH station, and often returned little or no additional signal.

It had been suspected this system would be of little use in practice. When that turned out to be the case, the RAF turned to an entirely different system that was also being planned. This consisted of a set of tracking stations using HF/DF radio direction finders. Their aircraft radios were modified to send out a 1 kHz tone for 14 seconds every minute, allowing the stations ample time to measure the aircraft's bearing. Several such stations were assigned to each "sector" of the air defence system, and sent their measurements to a plotting station at sector headquarters, who used triangulation to determine the aircraft's location. Known as "pip-squeak", the system worked, but was labour-intensive and did not display its information directly to the radar operators. A system that worked directly with the radar was clearly desirable.

IFF Mark II
The first active IFF transponder (transmitter/responder) was the IFF Mark I which was used experimentally in 1939. This used a regenerative receiver, which fed a small amount of the amplified output back into the input, strongly amplifying even small signals as long as they were of a single frequency (like Morse code, but unlike voice transmissions). They were tuned to the signal from the CH radar (20–30 MHz), amplifying it so strongly that it was broadcast back out the aircraft's antenna. Since the signal was received at the same time as the original reflection of the CH signal, the result was a lengthened "blip" on the CH display which was easily identifiable. In testing, it was found that the unit would often overpower the radar or produce too little signal to be seen, and at the same time, new radars were being introduced using new frequencies.

Instead of putting Mark I into production, a new IFF Mark II was introduced in early 1940. Mark II had a series of separate tuners inside tuned to different radar bands that it stepped through using a motorized switch, while an automatic gain control solved the problem of it sending out too much signal. Mark II was technically complete as the war began, but a lack of sets meant it was not available in quantity and only a small number of RAF aircraft carried it by the time of the Battle of Britain. Pip-squeak was kept in operation during this period, but as the Battle ended, IFF Mark II was quickly put into full operation. Pip-squeak was still used for areas over land where CH did not cover, as well as an emergency guidance system.

IFF Mark III
Even by 1940 the complex system of Mark II was reaching its limits while new radars were being constantly introduced. By 1941, a number of sub-models were introduced that covered different combinations of radars, common naval ones for instance, or those used by the RAF. But the introduction of radars based on the microwave-frequency cavity magnetron rendered this obsolete; there was simply no way to make a responder operating in this band using contemporary electronics.

In 1940, English engineer Freddie Williams had suggested using a single separate frequency for all IFF signals, but at the time there seemed no pressing need to change the existing system. With the introduction of the magnetron, work on this concept began at the Telecommunications Research Establishment as the IFF Mark III. This was to become the standard for the Western Allies for most of the war.

Mark III transponders were designed to respond to specific 'interrogators', rather than replying directly to received radar signals. These interrogators worked on a limited selection of frequencies, no matter what radar they were paired with. The system also allowed limited communication to be made, including the ability to transmit a coded 'Mayday' response. The IFF sets were designed and built by Ferranti in Manchester to Williams' specifications. Equivalent sets were manufactured in the US, initially as copies of British sets, so that allied aircraft would be identified upon interrogation by each other's radar.

IFF sets were obviously highly classified. Thus, many of them were wired with explosives in the event the aircrew bailed out or crash landed. Jerry Proc reports:

"Alongside the switch to turn on the unit was the IFF destruct switch to prevent its capture by the enemy. Many a pilot chose the wrong switch and blew up his IFF unit. The thud of a contained explosion and the acrid smell of burning insulation in the cockpit did not deter many pilots from destroying IFF units time and time again. Eventually, the self destruct switch was secured by a thin wire to prevent its accidental use.'"

Germany

FuG 25a Erstling (English: Firstborn, Debut) was developed in Germany in 1940. It was tuned to the low-VHF band at 125 MHz used by the Freya radar, and an adaptor was used with the low-UHF-banded 550–580 MHz used by Würzburg. Before a flight, the transceiver was set up with a selected day code of ten bits which was dialed into the unit. To start the identification procedure, the ground operator switched the pulse frequency of his radar from 3,750 Hz to 5,000 Hz. The airborne receiver decoded that and started to transmit the day code. The radar operator would then see the blip lengthen and shorten in the given code. The IFF transmitter worked on 168 MHz with a power of 400 watts (PEP).

The system included a way for ground controllers to determine whether an aircraft had the right code or not but it did not include a way for the transponder to reject signals from other sources. British military scientists found a way of exploiting this by building their own IFF transmitter called Perfectos, which were designed to trigger a response from any FuG 25a system in the vicinity. When an FuG 25a responded on its 168 MHz frequency, the signal was received by the antenna system from an AI Mk. IV radar, which originally operated at 212 MHz. By comparing the strength of the signal on different antennas the direction to the target could be determined. Mounted on Mosquitos, the "Perfectos" severely limited German use of the FuG 25a.

IFF Mark IV and V
The United States Naval Research Laboratory had been working on their own IFF system since before the war. It used a single interrogation frequency, like the Mark III, but differed in that it used a separate responder frequency. Responding on a different frequency has several practical advantages, most notably that the response from one IFF cannot trigger another IFF on another aircraft. But it requires a complete transmitter for the responder side of the circuitry, in contrast to the greatly simplified regenerative system used in the British designs. This technique is now known as a cross-band transponder.

When the Mark II was revealed in 1941 during the Tizard Mission, it was decided to use it and take the time to further improve their experimental system. The result was what became IFF Mark IV. The main difference between this and earlier models is that it worked on higher frequencies, around 600 MHz, which allowed much smaller antennas. However, this also turned out to be close to the frequencies used by the German Würzburg radar and there were concerns that it would be triggered by that radar and the transponder responses would be picked on its radar display. This would immediately reveal the IFF's operational frequencies.

This led to a US–British effort to make a further improved model, the Mark V, also known as the United Nations Beacon or UNB. This moved to still higher frequencies around 1 GHz but operational testing was not complete when the war ended. By the time testing was finished in 1948, the much improved Mark X was beginning its testing and Mark V was abandoned.

IFF Mark X
Mark X started as a purely experimental device operating at frequencies above 1 GHz, the name refers to "experimental", not "number 10". As development continued it was decided to introduce an encoding system known as the "Selective Identification Feature", or SIF. SIF allowed the return signal to contain up to 12 pulses, representing four octal digits of 3 bits each. Depending on the timing of the interrogation signal, SIF would respond in several ways. Mode 1 indicated the type of aircraft or its mission (cargo or bomber, for instance) while Mode 2 returned a tail code.

Mark X began to be introduced in the early 1950s. This was during a period of great expansion of the civilian air transport system, and it was decided to use slightly modified Mark X sets for these aircraft as well. These sets included a new military Mode 3 which was essentially identical to Mode 2, returning a four-digit code, but used a different interrogation pulse, allowing the aircraft to identify if the query was from a military or civilian radar. For civilian aircraft, this same system was known as Mode A, and because they were identical, they are generally known as Mode 3/A.

Several new modes were also introduced during this process. Civilian modes B and D were defined, but never used. Mode C responded with a 12-bit number encoded using Gillham code, which represented the altitude as (that number) x 100 feet - 1200. Radar systems can easily locate an aircraft in two dimensions, but measuring altitude is a more complex problem and, especially in the 1950s, added significantly to the cost of the radar system. By placing this function on the IFF, the same information could be returned for little additional cost, essentially that of adding a digitizer to the aircraft's altimeter.

Modern interrogators generally send out a series of challenges on Mode 3/A and then Mode C, allowing the system to combine the identity of the aircraft with its altitude and location from the radar.

IFF Mark XII
The current IFF system is the Mark XII. This works on the same frequencies as Mark X, and supports all of its military and civilian modes.

It had long been considered a problem that the IFF responses could be triggered by any properly formed interrogation, and those signals were simply two short pulses of a single frequency. This allowed enemy transmitters to trigger the response, and using triangulation, an enemy could determine the location of the transponder. The British had already used this technique against the Germans during WWII, and it was used by the USAF against VPAF aircraft during the Vietnam War.

Mark XII differs from Mark X through the addition of the new military Mode 4. This works in a fashion similar to Mode 3/A, with the interrogator sending out a signal that the IFF responds to. There are two key differences, however.

One is that the interrogation pulse is followed by a 12-bit code similar to the ones sent back by the Mark 3 transponders. The encoded number changes day-to-day. When the number is received and decoded in the aircraft transponder, a further cryptographic encoding is applied. If the result of that operation matches the value dialled into the IFF in the aircraft, the transponder replies with a Mode 3 response as before. If the values do not match, it does not respond.

This solves the problem of the aircraft transponder replying to false interrogations, but does not completely solve the problem of locating the aircraft through triangulation. To solve this problem, a delay is added to the response signal that varies based on the code sent from the interrogator. When received by an enemy that does not see the interrogation pulse, which is generally the case as they are often below the radar horizon, this causes a random displacement of the return signal with every pulse. Locating the aircraft within the set of returns is a difficult process.

Mode S
During the 1980s, a new civilian mode, Mode S, was added that allowed greatly increased amounts of data to be encoded in the returned signal. This was used to encode the location of the aircraft from the navigation system. This is a basic part of the traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS), which allows commercial aircraft to know the location of other aircraft in the area and avoid them without the need for ground operators.

The basic concepts from Mode S were then militarized as Mode 5, which is simply a cryptographically encoded version of the Mode S data.

The IFF of World War II and Soviet military systems (1946 to 1991) used coded radar signals (called cross-band interrogation, or CBI) to automatically trigger the aircraft's transponder in an aircraft illuminated by the radar. Radar-based aircraft identification is also called secondary surveillance radar in both military and civil usage, with primary radar bouncing an RF pulse off of the aircraft to determine position. George Charrier, working for RCA, filed for a patent for such an IFF device in 1941. It required the operator to perform several adjustments to the radar receiver to suppress the image of the natural echo on the radar receiver, so that visual examination of the IFF signal would be possible.

By 1943, Donald Barchok filed a patent for a radar system using the abbreviation IFF in his text with only parenthetic explanation, indicating that this acronym had become an accepted term. In 1945, Emile Labin and Edwin Turner filed patents for radar IFF systems where the outgoing radar signal and the transponder's reply signal could each be independently programmed with a binary codes by setting arrays of toggle switches; this allowed the IFF code to be varied from day to day or even hour to hour.

Early 21st century systems
The United States and other NATO countries started using a system called Mark XII in the late twentieth century; Britain had not until then implemented an IFF system compatible with that standard, but then developed a program for a compatible system known as successor IFF (SIFF).

Modes

 * Mode 1: military only; provides 2-digit octal (6 bit) "mission code" that identifies the aircraft type or mission.
 * Mode 2: military only; provides 4-digit octal (12 bit) unit code or tail number.
 * Mode 3/A: military/civilian; provides a 4-digit octal (12 bit) identification code for the aircraft, assigned by the air traffic controller. Commonly referred to as a squawk code.
 * Mode 4: military only; provides a 3-pulse reply, delay is based on the encrypted challenge.
 * Mode 5: military only; provides a cryptographically secured version of Mode S and ADS-B GPS position.

Modes 4 and 5 are designated for use by NATO forces.

Submarines
In World War I, eight submarines were sunk by friendly fire and in World War II nearly twenty were sunk this way. Still, Identification of friend or foe (IFF) has not been regarded a high concern before the 1990s by the US military as not many other countries possess submarines.

IFF methods that are analogous to aircraft IFF have been deemed unfeasible for submarines because they would make submarines easier to detect. Thus, having friendly submarines broadcast a signal, or somehow increase the submarine's signature (based on acoustics, magnetic fluctuations etc.), are not considered viable. Instead, submarine IFF is done based on carefully defining areas of operation. Each friendly submarine is assigned a patrol area, where the presence of any other submarine is deemed hostile and open to attack. Further, within these assigned areas, surface ships and aircraft refrain from any anti-submarine warfare (ASW); only the resident submarine may target other submarines in its own area. Ships and aircraft may still engage in ASW in areas that have not been assigned to any friendly submarines. Navies also use database of acoustic signatures to attempt to identify the submarine, but acoustic data can be ambiguous and several countries deploy similar classes of submarines.

title: Identification friend or foe


text:
Electrostatics

Electrostatics is a branch of physics that studies slow-moving or stationary electric charges.

Since classical times, it has been known that some materials, such as amber, attract lightweight particles after rubbing. The Greek word for amber, ἤλεκτρον (ḗlektron), was thus the source of the word electricity. Electrostatic phenomena arise from the forces that electric charges exert on each other. Such forces are described by Coulomb's law.

There are many examples of electrostatic phenomena, from those as simple as the attraction of plastic wrap to one's hand after it is removed from a package, to the apparently spontaneous explosion of grain silos, the damage of electronic components during manufacturing, and photocopier and laser printer operation.

The electrostatic model accurately predicts electrical phenomena in "classical" cases where the velocities are low and the system is macroscopic so no quantum effects are involved. It also plays a role in quantum mechanics, where additional terms also need to be included.

Coulomb's law
Coulomb's law states that: "The magnitude of the electrostatic force of attraction or repulsion between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."

The force is along the straight line joining them. If the two charges have the same sign, the electrostatic force between them is repulsive; if they have different signs, the force between them is attractive.

If $$r$$ is the distance (in meters) between two charges, then the force between two point charges $$q$$ and $$Q$$ is:
 * $$F = \frac{qQ}{4\pi \varepsilon_0 r^2}\, ,$$

where ε0 = is the vacuum permittivity.

The SI unit of ε0 is equivalently A2⋅s4 ⋅kg−1⋅m−3 or C2⋅N−1⋅m−2 or F⋅m−1.

Electric field

The electric field, $$\mathbf E$$, in units of Newtons per Coulomb or volts per meter, is a vector field that can be defined everywhere, except at the location of point charges (where it diverges to infinity). It is defined as the electrostatic force $$\mathbf ,$$ on a hypothetical small test charge at the point due to Coulomb's law, divided by the charge $$q$$
 * $$\mathbf E = {\mathbf F \over q}$$

Electric field lines are useful for visualizing the electric field. Field lines begin on positive charge and terminate on negative charge. They are parallel to the direction of the electric field at each point, and the density of these field lines is a measure of the magnitude of the electric field at any given point.

Consider a collection of $$n$$ particles of charge $$q_i$$, located at points $$\mathbf r_i$$ (called source points), the electric field at $$\mathbf r$$ (called the field point) is:
 * $$ \mathbf E(\mathbf r) = {1\over4\pi\varepsilon_0} \sum_{i=1}^n q_i {\hat\mathbf r_i\over {|\mathbf r_i|}^2} = {1\over 4\pi\varepsilon_0} \sum_{i=1}^n q_i {\mathbf r_i\over {|\mathbf r_i|}^3},$$

where $\mathbf r_i = \mathbf r-\mathbf r_i$ is the displacement vector from a source point $$\mathbf r_i$$ to the field point $$\mathbf r$$, and $ \hat\mathbf r_i \ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\ \frac{\mathbf r_i}{|\mathbf r_i|}$  is a unit vector that indicates the direction of the field. For a single point charge at the origin, the magnitude of this electric field is $$E = Q/4\pi\varepsilon_0 r^2$$ and points away from that charge if it is positive. The fact that the force (and hence the field) can be calculated by summing over all the contributions due to individual source particles is an example of the superposition principle. The electric field produced by a distribution of charges is given by the volume charge density $$\rho(\mathbf r)$$ and can be obtained by converting this sum into a triple integral:
 * $$\mathbf E(\mathbf r) = \frac{1}{4\pi\varepsilon_0} \iiint \, \rho(\mathbf r') {\mathbf r'\over {|\mathbf r'|}^3} \mathrm{d}^3|\mathbf r'|$$

Gauss's law
Gauss's law states that "the total electric flux through any closed surface in free space of any shape drawn in an electric field is proportional to the total electric charge enclosed by the surface." Many numerical problems can be solved by considering a Gaussian surface around a body. Mathematically, Gauss's law takes the form of an integral equation:
 * $$\Phi_E = \oint_S\mathbf E\cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf A = {Q_\text{enclosed}\over\varepsilon_0} = \int_V{\rho\over\varepsilon_0}\mathrm{d}^3 r,$$

where $$\mathrm{d}^3 r =\mathrm{d}x \ \mathrm{d}y \ \mathrm{d}z$$ is a volume element. If the charge is distributed over a surface or along a line, replace $$\rho\,\mathrm{d}^3r$$ by $$\sigma \, \mathrm{d}A$$ or $$\lambda \, \mathrm{d}\ell$$. The divergence theorem allows Gauss's Law to be written in differential form:
 * $$\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{E} = {\rho\over\varepsilon_0}.$$

where $$\vec{\nabla} \cdot$$ is the divergence operator.

Poisson and Laplace equations
The definition of electrostatic potential, combined with the differential form of Gauss's law (above), provides a relationship between the potential Φ and the charge density ρ:
 * $${\nabla}^2 \phi = - {\rho\over\varepsilon_0}.$$

This relationship is a form of Poisson's equation. In the absence of unpaired electric charge, the equation becomes Laplace's equation:
 * $${\nabla}^2 \phi = 0,$$

Electrostatic approximation
The validity of the electrostatic approximation rests on the assumption that the electric field is irrotational:
 * $$\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{E} = 0.$$

From Faraday's law, this assumption implies the absence or near-absence of time-varying magnetic fields:
 * $${\partial\vec{B}\over\partial t} = 0.$$

In other words, electrostatics does not require the absence of magnetic fields or electric currents. Rather, if magnetic fields or electric currents do exist, they must not change with time, or in the worst-case, they must change with time only very slowly. In some problems, both electrostatics and magnetostatics may be required for accurate predictions, but the coupling between the two can still be ignored. Electrostatics and magnetostatics can both be seen as non-relativistic Galilean limits for electromagnetism. In addition, conventional electrostatics ignore quantum effects which have to be added for a complete description.

Electrostatic potential
As the electric field is irrotational, it is possible to express the electric field as the gradient of a scalar function, $$\phi$$, called the electrostatic potential (also known as the voltage). An electric field, $$E$$, points from regions of high electric potential to regions of low electric potential, expressed mathematically as
 * $$\vec{E} = -\vec{\nabla}\phi.$$

The gradient theorem can be used to establish that the electrostatic potential    is the amount of work per unit charge required to move a charge from point $$a$$ to point $$b$$ with the following line integral:
 * $$ -\int_a^b {\vec{E}\cdot \mathrm{d}\vec \ell} = \phi (\vec b) -\phi(\vec a).$$

From these equations, we see that the electric potential is constant in any region for which the electric field vanishes (such as occurs inside a conducting object).

Electrostatic energy
A test particle's potential energy, $$U_\mathrm{E}^{\text{single}}$$, can be calculated from a line integral of the work, $$q_n\vec E\cdot\mathrm d\vec\ell$$. We integrate from a point at infinity, and assume a collection of $$N$$ particles of charge $$Q_n$$, are already situated at the points $$\vec r_i$$. This potential energy (in Joules) is:
 * $$ U_\mathrm{E}^{\text{single}}=q\phi(\vec r)=\frac{q }{4\pi \varepsilon_0}\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{Q_i}{\left \|\mathcal{\vec R_i} \right \|}$$

where $$\vec\mathcal {R_i} = \vec r - \vec r_i$$ is the distance of each charge $$Q_i$$ from the test charge $$q$$, which situated at the point $$\vec r$$, and $$\phi(\vec r)$$ is the electric potential that would be at $$\vec r$$ if the test charge were not present. If only two charges are present, the potential energy is $$Q_1 Q_2/(4\pi\varepsilon_0 r)$$. The total electric potential energy due a collection of N charges is calculating by assembling these particles one at a time:
 * $$U_\mathrm{E}^{\text{total}} = \frac{1 }{4\pi\varepsilon _0}\sum_{j=1}^N Q_j \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} \frac{Q_i}{r_{ij}}= \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^N Q_i\phi_i ,$$

where the following sum from, j = 1 to N, excludes i = j:
 * $$\phi_i = \frac{1}{4\pi \varepsilon _0} \sum_{\stackrel{j=1}{j \ne i}}^N \frac{Q_j}{r_{ij}}.$$

This electric potential, $$\phi_i$$ is what would be measured at $$\vec r_i$$ if the charge $$Q_i$$ were missing. This formula obviously excludes the (infinite) energy that would be required to assemble each point charge from a disperse cloud of charge. The sum over charges can be converted into an integral over charge density using the prescription $\sum (\cdots) \rightarrow \int(\cdots)\rho \, \mathrm d^3r$ :
 * $$U_\mathrm{E}^{\text{total}} = \frac{1}{2} \int\rho(\vec{r})\phi(\vec{r}) \, \mathrm{d}^3 r = \frac{\varepsilon_0 }{2} \int \left|{\mathbf{E}}\right|^2 \, \mathrm{d}^3 r,$$

This second expression for electrostatic energy uses the fact that the electric field is the negative gradient of the electric potential, as well as vector calculus identities in a way that resembles integration by parts. These two integrals for electric field energy seem to indicate two mutually exclusive formulas for electrostatic energy density, namely $\frac{1}{2}\rho\phi$ and $\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon_0 E^2$ ; they yield equal values for the total electrostatic energy only if both are integrated over all space.

Electrostatic pressure
On a conductor, a surface charge will experience a force in the presence of an electric field. This force is the average of the discontinuous electric field at the surface charge. This average in terms of the field just outside the surface amounts to:
 * $$ P = \frac{ \varepsilon_0 }{2} E^2,$$

This pressure tends to draw the conductor into the field, regardless of the sign of the surface charge.

title: Electrostatics


text:
Georgism

Georgism, also called in modern times Geoism, and known historically as the single tax movement, is an economic ideology holding that people should own the value that they produce themselves, while the economic rent derived from land—including from all natural resources, the commons, and urban locations—should belong equally to all members of society. Developed from the writings of American economist and social reformer Henry George, the Georgist paradigm seeks solutions to social and ecological problems, based on principles of land rights and public finance that attempt to integrate economic efficiency with social justice.

Georgism is concerned with the distribution of economic rent caused by land ownership, natural monopolies, pollution rights, and control of the commons, including title of ownership for natural resources and other contrived privileges (e.g., intellectual property). Any natural resource that is inherently limited in supply can generate economic rent, but the classical and most significant example of land monopoly involves the extraction of common ground rent from valuable urban locations. Georgists argue that taxing economic rent is efficient, fair, and equitable. The main Georgist policy recommendation is a tax assessed on land value, arguing that revenues from a land value tax (LVT) can be used to reduce or eliminate existing taxes (such as on income, trade, or purchases) that are unfair and inefficient. Some Georgists also advocate for the return of surplus public revenue to the people by means of a basic income or citizen's dividend.

Henry George popularized the concept of gaining public revenues mainly from land and natural resource privileges with his first book, Progress and Poverty (1879). The philosophical basis of Georgism draws on thinkers such as John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, and Thomas Paine. Economists from Adam Smith and David Ricardo to Milton Friedman and Joseph Stiglitz have observed that a public levy on land value does not cause economic inefficiency, unlike other taxes. A land value tax also has progressive tax effects. Advocates of land value taxes argue that they reduce economic inequality, increase economic efficiency, remove incentives to under-utilize urban land, and reduce property speculation.

Georgist ideas were popular and influential during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Political parties, institutions, and communities were founded on Georgist principles during that time. Early devotees of George's economic philosophy were often termed Single Taxers for their political goal of raising public revenue mainly or only from a land-value tax, although Georgists endorsed multiple forms of rent capture (e.g. seigniorage) as legitimate. The term Georgism was invented later, and some prefer the term geoism as more generic.

Main tenets
Henry George is best known for popularizing the argument that government should be funded by a tax on land rent rather than taxes on labor. George believed that although scientific experiments could not be performed in political economy, theories could be tested by comparing different societies with different conditions and by thought experiments about the effects of various factors. Applying this method, he concluded that many of the problems that beset society, such as poverty, inequality, and economic booms and busts, could be attributed to the private ownership of the necessary resource: land rent. In his most celebrated book, Progress and Poverty, George argues that the appropriation of land rent for private use contributes to persistent poverty in spite of technological progress, and causes economies to exhibit a tendency toward boom-and-bust cycles. According to George, people justly own what they create, but natural opportunities and land belong equally to all.

"The tax upon land values is, therefore, the most just and equal of all taxes. It falls only upon those who receive from society a peculiar and valuable benefit, and upon them in proportion to the benefit they receive. It is the taking by the community, for the use of the community, of that value which is the creation of the community. It is the application of the common property to common uses. When all rent is taken by taxation for the needs of the community, then will the equality ordained by Nature be attained. No citizen will have an advantage over any other citizen save as is given by his industry, skill, and intelligence; and each will obtain what he fairly earns. Then, but not till then, will labor get its full reward, and capital its natural return." George believed there was an important distinction between common and collective property. Although equal rights to land might be achieved by nationalizing land and then leasing it to private users, George preferred taxing unimproved land value and leaving the control of land mostly in private hands. George's reasoning for leaving land in private control and slowly shifting to land value tax was that it would not penalize existing owners who had improved land and would also be less disruptive and controversial in a country where land titles have already been granted.

Georgists have observed that privately created wealth is socialized via the tax system (e.g., through income and sales tax), while socially created wealth in land values are privatized in the price of land titles and bank mortgages. The opposite would be the case if land rents replaced taxes on labor as the main source of public revenue; socially created wealth would become available for use by the community, while the fruits of labor would remain private. According to Georgists, a land value tax can be considered a user fee instead of a tax, since it is related to the market value of socially created locational advantage, the privilege to exclude others from locations. Assets consisting of commodified privilege can be considered as wealth since they have exchange value, similar to taxi medallions. A land value tax, charging fees for exclusive use of land, as a means of raising public revenue is also a progressive tax tending to reduce economic inequality, since it applies entirely to ownership of valuable land, which is correlated with income, and there is generally no means by which landlords can shift the tax burden onto tenants or laborers. Landlords are unable to pass the tax on to tenants because the supply and demand of rented land is unchanged. Because the supply of land is perfectly inelastic, land rents depend on what tenants are prepared to pay, rather than on the expenses of landlords, and so the tax cannot be passed on to tenants.

Economic properties
Standard economic theory suggests that a land value tax would be extremely efficient—unlike other taxes, it does not reduce economic productivity. Milton Friedman described Henry George's tax on unimproved value of land as the "least bad tax", since unlike other taxes, it would not impose an excess burden on economic activity (leading to zero or even negative "deadweight loss"); hence, a replacement of other more "distortionary" taxes with a land value tax would improve economic welfare. As land value tax can improve the use of land and redirect investment toward productive, non-rent-seeking activities, it could even have a negative dead-weight loss that boosts productivity. Because land value tax would apply to foreign land speculators, the Australian Treasury estimated that land value tax was unique in having a negative marginal excess burden, meaning that it would increase long-run living standards.

It was Adam Smith who first noted the efficiency and distributional properties of a land value tax in his book The Wealth of Nations. "Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground-rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be of little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent.

Both ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in order to defray the expenses of the state, no discouragement will thereby be given to any sort of industry. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before. Ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are, therefore, perhaps, the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them. ... Nothing can be more reasonable than that a fund which owes its existence to the good government of the state should be taxed peculiarly, or should contribute something more than the greater part of other funds, towards the support of that government."

Benjamin Franklin and Winston Churchill made similar distributional and efficiency arguments for taxing land rents. They noted that the costs of taxes and the benefits of public spending always eventually apply to and enrich the owners of land. Therefore, they believed it would be best to defray public costs and recapture value of public spending by applying public charges directly to owners of land titles, rather than harming public welfare with taxes assessed against beneficial activities such as trade and labor.

Henry George wrote that his plan for a high land value tax would cause people "to contribute to the public, not in proportion to what they produce ... but in proportion to the value of natural [common] opportunities that they hold [monopolize]". He went on to explain that "by taking for public use that value which attaches to land by reason of the growth and improvement of the community", it would, "make the holding of land unprofitable to the mere owner, and profitable only to the user".

A high land value tax would discourage speculators from holding valuable natural opportunities (like urban real estate) unused or only partially used. Henry George claimed this would have many benefits, including the reduction or elimination of tax burdens from poorer neighborhoods and agricultural districts; the elimination of a multiplicity of taxes and expensive obsolete government institutions; the elimination of corruption, fraud, and evasion with respect to the collection of taxes; the enablement of true free trade; the destruction of monopolies; the elevation of wages to the full value of labor; the transformation of labor-saving inventions into blessings for all; and the equitable distribution of comfort, leisure, and other advantages that are made possible by an advancing civilization. In this way, the vulnerability that market economies have to credit bubbles and property manias would be reduced.

Sources of economic rent and related policy interventions
Income flow resulting from payments for restricted access to natural opportunities or for contrived privileges over geographic regions is termed economic rent. Georgists argue that economic rent of land, legal privileges, and natural monopolies should accrue to the community, rather than private owners. In economics, "land" is everything that exists in nature independent of human activity. George explicitly included climate, soil, waterways, mineral deposits, laws/forces of nature, public ways, forests, oceans, air, and solar energy in the category of land. While the philosophy of Georgism does not say anything definitive about specific policy interventions needed to address problems posed by various sources of economic rent, the common goal among modern Georgists is to capture and share (or reduce) rent from all sources of natural monopoly and legal privilege.

Henry George shared the goal of modern Georgists to socialize or dismantle rent from all forms of land monopoly and legal privilege. However, George emphasized mainly his preferred policy known as land value tax, which targeted a particular form of unearned income known as ground rent. George emphasized ground-rent because basic locations were more valuable than other monopolies and everybody needed locations to survive, which he contrasted with the less significant streetcar and telegraph monopolies, which George also criticized. George likened the problem to a laborer traveling home who is waylaid by a series of highway robbers along the way, each who demand a small portion of the traveler's wages, and finally at the very end of the road waits a robber who demands all that the traveler has left. George reasoned that it made little difference to challenge the series of small robbers when the final robber remained to demand all that the common laborer had left. George predicted that over time technological advancements would increase the frequency and importance of lesser monopolies, yet he expected that ground rent would remain dominant. George even predicted that ground-rents would rise faster than wages and income to capital, a prediction that modern analysis has shown to be plausible, since the supply of land is fixed.

Spatial rent is still the primary emphasis of Georgists because of its large value and the known dis-economies of misused land. However, there are other sources of rent that are theoretically analogous to ground-rent and are debated topics of Georgists. The following are some sources of economic rent.
 * Extractable resources (minerals and hydrocarbons)
 * Severables (forests and stocks of fish)
 * Extraterrestrial domains (geosynchronous orbits and airway corridor use)
 * Legal privileges that apply to specific location (taxi medallions, billboard and development permits, or the monopoly of electromagnetic frequencies)
 * Restrictions/taxes of pollution or severance (tradable emission permits and fishing quotas)
 * Right-of-way (transportation) used by railroads, utilities, and internet service providers
 * Issuance of legal tender (see seigniorage)
 * Privileges that are less location dependent but that still exclude others from natural opportunities (patents)

Where free competition is impossible, such as telegraphs, water, gas, and transportation, George wrote, "[S]uch business becomes a proper social function, which should be controlled and managed by and for the whole people concerned." Georgists were divided by this question of natural monopolies and often favored public ownership only of the rents from common rights-of-way, rather than public ownership of utility companies themselves.

Georgism and environmental economics
The early conservationism of the Progressive Era was inspired partly by Henry George, and his influence extended for decades afterward. Some ecological economists still support the Georgist policy of land value tax as a means of freeing or rewilding unused land and conserving nature by reducing urban sprawl.

Pollution degrades the value of what Georgists consider to be commons. Because pollution is a negative contribution, a taking from the commons or a cost imposed on others, its value is economic rent, even when the polluter is not receiving an explicit income. Therefore, to the extent that society determines pollution to be harmful, most Georgists propose to limit pollution with taxation or quotas that capture the resulting rents for public use, restoration, or a citizen's dividend.

Georgism is related to the school of ecological economics, since both propose market-based restrictions for pollution. The schools are compatible in that they advocate using similar tools as part of a conservation strategy, but they emphasize different aspects. Conservation is the central issue of ecology, whereas economic rent is the central issue of geoism. Ecological economists might price pollution fines more conservatively to prevent inherently unquantifiable damage to the environment, whereas Georgists might emphasize mediation between conflicting interests and human rights. Geolibertarianism, a market-oriented branch of Geoism, tends to take a direct stance against what it perceives as burdensome regulation and would like to see auctioned pollution quotas or taxes replace most command and control regulation.

Since ecologists are primarily concerned with conservation, they tend to emphasize less the issue of equitably distributing scarcity/pollution rents, whereas Georgists insist that unearned income not accrue to those who hold title to natural assets and pollution privilege. To the extent that geoists recognize the effect of pollution or share conservationist values, they will agree with ecological economists about the need to limit pollution, but geoists will also insist that pollution rents generated from those conservation efforts do not accrue to polluters and are instead used for public purposes or to compensate those who suffer the negative effects of pollution. Ecological economists advocate similar pollution restrictions but, emphasizing conservation first, might be willing to grant private polluters the privilege to capture pollution rents. To the extent that ecological economists share the geoist view of social justice, they would advocate auctioning pollution quotas instead of giving them away for free. This distinction can be seen in the difference between basic cap and trade and the geoist variation, cap and share, a proposal to auction temporary pollution permits, with rents going to the public, instead of giving pollution privilege away for free to existing polluters or selling perpetual permits.

Revenue uses
The revenue can allow the reduction or elimination of taxes, greater public investment/spending, or the direct distribution of funds to citizens as a pension or basic income/citizen's dividend.

In practice, the elimination of all other taxes implies a high land value tax, greater than any currently existing land tax. Introducing or increasing a land value tax would cause the purchase price of land to decrease. George did not believe landowners should be compensated and described the issue as being analogous to compensation for former slave owners. Other geoists disagree on the question of compensation; some advocate complete compensation while others endorse only enough compensation required to achieve Georgist reforms. Some geoists advocate compensation only for a net loss due to a shift of taxation to land value; most taxpayers would gain from the replacement of other taxes with a tax on land value. Historically, those who advocated for taxes on rent tax only great enough to replace other taxes were known as endorsers of single tax limited.

Synonyms and variants
Most early advocacy groups described themselves as single taxers and George reluctantly accepted the single tax as an accurate name for his main political goal—the repeal of all unjust or inefficient taxes, to be replaced with a land value tax (LVT).

Some modern proponents are dissatisfied with the name Georgist. While Henry George was well known throughout his life, he has been largely forgotten by the public and the idea of a single tax of land predates him. Some now prefer the term geoism, with geo (from Greek γῆ gē "earth, land") being the first compound of the name George < (Gr.) Geōrgios < geōrgos "farmer" or geōrgia "agriculture, farming" < gē + ergon "work" deliberately ambiguous. The terms Earth Sharing, geonomics and geolibertarianism are also used by some Georgists. These terms represent a difference of emphasis and sometimes real differences about how land rent should be spent (citizen's dividend or just replacing other taxes), but they all agree that land rent should be recovered from its private recipients.

Compulsory fines and fees related to land rents are the most common Georgist policies, but some geoists prefer voluntary value capture systems that rely on methods such as non-compulsory or self-assessed location value fees, community land trusts and purchasing land value covenants. Some geoists believe that partially compensating landowners is a politically expedient compromise necessary for achieving reform. For similar reasons, others propose capturing only future land value increases, instead of all land rent.

Some libertarians and minarchists take the position that limited social spending should be financed using Georgist concepts of rent value capture, but that not all land rent should be captured. Today, this relatively conservative adaptation is usually considered incompatible with true geolibertarianism, which requires that excess rents be gathered and then distributed back to residents. During Henry George's time, this restrained Georgist philosophy was known as "single tax limited", as opposed to "single tax unlimited." George disagreed with the limited interpretation, but he accepted its adherents (e.g., Thomas Shearman) as legitimate "single-taxers."

Influence
Georgist ideas heavily influenced the politics of the early 20th century. Political parties that were formed based on Georgist ideas include the Commonwealth Land Party in the United States, the Henry George Justice Party in Victoria, the Single Tax League in South Australia, and the Justice Party in Denmark.

In the United Kingdom, George's writings were praised by emerging socialist groups in 1890s such as the Independent Labour Party and the Fabian Society, which would each go on to help form the modern-day Labour Party. The Liberal government included a land tax as part of several taxes in the 1909 People's Budget intended to redistribute wealth (including a progressively graded income tax and an increase of inheritance tax). This caused a political crisis that resulted indirectly in reform of the House of Lords. The budget was passed eventually—but without the land tax. In 1931, the minority Labour government passed a land value tax as part III of the 1931 Finance act. However, this was repealed in 1934 by the National Government before it could be implemented.

In Denmark, the Georgist Justice Party has previously been represented in Folketinget. It formed part of a centre-left government 1957–60 and was also represented in the European Parliament 1978–1979. The influence of Henry George has waned over time, but Georgist ideas still occasionally emerge in politics. For the United States 2004 presidential election, third-party presidential candidate Ralph Nader mentioned George in his policy statements.

Economists still generally favor a land value tax. Monetarist economist Milton Friedman publicly endorsed the Georgist land value tax as the "least bad tax". Economist Joseph Stiglitz stated that: "Not only was Henry George correct that a tax on land is non-distortionary, but in an equilibrium society … tax on land raises just enough revenue to finance the (optimally chosen) level of government expenditure." He dubbed this proposition the Henry George theorem.

Communities
Several communities were initiated with Georgist principles during the height of the philosophy's popularity. Two such communities that still exist are Arden, Delaware, which was founded in 1900 by Frank Stephens and William Lightfoot Price, and Fairhope, Alabama, which was founded in 1894 under the auspices of the Fairhope Single Tax Corporation. Some established communities in the United States also adopted Georgist tax policies. A Georgist in Houston, Texas, Joseph Jay "J.J." Pastoriza, promoted a Georgist club in that city established in 1890. Years later, in his capacity as a city alderman, he was selected to serve as Houston Tax Commissioner, and promulgated a "Houston Plan of Taxation" in 1912. Improvements to land and merchants' inventories were taxed at 25 percent of the appraised value, unimproved land was taxed at 70 percent of appraisal, and personal property was exempt. This was calculated using the Somers System. This Georgist tax continued until 1915, when two courts struck it down as violating the Texas Constitution in 1915. This quashed efforts in several other Texas cities towards implementing the Houston Plan: Beaumont, Corpus Christi, Galveston, San Antonio, and Waco.

The German protectorate of the Kiautschou Bay concession in Jiaozhou Bay, China, fully implemented Georgist policy. Its sole source of government revenue was the land value tax of six percent which it levied in its territory. The German colonial empire had previously had economic problems with its African colonies caused by land speculation. One of the main reasons for using the land value tax in Jiaozhou Bay was to eliminate such speculation, which the policy achieved. The colony existed as a German protectorate from 1898 until 1914, when seized by Japanese and British troops in World War I. In 1922, the territory was returned to the Republic of China.

Georgist ideas were also adopted to some degree in Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan. In these countries, governments still levy some type of land value tax, albeit with exemptions. Many municipal governments of the United States depend on real-property tax as their main source of revenue, although such taxes are not Georgist as they generally include the value of buildings and other improvements. One exception is the town of Altoona, Pennsylvania, which for a time in the 21st century only taxed land value, phasing in the tax in 2002, relying on it entirely for tax revenue from 2011, and ending it 2017; the Financial Times noted that "Altoona is using LVT in a city where neither land nor buildings have much value".

In 2023, Detroit mayor Mike Duggan and Michigan State Representative Stephanie Young proposed replacing existing property taxes with a land-value tax. Following the 2008 Recession and city's 2013 bankruptcy, speculators bought cheap property, expecting to profit from the city's recovery. This plan to shift the cost of municipal services to owners of empty land, while exempting community gardens and parks, will require approval from the Michigan Legislature and Detroit City Council before being added as a ballot measure for Detroit residents.

Institutes and organizations
Various organizations still exist that continue to promote the ideas of Henry George. According to The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, the periodical Land&Liberty, established in 1894, is "the longest-lived Georgist project in history". Founded during the Great Depression in 1932, the Henry George School of Social Science in New York offers courses, sponsors seminars, and publishes research in the Georgist paradigm. Also in the US, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy was established in 1974 based on the writings of Henry George. It "seeks to improve the dialogue about urban development, the built environment, and tax policy in the United States and abroad".

The Henry George Foundation continues to promote the ideas of Henry George in the United Kingdom. The IU is an international umbrella organisation that brings together organizations worldwide that seek land-value tax reform.

Reception
The economist Alfred Marshall believed that George's views in Progress and Poverty were dangerous, even predicting wars, terror, and economic destruction from the immediate implementation of its recommendations. Specifically, Marshall was upset about the idea of rapid change and the unfairness of not compensating existing landowners. In his lectures on Progress and Poverty, Marshall opposed George's position on compensation while fully endorsing his ultimate remedy. So far as land value tax moderately replaced other taxes and did not cause the price of land to fall, Marshall supported land value taxation on economic and moral grounds, suggesting that a three or four percent tax on land values would fit this condition. After implementing land taxes, governments would purchase future land values at discounted prices and take ownership after 100 years. Marshall asserted that this plan, which he strongly supported, would end the need for a tax collection department of government. For newly formed countries where land was not already private, Marshall advocated implementing George's economic proposal immediately.

Karl Marx considered the single-tax platform as a regression from the transition to communism and referred to Georgism as "capitalism's last ditch". Marx argued that, "The whole thing is ... simply an attempt, decked out with socialism, to save capitalist domination and indeed to establish it afresh on an even wider basis than its present one." Marx also criticized the way land value tax theory emphasizes the value of land, arguing that George's "fundamental dogma is that everything would be all right if ground rent were paid to the state."

Richard T. Ely agreed with the economic arguments for Georgism but believed that correcting the problem the way Henry George wanted, without compensation, was unjust to existing landowners. In explaining his position, Ely wrote, "If we have all made a mistake, should one party to the transaction alone bear the cost of the common blunder?"

John R. Commons supported Georgist economics but opposed what he perceived as an environmentally and politically reckless tendency for advocates to rely on a one-size-fits-all approach to tax reform, specifically, the "single tax" framing. Commons concluded The Distribution of Wealth, with an estimate that "perhaps 95% of the total values represented by these millionaire [sic] fortunes is due to those investments classed as land values and natural monopolies and to competitive industries aided by such monopolies", and that "tax reform should seek to remove all burdens from capital and labour and impose them on monopolies." However, he criticized Georgists for failing to see that Henry George's anti-monopoly ideas must be implemented with a variety of policy tools. Commons wrote, "Trees do not grow into the sky—they would perish in a high wind; and a single truth, like a single tax, ends in its own destruction." Commons uses the natural soil fertility and value of forests as an example of this destruction, arguing that a tax on the in-situ value of those depletable natural resources can result in overuse or over-extraction. Instead, Commons recommends an income tax-based approach to forests similar to a modern Georgist severance tax.

Other contemporaries such as Austrian economist Frank Fetter and neoclassical economist John Bates Clark argued that it was impractical to maintain the traditional distinction between land and capital and used this as a basis to attack Georgism. Mark Blaug, a specialist in the history of economic thought, credits Fetter and Clark with influencing mainstream economists to abandon the idea "that land is a unique factor of production and hence that there is any special need for a special theory of ground rent" claiming that "this is in fact the basis of all the attacks on Henry George by contemporary economists and certainly the fundamental reason why professional economists increasingly ignored him".

Robert Solow endorsed the theory of Georgism, while being wary of the perceived injustice of expropriation. Solow stated that taxing away expected land rents "would have no semblance of fairness"; however, Georgism would be good to introduce where location values were not already privatized or if the transition could be phased in slowly.

George has also been accused of exaggerating the importance of his "all-devouring rent thesis" in claiming that it is the primary cause of poverty and injustice in society. George argued that the rent of land increased faster than wages for labor because the supply of land is fixed. Modern economists, including Ottmar Edenhofer have demonstrated that George's assertion is plausible but was more likely to be true during George's time than now.

An early criticism of Georgism was that it would generate too much public revenue and result in unwanted growth of government, but later critics argued that it would not generate enough income to cover government spending. Joseph Schumpeter concluded his analysis of Georgism by stating that, "It is not economically unsound, except that it involves an unwarranted optimism concerning the yield of such a tax." Economists who study land conclude that Schumpeter's criticism is unwarranted because the rental yield from land is likely much greater than what modern critics such as Paul Krugman suppose. Krugman agrees that land value taxation is the best means of raising public revenue but asserts that increased spending has rendered land rent insufficient to fully fund government. Georgists have responded by citing studies and analyses implying that land values of nations like the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia are more than sufficient to fund all levels of government.

Anarcho-capitalist political philosopher and economist Murray Rothbard criticized Georgism in Man, Economy, and State as being philosophically incongruent with subjective value theory, and further stating that land is irrelevant in the factors of production, trade, and price systems, but this critique is seen by some, including other opponents of Georgism, as relying on false assumptions and flawed reasoning.

Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek credited early enthusiasm for Henry George with developing his interest in economics. Later, Hayek said that the theory of Georgism would be very strong if assessment challenges did not result in unfair outcomes, but he believed that they would.

Economists

 * Harry Gunnison Brown
 * John R. Commons
 * Raymond Crotty
 * Herman Daly
 * Paul Douglas
 * Ottmar Edenhofer
 * Fred Foldvary
 * Milton Friedman
 * Mason Gaffney
 * Max Hirsch
 * Harold Hotelling
 * Wolf Ladejinsky
 * Donald Shoup
 * Herbert A. Simon
 * Robert Solow
 * Joseph Stiglitz
 * Nicolaus Tideman
 * William Vickrey
 * Léon Walras
 * Philip Wicksteed
 * Michael Hudson

Heads of government

 * John Ballance
 * Winston Churchill
 * Alfred Deakin
 * Andrew Fisher
 * George Grey
 * Rutherford B. Hayes
 * Billy Hughes
 * Robert Stout
 * Sun Yat-sen

Other political figures

 * Herbert Evatt
 * John Peter Altgeld
 * Newton D. Baker
 * Willie Brown
 * Clyde Cameron
 * George F. Cotterill
 * William Jay Gaynor
 * Frederic C. Howe
 * Blas Infante
 * Tom L. Johnson
 * Samuel M. Jones
 * Frank de Jong
 * Franklin Knight Lane
 * Hazen S. Pingree
 * Philip Snowden
 * Josiah C. Wedgwood
 * William Bauchop Wilson
 * Jackson Stitt Wilson
 * Andrew MacLaren MP
 * Joshua Nkomo
 * Baldomero Argente

Activists

 * Jane Addams
 * Peter Barnes
 * Sara Bard Field
 * Michael Davitt
 * Samuel Gompers
 * Bolton Hall
 * Hubert Harrison
 * John Haynes Holmes
 * Stewart Headlam
 * Mary Elizabeth Lease
 * Benjamin C. Marsh
 * James Ferdinand Morton
 * Thomas Mott Osborne
 * Amos Pinchot
 * Terence V. Powderly
 * Samuel Seabury
 * Catherine Helen Spence
 * Helen Taylor
 * William Simon U'Ren
 * Ida B. Wells
 * Frances Willard
 * Thomas Mott Osborne
 * Amos Pinchot
 * Terence V. Powderly
 * Samuel Seabury
 * Catherine Helen Spence
 * Helen Taylor
 * William Simon U'Ren
 * Ida B. Wells
 * Frances Willard
 * Amos Pinchot
 * Terence V. Powderly
 * Samuel Seabury
 * Catherine Helen Spence
 * Helen Taylor
 * William Simon U'Ren
 * Ida B. Wells
 * Frances Willard

Authors

 * Ernest Howard Crosby
 * Charles Eisenstein
 * Hamlin Garland
 * Fred Harrison
 * James A. Herne
 * Ebenezer Howard
 * Elbert Hubbard
 * Aldous Huxley
 * Monteiro Lobato
 * James Howard Kunstler
 * Jose Martí
 * William D. McCrackan
 * Albert Jay Nock
 * Kathleen Norris
 * Upton Sinclair
 * George Bernard Shaw
 * Leo Tolstoy
 * Charles Erskine Scott Wood
 * Frank McEachran
 * Arthur Desmond

Journalists

 * William F. Buckley Jr.
 * Timothy Thomas Fortune
 * Theodor Herzl
 * Michael Kinsley
 * Suzanne La Follette
 * Dylan Matthews
 * Raymond Moley
 * Charles Edward Russell
 * Jacob Riis
 * Reihan Salam
 * Horace Traubel
 * Martin Wolf
 * Merryn Somerset Webb
 * Brand Whitlock
 * Tim Worstall
 * Matthew Yglesias

Artists

 * David Bachrach
 * John Wilson Bengough
 * Daniel Carter Beard
 * Matthew Bellamy
 * George de Forest Brush
 * Walter Burley Griffin
 * John Hutchinson
 * George Inness
 * Emma Lazarus
 * Agnes de Mille
 * Henry Churchill de Mille
 * William C. deMille
 * Francis Neilson
 * Eddie Palmieri
 * Banjo Paterson
 * Louis Prang
 * William Lightfoot Price
 * Frank Stephens
 * Frank Lloyd Wright

Philosophers

 * Ralph Borsodi
 * Ludwig Büchner
 * Nicholas Murray Butler
 * Frank Chodorov
 * John B. Cobb
 * John Dewey
 * Silvio Gesell
 * Leon MacLaren
 * Franz Oppenheimer
 * Philippe Van Parijs
 * Bertrand Russell
 * Hillel Steiner
 * Curtis Yarvin

Others

 * Martin Luther King Jr
 * Roger Babson
 * Louis Brandeis
 * Clarence Darrow
 * Albert Einstein
 * Henry Ford
 * Spencer Heath
 * Mumia Abu-Jamal
 * Margrit Kennedy
 * John C. Lincoln
 * Elizabeth Magie
 * Edward McGlynn
 * Buckey O'Neill
 * George Foster Peabody
 * Louis Freeland Post
 * Walter Rauschenbusch
 * Raymond A. Spruance
 * Silvanus P. Thompson
 * Fiske Warren
 * Alfred Russel Wallace
 * Joseph Fels
 * Sam Altman
 * Vitalik Buterin

title: Georgism


text:
Demons & Wizards (band)

Demons & Wizards was a power metal band conceived as a side-project by Blind Guardian vocalist Hansi Kürsch and Jon Schaffer, the guitarist for Iced Earth. Schaffer wrote the music and Kürsch wrote the lyrics. The band's line-up during the recording of their first album in 1999 (Demons & Wizards) featured Mark Prator, who was the drummer on a few Iced Earth albums, and Jim Morris, who has engineered for Iced Earth before, on lead guitar. The personnel for the second album (Touched by the Crimson King), released in 2005, included Morris on lead guitar and Bobby Jarzombek on drums. The band released a third studio album, III, in 2020, and disbanded in early 2021 following Schaffer's involvement in the 2021 United States Capitol riot.

Band name
The original goal of the band was to forge the different musical styles of both Iced Earth's dark melodies and Blind Guardian's powerful vocals into one sound. In fact, according to the musicians, the band name is meant to describe the two styles: the self-proclaimed demon-like themes and sounds of Iced Earth and wizard-like themes and sounds of Blind Guardian (the moniker "Demons & Wizards" was inspired by Schaffer's wife always referring to him and Hansi as "Demons and Angels". Hansi always corrected her, since he claims to "not be at all angelic", and that it is more properly stated "Demons and Wizards", in reference to Uriah Heep's album of the same name). The band met with a fair deal of commercial success, though not as much as either of their individual bands.

The idea for the band arose in the spring of 1997 when Kürsch and Schaffer wanted to make music together, after being friends for several years.

Album information
The band's first full-length release was in 2000, with the self-titled album Demons & Wizards. In 2005, the band released their second album entitled Touched by the Crimson King. Touched by the Crimson King is partially based on The Dark Tower series of books (written by Stephen King), in which the Crimson King is the main antagonist.

Recent activity, touring, and third studio album
In a March 2009 interview, when asked about what projects he would be working on after taking a vacation, guitarist Jon Schaffer stated:

""You're going to have to wait and find out my man. I mean, I'm just not ready to divulge yet. I've got a few irons in the fire and some things I'm very excited about. Hansi and I have planned late in 2009 to get together to do DEMONS (and WIZARDS) stuff so that's going to be cool. We saw each other in Cologne (earlier this year) and made plans and I think it's realistic to say that there will be a third DEMONS and WIZARDS album probably mid- to late 2010. We're going to have two song writing sessions. We are committed to doing the bulk of this in-person. One of the things I felt like from the last Demons album was that we had this window of opportunity where we had to get it done and we kind of let time dictate the schedule instead of our feelings and that was probably a mistake. I mean I'm proud of that record (Touched by the Crimson King, 2005) and it sold killer and it's a good album but I think Hansi and I are capable of a lot more especially when we get back to the root reasons of why we did this thing together.

We are not going to be bogged down by schedules – we're going to do this as we see fit and we're not going to let a particular window of opportunity dictate that this is when we have to do it. We're going to do it as it feels natural – and if we feel that in Spring of 2010 that we don't have the songs yet then we'll push it back. I mean, we don't have to do it on any specific schedule. We had a really long talk about it and I'm really looking forward to it because I always enjoy working with Hansi and just spending time with him. So, our first get-together is going to be late in the year, but before that I've got a few things going on and like I said, we'll announce it in due course.""

On March 15, 2011, singer Hansi Kürsch posted an update on the official Blind Guardian website, containing the following news:

""As we had time to share some serious moments with each other during the 70000 Tons of Metal cruise (somewhere on the oceans of time) Jon [Schaffer; Iced Earth & Sons of Liberty] and I had finally found the chance to put our minds together for a possible next Demons & Wizards album. We cheerfully simultaneously announced our wish to start working on it as quickly as possible. Although time is an issue for both of us we nonetheless decided to start song writing together during the European summer festival season when Jon will be in Europe for Iced Earth performances. During that season we will use every possible moment to complete as much material as possible.""

On February 13, 2015, in an interview when asked about Demons & Wizards and his relationship with Jon Schaffer, Kürsch replied:

""Jon and I still have a very close relationship and we constantly talk to each other. And of course we talk about Demons & Wizards, but unfortunately I do not see us being able to make another album before the year 2017. I desperately would love to do it, immediately, if possible, but our schedules are so occupied that we never have time to focus on new songwriting. But there will come a time where we will do the album. And once we do it we will want to do touring as well. This prospective album would be the third Demons & Wizards album, and a very important one.""

On May 15, 2017, Schaffer confirmed in an interview with Metal Wani that he was working with Kürsch on material for a new Demons & Wizards album.

Demons & Wizards have confirmed that they will be playing at the Hellfest festival in June 2019, at the Wacken Open Air festival in August 2019, will headline ProgPower USA in September 2019 and they began their first North American tour in August 2019.

In December 2019, the band announced their third studio album, III. It was released on February 21, 2020. The album was cited as one of Paul Stenning's albums of the year for Brave Words.

Disbandment
On January 6, 2021, guitarist Jon Schaffer was photographed among the protesters who stormed the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C. After appearing on the Most Wanted section of the FBI's website, Schaffer turned himself in on January 17 and was held on six felony charges. Century Media dropped the band from their roster two days later. On February 1, 2021, vocalist Hansi Kürsch ended his collaboration with Schaffer.

Last known lineup

 * Jon Schaffer – rhythm guitar, bass (studio)
 * Hansi Kürsch – vocals

Live members
 * Jake Dreyer – lead guitar
 * Marcus Siepen – bass
 * Frederik Ehmke – drums
 * Joost Van Den Broek – keyboards

Former live/session members

 * Mark Prator – drums
 * Richard Christy – drums
 * Howard Helm – backing vocals, piano
 * Kathy Helm – backing vocals
 * Tori Fuson – backing vocals
 * Jesse Morrison – backing vocals
 * Krystyna Kolaczynski – cello
 * Ritchie Wilkison – lead guitar
 * Bobby Jarzombek – drums
 * Rubin Drake – bass
 * Jim Morris – lead guitar
 * Brent Smedley – drums

Discography

 * Demons & Wizards (2000)
 * Touched by the Crimson King (2005)
 * III (2020)

title: Demons & Wizards (band)


text:
European serin

The European serin, or simply the serin (Serinus serinus), is the smallest species of the family of finches (Fringillidae) and is closely related to the Atlantic canary. Its diet consists mainly of a combination of buds and seeds.

Taxonomy
The European serin was described by Carl Linnaeus in 1766 in the 12th edition of his Systema Naturae under the binomial name Fringilla serinus. The Latin serinus comes from the French word serin for a canary. The French word may be a corruption of the Latin word citrinus meaning "lemon-coloured".

Description
The European serin is a small short-tailed bird, 11–12 cm in length. The upper parts are dark-streaked greyish green, with a yellow rump. The yellow breast and white belly are also heavily streaked. The male has a brighter yellow face and breast, yellow wing bars and yellow tail sides. The song of this bird is a buzzing trill, very familiar in Mediterranean countries.

It breeds across southern and central Europe and North Africa. Southern and Atlantic coast populations are largely resident, but the northern breeders migrate further south in Europe for the winter. Open woodland and cultivation, often with some conifers, is favoured for breeding. It builds its nest in a shrub or tree, laying 3–5 eggs. It forms flocks outside the breeding season, sometimes mixed with other finches.

The food is mainly seeds, and, in the breeding season, insects. This small serin is an active and often conspicuous bird.

title: European serin