text:
Cell adhesion

Cell adhesion is the process by which cells interact and attach to neighbouring cells through specialised molecules of the cell surface. This process can occur either through direct contact between cell surfaces such as cell junctions or indirect interaction, where cells attach to surrounding extracellular matrix, a gel-like structure containing molecules released by cells into spaces between them. Cells adhesion occurs from the interactions between cell-adhesion molecules (CAMs), transmembrane proteins located on the cell surface. Cell adhesion links cells in different ways and can be involved in signal transduction for cells to detect and respond to changes in the surroundings. Other cellular processes regulated by cell adhesion include cell migration and tissue development in multicellular organisms. Alterations in cell adhesion can disrupt important cellular processes and lead to a variety of diseases, including cancer and arthritis. Cell adhesion is also essential for infectious organisms, such as bacteria or viruses, to cause diseases.

General mechanism

CAMs are classified into four major families: integrins, immunoglobulin (Ig) superfamily, cadherins, and selectins. Cadherins and IgSF are homophilic CAMs, as they directly bind to the same type of CAMs on another cell, while integrins and selectins are heterophilic CAMs that bind to different types of CAMs. Each of these adhesion molecules has a different function and recognizes different ligands. Defects in cell adhesion are usually attributable to defects in expression of CAMs.

In multicellular organisms, bindings between CAMs allow cells to adhere to one another and creates structures called cell junctions. According to their functions, the cell junctions can be classified as:

 * Anchoring junctions (adherens junctions, desmosomes and hemidesmosomes), which maintain cells together and strengthens contact between cells.
 * Occluding junctions (tight junctions), which seal gaps between cells through cell–cell contact, making an impermeable barrier for diffusion
 * Channel-forming junctions (gap junctions), which links cytoplasm of adjacent cells allowing transport of molecules to occur between cells
 * Signal-relaying junctions, which can be synapses in the nervous system

Alternatively, cell junctions can be categorised into two main types according to what interacts with the cell: cell–cell junctions, mainly mediated by cadherins, and cell–matrix junctions, mainly mediated by integrins.

Cell–cell junctions
Cell–cell junctions can occur in different forms. In anchoring junctions between cells such as adherens junctions and desmosomes, the main CAMs present are the cadherins. This family of CAMs are membrane proteins that mediate cell–cell adhesion through its extracellular domains and require extracellular Ca2+ ions to function correctly. Cadherins forms homophilic attachment between themselves, which results in cells of a similar type sticking together and can lead to selective cell adhesion, allowing vertebrate cells to assemble into organised tissues. Cadherins are essential for cell–cell adhesion and cell signalling in multicellular animals and can be separated into two types: classical cadherins and non-classical cadherins.

Adherens junctions
Adherens junctions mainly function to maintain the shape of tissues and to hold cells together. In adherens junctions, cadherins between neighbouring cells interact through their extracellular domains, which share a conserved calcium-sensitive region in their extracellular domains. When this region comes into contact with Ca2+ ions, extracellular domains of cadherins undergo a conformational change from the inactive flexible conformation to a more rigid conformation in order to undergo homophilic binding. Intracellular domains of cadherins are also highly conserved, as they bind to proteins called catenins, forming catenin-cadherin complexes. These protein complexes link cadherins to actin filaments. This association with actin filaments is essential for adherens junctions to stabilise cell–cell adhesion. Interactions with actin filaments can also promote clustering of cadherins, which are involved in the assembly of adherens junctions. This is since cadherin clusters promote actin filament polymerisation, which in turn promotes the assembly of adherens junctions by binding to the cadherin–catenin complexes that then form at the junction.

Desmosomes
Desmosomes are structurally similar to adherens junctions but composed of different components. Instead of classical cadherins, non-classical cadherins such as desmogleins and desmocollins act as adhesion molecules and they are linked to intermediate filaments instead of actin filaments. No catenin is present in desmosomes as intracellular domains of desmosomal cadherins interact with desmosomal plaque proteins, which form the thick cytoplasmic plaques in desmosomes and link cadherins to intermediate filaments. Desmosomes provides strength and resistance to mechanical stress by unloading forces onto the flexible but resilient intermediate filaments, something that cannot occur with the rigid actin filaments. This makes desmosomes important in tissues that encounter high levels of mechanical stress, such as heart muscle and epithelia, and explains why it appears frequently in these types of tissues.

Tight junctions
Tight junctions are normally present in epithelial and endothelial tissues, where they seal gaps and regulate paracellular transport of solutes and extracellular fluids in these tissues that function as barriers. Tight junction is formed by transmembrane proteins, including claudins, occludins and tricellulins, that bind closely to each other on adjacent membranes in a homophilic manner. Similar to anchoring junctions, intracellular domains of these tight junction proteins are bound with scaffold proteins that keep these proteins in clusters and link them to actin filaments in order to maintain structure of the tight junction. Claudins, essential for formation of tight junctions, form paracellular pores which allow selective passage of specific ions across tight junctions making the barrier selectively permeable.

Gap junctions
Gap junctions are composed of channels called connexons, which consist of transmembrane proteins called connexins clustered in groups of six. Connexons from adjacent cells form continuous channels when they come into contact and align with each other. These channels allow transport of ions and small molecules between cytoplasm of two adjacent cells, apart from holding cells together and provide structural stability like anchoring junctions or tight junctions. Gap junction channels are selectively permeable to specific ions depending on which connexins form the connexons, which allows gap junctions to be involved in cell signalling by regulating the transfer of molecules involved in signalling cascades. Channels can respond to many different stimuli and are regulated dynamically either by rapid mechanisms, such as voltage gating, or by slow mechanism, such as altering numbers of channels present in gap junctions.

Adhesion mediated by selectins
Selectins are a family of specialised CAMs involved in transient cell–cell adhesion occurring in the circulatory system. They mainly mediate the movement of white blood cells (leukocytes) in the bloodstream by allowing the white blood cells to "roll" on endothelial cells through reversible bindings of selections. Selectins undergo heterophilic bindings, as its extracellular domain binds to carbohydrates on adjacent cells instead of other selectins, while it also require Ca2+ ions to function, same as cadherins. cell–cell adhesion of leukocytes to endothelial cells is important for immune responses as leukocytes can travel to sites of infection or injury through this mechanism. At these sites, integrins on the rolling white blood cells are activated and bind firmly to the local endothelial cells, allowing the leukocytes to stop migrating and move across the endothelial barrier.

Adhesion mediated by members of the immunoglobulin superfamily
The immunoglobulin superfamily (IgSF) is one of the largest superfamily of proteins in the body and it contains many diverse CAMs involved in different functions. These transmembrane proteins have one or more immunoglobulin-like domains in their extracellular domains and undergo calcium-independent binding with ligands on adjacent cells. Some IgSF CAMs, such as neural cell adhesion molecules (NCAMs), can perform homophilic binding while others, such as intercellular cell adhesion molecules (ICAMs) or vascular cell adhesion molecules (VCAMs) undergo heterophilic binding with molecules like carbohydrates or integrins. Both ICAMs and VCAMs are expressed on vascular endothelial cells and they interact with integrins on the leukocytes to assist leukocyte attachment and its movement across the endothelial barrier.

Cell–matrix junctions
Cells create extracellular matrix by releasing molecules into its surrounding extracellular space. Cells have specific CAMs that will bind to molecules in the extracellular matrix and link the matrix to the intracellular cytoskeleton. Extracellular matrix can act as a support when organising cells into tissues and can also be involved in cell signalling by activating intracellular pathways when bound to the CAMs. Cell–matrix junctions are mainly mediated by integrins, which also clusters like cadherins to form firm adhesions. Integrins are transmembrane heterodimers formed by different α and β subunits, both subunits with different domain structures. Integrins can signal in both directions: inside-out signalling, intracellular signals modifying the intracellular domains, can regulate affinity of integrins for their ligands, while outside-in signalling, extracellular ligands binding to extracellular domains, can induce conformational changes in integrins and initiate signalling cascades. Extracellular domains of integrins can bind to different ligands through heterophilic binding while intracellular domains can either be linked to intermediate filaments, forming hemidesmosomes, or to actin filaments, forming focal adhesions.

Hemidesmosomes
In hemidesmosomes, integrins attach to extracellular matrix proteins called laminins in the basal lamina, which is the extracellular matrix secreted by epithelial cells. Integrins link extracellular matrix to keratin intermediate filaments, which interacts with intracellular domain of integrins via adapter proteins such as plectins and BP230. Hemidesmosomes are important in maintaining structural stability of epithelial cells by anchoring them together indirectly through the extracellular matrix.

Focal adhesions
In focal adhesions, integrins attach fibronectins, a component in the extracellular matrix, to actin filaments inside cells. Adapter proteins, such as talins, vinculins, α-actinins and filamins, form a complex at the intracellular domain of integrins and bind to actin filaments. This multi-protein complex linking integrins to actin filaments is important for assembly of signalling complexes that act as signals for cell growth and cell motility.

Eukaryotes
Plants cells adhere closely to each other and are connected through plasmodesmata, channels that cross the plant cell walls and connect cytoplasms of adjacent plant cells. Molecules that are either nutrients or signals required for growth are transported, either passively or selectively, between plant cells through plasmodesmata.

Protozoans express multiple adhesion molecules with different specificities that bind to carbohydrates located on surfaces of their host cells. cell–cell adhesion is key for pathogenic protozoans to attach en enter their host cells. An example of a pathogenic protozoan is the malarial parasite (Plasmodium falciparum), which uses one adhesion molecule called the circumsporozoite protein to bind to liver cells, and another adhesion molecule called the merozoite surface protein to bind red blood cells.

Pathogenic fungi use adhesion molecules present on its cell wall to attach, either through protein-protein or protein-carbohydrate interactions, to host cells or fibronectins in the extracellular matrix.

Prokaryotes
Prokaryotes have adhesion molecules on their cell surface termed bacterial adhesins, apart from using its pili (fimbriae) and flagella for cell adhesion. Prokaryotes may have a single or several flagella, either located on one or several places on the cell surface. Pathogenic species such as Escherichia coli and Vibrio cholera possess flagella to facilitate adhesion.

Adhesins can recognise a variety of ligands present on the host cell surfaces and also components in the extracellular matrix. These molecules also control host specificity and regulate tropism (tissue- or cell-specific interactions) through their interaction with their ligands.

Viruses
Viruses also have adhesion molecules required for viral binding to host cells. For example, influenza virus has a hemagglutinin on its surface that is required for recognition of the sugar sialic acid on host cell surface molecules. HIV has an adhesion molecule termed gp120 that binds to its ligand CD4, which is expressed on lymphocytes. Viruses can also target components of cell junctions to enter host cells, which is what happens when the hepatitis C virus targets occludins and claudins in tight junctions to enter liver cells.

Clinical implications
Dysfunction of cell adhesion occurs during cancer metastasis. Loss of cell–cell adhesion in metastatic tumour cells allows them to escape their site of origin and spread through the circulatory system. One example of CAMs deregulated in cancer are cadherins, which are inactivated either by genetic mutations or by other oncogenic signalling molecules, allowing cancer cells to migrate and be more invasive. Other CAMs, like selectins and integrins, can facilitate metastasis by mediating cell–cell interactions between migrating metastatic tumour cells in the circulatory system with endothelial cells of other distant tissues. Due to the link between CAMs and cancer metastasis, these molecules could be potential therapeutic targets for cancer treatment.

There are also other human genetic diseases caused by an inability to express specific adhesion molecules. An example is leukocyte adhesion deficiency-I (LAD-I), where expression of the β2 integrin subunit is reduced or lost. This leads to reduced expression of β2 integrin heterodimers, which are required for leukocytes to firmly attach to the endothelial wall at sites of inflammation in order to fight infections. Leukocytes from LAD-I patients are unable to adhere to endothelial cells and patients exhibit serious episodes of infection that can be life-threatening.

An autoimmune disease called pemphigus is also caused by loss of cell adhesion, as it results from autoantibodies targeting a person's own desmosomal cadherins which leads to epidermal cells detaching from each other and causes skin blistering.

Pathogenic microorganisms, including bacteria, viruses and protozoans, have to first adhere to host cells in order to infect and cause diseases. Anti-adhesion therapy can be used to prevent infection by targeting adhesion molecules either on the pathogen or on the host cell. Apart from altering the production of adhesion molecules, competitive inhibitors that bind to adhesion molecules to prevent binding between cells can also be used, acting as anti-adhesive agents.

title: Cell adhesion


text:
UCL School of Pharmacy

The UCL School of Pharmacy (formerly The School of Pharmacy, University of London) is the pharmacy school of University College London (UCL). The School forms part of UCL's Faculty of Life Sciences and is located in London, United Kingdom.

The School was founded by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain in 1842 as the College of the Pharmaceutical Society. It was renamed The School of Pharmacy in 1949 when it became independent of the Pharmaceutical Society and was incorporated into the University of London as a constituent college. The School was granted a royal charter in 1952 and merged with UCL in January 2012.

History
The School was founded in 1842 by the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. The School began offering University of London degrees in 1925 and joined the university as a specialist school in 1949. It received a Royal Charter in 1952.

Construction of the School's current main building, designed by Herbert Rowse, began in 1938, although work was stopped on the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 and the building was not completed until 1960. To its alumni and colleagues in the profession it is known as "the Square", which refers to the fact that it was originally located in Bloomsbury Square and now in Brunswick Square.

It was decided on 13 May 2011, after a consultation and development process, that the School would merge with University College London (UCL). The merger was completed on 1 January 2012, and the School was renamed the UCL School of Pharmacy.

Departments
The School is organised into four academic departments, each with one or more associated specialist research centres.

Pharmaceutical and Biological Chemistry
The Department of Pharmaceutical and Biological Chemistry is the largest of the School's departments. Its research is focused on cancer, natural products and phytomedicines, molecular neurosciences and biopharmaceutical analysis.

The department's staff help teach the undergraduate MPharm degree in the areas of drug discovery, medicinal chemistry, pharmaceutical chemistry and pharmacognosy/medicinal plants, and an MSc in Pharmacognosy is offered.

Pharmacology
The Wellcome Department of Pharmacology is one of the oldest departments of pharmacology in the UK. The department has played a major role in the development of Pharmacology in the UK and many pharmacologists who trained here are to be found in academies and in industries all over the world.

The department's research focuses on the nervous system, and a wide range of approaches are used to study normal brain function and the causes of many neurological and psychiatric diseases.

Pharmaceutics
The Department of Pharmaceutics is home to a wide range of research activities, such as in Materials Science and Processing and Clinical Pharmaceutical Science.

The department's research in Materials Science and Processing is centred on the fundamental properties of materials and their adaptation to optimise processing and enhance drug delivery. It operates a number of joint ventures, including the Centre for Paediatric Pharmacy Research, a joint venture with Great Ormond Street Hospital and the Institute of Child Health, and in the Clinical Pharmaceutics with University College Hospitals and Camden and Islington's NHS Trust.

The Microbiology Research Group is also well-established, with work focusing mainly in overcoming antibiotic resistance and obtaining new actives from natural sources. The Group has been particularly successful in investigating new approaches to the treatment of the 'superbug' MRSA.

Practice and Policy
The Department of Practice and Policy focuses upon making the use of medicines safer and more effective through teaching, service and research.

The department has collaborations with organisations including Imperial College London, the London School of Economics, the Institute of Education and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, as well as several major London hospitals including Guy's and St Thomas's, University College Hospital, Hammersmith, Barts and the London, and Great Ormond Street.

The department's staff are involved in curricular development and teaching across all four years of the MPharm course. Its student body includes hospital pharmacists studying for a range of Certificate, Diploma and MSc qualifications.

Courses
The School offers a number of master's degree programmes, including Drug Discovery, Drug Delivery, Pharmacognosy and Pharmacy Practice, and PhD research degrees. The only undergraduate degree which it currently offers is the four-year MPharm, Master of Pharmacy. The School offered BSc degrees in Toxicology and Pharmacology until 2001.

Research and rankings
In 2010/11 the School had a total research income of £8.13 million. In the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise, 90 per cent of the research activity at the School was deemed "internationally significant" and 25 per cent "world-leading".

The School's research focuses on advancing and understanding medicines and health care, and in creating new medicines. It is organised into four divisions:
 * Drug Discovery;
 * Formulation Sciences;
 * Neurosciences; and
 * Medicines Use and Health.

The School is home to the following research centres:
 * Cancer Research UK Biomolecular Structure Group;
 * Cancer Research UK Gene Targeted Design Research Group;
 * Molecular Neuroscience Research Group; Centre for Pharmacognosy and Phytotherapy;
 * Centre for Pharmaceutical Analysis; Centre for Drug Delivery Research;
 * Centre for Toxicology;
 * Centre for Paediatric Pharmacy Research; and
 * Centre for Behavioural Medicine; and Centre for Cancer Medicines.

In the 2015 QS World University Rankings by Subject, UCL is ranked 5th in the world (and 3rd in Europe) for Pharmacy & Pharmacology.

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

title: UCL School of Pharmacy


text:
Straight Plan for the Gay Man

Straight Plan for the Gay Man is an American comedy television series that premiered on February 23, 2004, on Comedy Central. It is a parody of Bravo's hit Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Four straight comedians (the "Flab Four") – Curtis Gwinn (environment guy), Billy Merritt (appearance guy), Kyle Grooms (information guy), and Rob Riggle (culture guy) – make over three gay men to pass as straight. The show only ran for three episodes.

The makeovers include lessons in poor manners, spartan home decorating, unfashionable wardrobes, and an overdeveloped ego to mask all personal failings. Episodes involved making over a fashion salesman into a meat-packer, a yoga instructor into a jock, and an entertainer into a suave "babe-magnet".

Reception
The show was panned by critics.

title: Straight Plan for the Gay Man


text:
North End

North End or Northend may refer to:

Canada

 * North End, Hamilton, Ontario
 * North End, Halifax, Nova Scotia
 * North End St. Catharines, Ontario
 * North End, Winnipeg, Manitoba
 * North End, Yarmouth, Nova Scotia

South Africa

 * North End, a suburb of East London, Eastern Cape
 * North End, Port Elizabeth, a suburb of Port Elizabeth

England

 * North End, Buckinghamshire
 * Northend, Buckinghamshire
 * North End, Croydon
 * North End, Cumbria
 * North End, Essex
 * North End, Hampshire
 * North End, Bexley, London
 * North End (Bexley ward)
 * North End, Hampstead, formerly in the Municipal Borough of Hendon, London
 * North End, Fulham, London
 * Northend, Somerset
 * Northend, Warwickshire

United States

 * North End, a neighborhood of Hartford, Connecticut
 * North End (Waterbury), Connecticut
 * North End, Boston, Massachusetts
 * North End, Springfield, Massachusetts
 * North End, Detroit, Michigan
 * North End, Saint Paul, Minnesota
 * North End, Secaucus, New Jersey
 * North End, Niagara Falls, New York

People

 * Mary Harrod Northend (1850–1926), American writer

Sport

 * North End AFC, a football club in New Zealand
 * North End United, now Northern AFC, a football club in New Zealand
 * Preston North End F.C., a football club in England

Other uses

 * North End (band), an American band 1979–1982
 * North End railway station, between Stratford-upon-Avon to Fenny Compton, England, in the 1870s
 * North End tube station, London, England, never completed

title: North End


text:
Brunswick Square

Brunswick Square is a 3 acre public garden and ancillary streets along two of its sides in Bloomsbury, in the London Borough of Camden. It is overlooked by the School of Pharmacy and the Foundling Museum to the north; the Brunswick Centre to the west; and International Hall (a hall of residence of the University of London) to the south. East is an enclosed area of playgrounds with further trees, Coram's Fields, associated with charity Coram Family which is just over double its size; next to that area Brunswick Square is mirrored, symmetrically by Mecklenburgh Square, likewise of 3 acres including roads. The squares are named after contemporary Queen consorts (the wife of George III and the wife of his eldest son George IV).

Layout

Bloomsbury is notable for its garden squares, literary connections, and numerous cultural, educational and health care institutions. Mecklenburgh Square is a matching square to the east covering three acres. Between the two, east of this square, is an enclosed area of playgrounds with further trees, Coram's Fields (associated with charity Coram Family) which occupies just over seven acres. Russell Square is the nearest tube station to the south-west.

Brunswick Square and Mecklenburgh Square and Coram's Fields are jointly listed Grade II on the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens.
 * Protection

History
What is now the square (apart from the longer of the two roads bounding it and sharing in its name which is older) including the nearer part of buildings facing it was originally part of the grounds of the Foundling Hospital. It was planned to be leased for housebuilding, along with Mecklenburgh Square, to raise funds for the hospital in 1790. Brunswick Square, named after Caroline of Brunswick, was finished first, being built by James Burton in 1795–1802; none of the original houses remain.

The bronze sculpture of a child's mitten, by Tracey Emin, sits on top of one of the railings outside the Foundling Museum.

In literature, arts and the media
In Jane Austen's Emma, John and Isabella Knightley live in Brunswick Square.

In William Makepeace Thackeray's Vanity Fair, Mr. Osborne lives in Brunswick Square.

Notable residents
John Ruskin was born at 54 Hunter Street, Brunswick Square in 1819.

The Minerva Club was founded here by Dr Elizabeth Knight and Alice Green in 1920. The club was used for Women's Freedom League meetings and as a hostel for suffrage activists and fund-raising annual birthday parties for Charlotte Despard. Despard travelled from Ireland each year to attend.

The writer E.M. Forster used 26 Brunswick Square as his London base from 1930 to 1939.

title: Brunswick Square


text:
Talk:St. Catherine

Untitled
Are there two St. Catherines, or simply two pages? --Yak 19:09, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC) - I got the list from an internet search. Kathy T 18:49, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

-

Shouldn't Catherine Drexel be on this list?

The real
Shrek built St Catharines in 1912 50.101.122.2 (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:St. Catherine


text:
Kashubian–Pomeranian Association

The Kashubian-Pomeranian Association (Kashubian: Kaszëbskò-Pòmòrsczé Zrzeszenié, Polish: Zrzeszenie Kaszubsko-Pomorskie) is a regional non-governmental organization of Kashubians, Kocievians and other people interested in the regional affairs of Kashubia and Pomerania in northern Poland. Its headquarters are in Gdańsk, Poland.

The Kashubian Language Council (Kashubian: Radzëzna Kaszëbsczégò Jãzëka; Polish: Rada Języka Kaszubskiego) is a body of the Kashubian-Pomeranian Association that oversees and promotes the Kashubian language.

"Pomerania" is a monthly journal founded in 1963 which publishes in Polish and Kashubian.

Presidents of the Association:
 * 1956–59: Aleksander Arendt
 * 1959–71: Bernard Szczęsny
 * 1971–76: Jerzy Kiedrowski
 * 1976–80: Stanisław Pestka
 * 1980–83: Izabella Trojanowska
 * 1983–86: Szczepan Lewna
 * 1986–92: Józef Borzyszkowski
 * 1992–94: Stanisław Pestka
 * 1994–98: Jan Wyrowiński
 * 1998–04: Brunon Synak
 * 2004–10: Artur Jabłoński
 * 2010–16: Łukasz Grzędzicki
 * 2016–19: Edmund Wittbrodt
 * 2019–present: Jan Wyrowiński

title: Kashubian–Pomeranian Association


text:
Everglade

Everglade may refer to:

 * Everglades, region of tropical wetlands in the US
 * Everglade Township, Stevens County, Minnesota, township in Stevens County, Minnesota, the United States
 * "Everglade" (song), a 1992 song by L7
 * "Everglade", a song by Antony and the Johnsons from The Crying Light

title: Everglade


text:
Talk:Schnorrer

Move to Schnorrer
There is only one other link with a similar name, and that is Karl Schnörrer; a disambiguation page would require more than two articles, though: It suffices to say that Schnorrer is a Yiddish term used in other languages as well, while saying "for a similar spelling see Karl Schnörrer" --FlammingoHey 19:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The first line "For the WWII ace pilot, see Karl Schnörrer" caused a long debate over its pages in May 2004. In its wake there were several polls about including him or variations to do so, the "prominent disambiguation" (that very same line) reached a majority of 9 versus 6; no neutrals. The opposition argued it should not be mentioned at all in Schnorrer, as proposed in the previous poll (no mention at all: 8 pro, 7 contra). I conclude that per majority decision, and to avoid revert warring, the Schnörrer should be in top link. Note that there were ambiguous participants like the now indefinetly blocked (by Jimbo) notorious vandal User:Wik. The edit history from 24 October 2005 until 8 March 2007 is here because of this unexplained and unrequested move in the heat of a revert war. The content had only been changed slightly (two sentences added, 3 grammar, 1cat.) Unfortunatly because of this move, WP:MOVE would be violated, so there should at least be a hint in the history page to that half year. --FlammingoHey 23:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:D clearly says that
 * the most obvious idea of a lemma is the article (Alexander the Great)
 * the same word may be used in another context (Alexander the Great (1956film)), it may use a Top Link
 * Lists like a disambiguation page must list more than two items.
 * Support - the top link would do the job. Seeing as his name is Schnörrer not Schnorrer, I don't think there should be any problem.  Don't German ös become oes when umlats are undesireable or not possible to type? Jimp 01:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PAGE MOVED per discussion above. I sent the talk page that was already here to /Archive 1, and the article history that was previously here is deleted, as it contained no contribution history that's missing from the current version; just a bit of edit warring.  Please let me know if there are any questions. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Jimp, yes, they do - Schnoerrer now redirects to Karl.--FlammingoHey 13:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Schnorrer is a great Yidishism and the original article is excellent. On'y an anal retentive putz would dispute it.174.16.168.20 (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV and Expand tag
This article does not include sufficient historic and geographic data, and changes in meaning over time, especially since much is readily available in the c.1906 Jewish Encyclopedia ref and its follow-on links. The article is non-neutral because of non-inclusion of cherry-picked RS'd content. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Bialik
Was the first Hebrew usage, or the first famous one, from Bialik's poem "City of Slaughter"? - Lazer Stein (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Image
What does have to do with the article? Is somebody "begging" from somebody else in that illustration? Bus stop (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The caption says "Polnische Schnorrer", so, yes. Beggars sometimes wore top hats in 1875, though the hats probably weren't new.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

 * The inclusion of that image, originally added here seems pretty clearly antisemitic. The image depicts Polish "Schnorrers" as identifiably Jewish, and the caption presently lacks any elaboration or contextualisation of the antisemitic trope. The periodical the image is from had a history of antisemitism: Die Gartenlaube (q.v.). The article caption does not currently present the image as a duly contextualised historical example of non-Jewish hostile usage of the term, and the image does not actually clearly show someone begging – its contemporary in-image caption "Polnische Schnorrer" relies on the reader's pre-existing antisemitism; the reader is expected to already implicitly understand identifiably Jewish people to be schnorrers, otherwise the caption doesn't even really make sense. That, btw., is something this has in common with Mein Kampf, which also never even really tries to offer a convincing fundamental justification for its antisemitism; at a certain point the reader is simply expected to already be on board with it. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The concept is 100% Jewish, and your speculations are your fantasies: it is as antisemitic as the rest of Jewish humor. - Altenmann >talk 22:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Whether the term is originally Yiddish and whether the concept of a schnorrer attitude is "100% Jewish" (even when the word now also exists in other languages and the concept is known to goyim) is besides the point. What you so politely call my "speculations" only has to do with the image. Look at it. Cover the "Polnische Schnorrer" caption with your hand and look at the image. What part of what's shown there identifies the depicted individuals as schnorrers? (Or Poles for that matter?) —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is one shnorrer, the one with a sly look in his eyes trying to convince other guy in something. I admit without caption one may think he is, say, telling a funny joke, but that's what a caption is for. After all, how I know without caption that some picture shows, say, a Lithuanian peasant. - Altenmann >talk 15:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, so and then there was just one? Does one singular schnorrer now conform with the caption, or is this "your speculation", "your fantasy"? (If any of this sounds harsh, see above.) —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I was answering your question "What part of what's shown there identifies the depicted individuals as schnorrers". I dont undrestand your follow-up. Please avoid sniggering: this does not contribute to mutual understanding: different cultures have differet sense of humor and irony and the likes. Please explain clearly why you thing that my explanation was unclear and I will try to clarify further. I may add that both the cartoon author and I see a shnorrer in the picture, so I think it is a reasonable illustration. I didnt pick a random cartoon and say "gee, sure this one looks like a shnorrer to me". So your irony is misplaced. - Altenmann >talk 22:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Image removed. I found the contemporary context for the term "Polhische Schnorrer", which refers to German (even Jewish German) racism towards Polish Jews. I will try to find the place (History of the Jews in Germany? An extra section about Polish Jews there?) where the info from the book can be added to Wikipedia, together with the picture. Thank you for the discussion, which made my lazy ass move and do some research. - Altenmann >talk 23:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Schnorrer


text:
Protagoras (dialogue)

Protagoras (Πρωταγόρας) is a dialogue by Plato. The traditional subtitle (which may or may not be Plato's) is "or the Sophists". The main argument is between Socrates and the elderly Protagoras, a celebrated sophist and philosopher. The discussion takes place at the home of Callias, who is host to Protagoras while he is in town, and concerns the nature of sophists, the unity and the teachability of virtue. A total of twenty-one people are named as present.

The characters
Of the twenty-one people who are specifically said to be present, three are known sophists. In addition to Protagoras himself, there are Hippias of Elis and Prodicus of Ceos. Two of the sons of Pericles are said to be there, Paralus and Xanthippus. With the exception of Aristophanes, all of Socrates' named friends from the 'Symposium' are in attendance: Eryximachus the doctor, Phaedrus, the lovers Pausanias and Agathon (who is said to be a mere boy at this point), and Alcibiades. Additionally, there are several unnamed foreigners whom Protagoras is said to have picked up in his travels and a servant (a eunuch) in the employ of Callias.

Introduction
The dialogue begins with an unnamed friend of Socrates asking him how his pursuit of the young Alcibiades, just now reputed to be growing his first beard, is proceeding. Socrates explains that while he has just been in the company of Alcibiades, his mind is now on more interesting matters. He says that the Sophist Protagoras, the wisest man alive (309c–d), is in town. Socrates relates the story of how his young friend, Hippocrates, son of Apollodorus, came knocking on his door before daybreak and roused him out of bed. Hippocrates was in a big hurry to be present when Protagoras held court, as he was expected to do, at the home of Callias, and wanted Socrates to introduce him as a potential student to the old Sophist, as Protagoras had a great reputation as a teacher.

Socrates examines Hippocrates
Socrates warns the excitable Hippocrates that Sophists are dangerous. He tells him that the words of the Sophists go straight into the soul (psychē) and can corrupt a person straightaway. Socrates says that buying wisdom from a Sophist is different from buying food and drink at the market. With food and drink, you never know what you are getting, but you can consult experts for advice before consuming anything that might be dangerous (313a–314c).

Socrates says he regards Prodicus as a man of inspired genius (316a). He expresses the same admiration for Prodicus in another dialogue, the Theaetetus. Socrates later notes that Prodicus was assigned to sleep in a storage room that his host had cleaned out for the visit (315d).

At the house of Callias
Socrates accompanies Hippocrates to the home of Callias, and they stand in the doorway chatting about "some point which had come up along the road" (314c). A eunuch opens the door, takes one look at them, guesses they are Sophists, and slams the door in their faces (314d). They knock again, and this time assure the porter they are not Sophists, but only want to visit Protagoras. The porter lets them in, and it is at this point that Socrates recites the list of guests. Upon entering, Socrates and young Hippocrates witness the great Sophist Protagoras walking around the cloister, surrounded by numerous men, some of them famous Athenians which Socrates mentioned by name, like Charmides and the two sons of Pericles. Plato describes how the crowd opens and reassembles behind Protagoras every time the Sophist makes a turn while walking.

Protagoras the sophist
Protagoras does not deny being a Sophist, and claims that it is an ancient and honorable art, the same art practiced by Homer and Hesiod. These poets, he says, used the arts as a screen, a front, to protect themselves from the charge. He says that he is more straightforward than the ancient artists, trainers, and musicians in frankly admitting that he is an educator. Protagoras says he is old enough now to be the father of any of the men present, and would like now to address himself to the whole company of people in the house. Socrates assumes that Prodicus would not want to miss the lecture, and so Callias and Alcibiades are sent to rouse him from his bed (317c–e).

Protagoras' opening speech
Socrates asks Protagoras "in respect to what" Hippocrates will improve by associating with him, as, for example, he would improve in medicine by associating himself with a doctor (318d). Protagoras begins by saying that a good Sophist can make his students into good citizens by teaching civic virtue (πολιτικὴν τέχνην). Socrates says that this is fine and good, but that he personally believes that this is not feasible since virtue cannot be taught (319b). He adds that technical skill (technē) can be imparted to students by teachers, but that wisdom cannot be. By way of example, Socrates points to the fact that while in matters concerning specialised labour one would take advice only from the appropriate specialist, like for example builders (τέκτονες) about construction, in matters of state everyone's opinions are considered, which proves that political virtue is within everyone, or that at least that is what Athenians in their democratic ideals believe. Another example is that Pericles did not manage to impart his wisdom to his sons (319e). Socrates then adds that Clinias, younger brother of Alcibiades, was taken from his family for fear that Alcibiades would corrupt him, and he was given back as a hopeless case. Socrates says he could give more examples, but thinks his point is sufficiently established.

Protagoras' mythos
Protagoras says his claim that virtue can be taught is better illustrated by a myth than by reasoned arguments, and he recounts a myth about the origins of living things. After the gods had created the animals including man, they assigned two Titan brothers, Epimetheus ("afterthought") and Prometheus ("forethought"), with the task of giving each their proper traits for survival. The two agreed that Epimetheus would do the dealing, while Prometheus would check on his brother's work. And so, Epimetheus began by giving strength to some, speed to some, and wings, claws, hooves, pelts and hides to others. But being a little foolish, or rather a "late-thinker" as his name implies, Epimetheus forgot to save something for man. When Prometheus saw what had happened, he realised that without pelts or claws, mankind was doomed, and so he decided to go secretly into the gods' mountain home of Olympus and steal something to give back to man. Initially, Prometheus wanted to steal temperance (sophrosyne), but this virtue was guarded inside the palace of Zeus by terrible guardians, and so, the Titan opted for the gift of fire straight from the workshop of Hephaestus and practical wisdom from the goddess Athena. Because Prometheus failed to enter the palace of Zeus, however, man was never granted civic wisdom, and so his race was still in danger of extinction. Seeing this, Zeus sent Hermes to distribute shame and justice among human beings, and to do so equally. To Protagoras, this answers Socrates' question as to why people think that wisdom about architecture or medicine is limited to the few while wisdom about justice and politics is more broadly understood (322d).

Protagoras' logos
Protagoras states that he has two good pieces of evidence that people agree with him. First, people do not rebuke the ugly, dwarfish, and weak, but pity them, because they cannot help being as they are, yet they punish the unjust and generally feel as though someone is responsible for not knowing something that can be taught (323d). Second, they do instruct people who are unjust and irreligious, hoping to impart goodness to them. He says that parents begin with their children from earliest childhood, and teachers carry on the task. Protagoras notes that none of this is surprising, but what would be surprising is if this were not the case (326e). He closes by addressing Socrates' question of why, if virtue is teachable, the sons of virtuous men often lack virtue. Protagoras lays out a thought experiment in which the survival of a hypothetical city-state rests on the skill of flute playing. Naturally, all parents would be eager to teach their sons how to play the flute, but given the importance of this skill, everyone would also be teaching everyone else, as it would be considered a crime to withhold this knowledge. The result would be a city where everyone would be at least decent in the art, but being taught constantly and by everyone, those naturally gifted would always be better than those who happen to have gifted parents. The same goes for virtue. It is considered so important that everyone is taught to a certain degree by everyone else, and to the point that it seems like a part of human nature, while children of virtuous men do not always exceed the rest (327b–d).

Socrates' complaint
Socrates admits that Protagoras has given an excellent answer and that there is only one small thing to clarify, which he is certain that the Sophist will do easily. He asks Protagoras as to whether the attributes that form virtue, such as bravery, kindness and wisdom, are one thing, like for example the parts of a golden object which are fused together, or many things, like features of a face that form a whole while retaining their individual substance (329d). Protagoras answers the second, but avoids engaging in dialogue and digresses into rhetoric that does not answer the question sufficiently but still manages to arouse the excitement of their young public. It is a typical occurrence Socratic Dialogues, in which a Sophist uses eloquent speeches to hide the inconsistency of his arguments. Socrates' move is to pretend that he has a weak memory (334c), and that for the debate to continue, Protagoras needs to answer in a concise manner. This forces the Sophist to use Socrates' notorious method, his unique question/answer format that can lead to a logical conclusion, usually in Socrates' favour. Protagoras begins to bristle at this and replies that his answers are as long as they need to be, while Socrates reminds him that as a teacher of rhetoric, and one that advertises his ability to teach others all the different ways a debate can be had, he above all should be able to shorten his answers when the need arises. Their argument over form appears to be leading them nowhere, and Socrates gets up to leave, grousing that companionable talk is one thing while public speaking is another (336b). After the intervention of several of the listeners, the men agree to compromise their styles so the discussion can continue.

Socrates praises the Spartans as the best people in the world, not only because of their fierceness in battle but also because of their wisdom and philosophical skills. This is contrary to the common belief that the Spartans lacked these qualities and devoted themselves exclusively to physical training, but Socrates claims that they are masters at concealing their skills. While they appear to be unimpressive speakers, at just the right moment, they can provide pithy phrases of wisdom (342e). He adds that Laconic brevity was the earliest characteristic of philosophy (343b).

Then the debaters return to their previous analysis of Pittacus' and Simonides' poetry. On Socrates' interpretation, Pittacus claims that it is difficult to be a good man, but presumably possible. Simonides, on the other hand, claims that it is impossible to live without ever being a bad man, and even to be a good man on occasion is difficult (344a–45d). Simonides praises those who at least do not do wrong willingly. Socrates' interpretation is that, since Simonides was a wise man, he must know that no one does any wrong willingly; accordingly, he must mean that he will willingly praise those who do no wrong, not that some do wrong willingly and others unwillingly, with only the latter garnering his praise (345d–46b). Socrates thus argues that the authority of Simonides does not stand against his understanding of virtue and whether anyone willingly does wrong.

Socrates' major argument
Socrates then repeats the initial question of whether virtue is one or many things, and he reminds Protagoras that his answer was the latter, that virtues are many (349b-d). Protagoras accepts that this was indeed his original position, and that while the virtues are certainly connected, courage more than any other can be shown to be independent, as there are many who are both unwise and courageous. Socrates proceeds using his method, and asks whether the most courageous soldiers are those who are ignorant or knowledgeable of fighting. Protagoras says that while there are those who are courageous while being ignorant, their courage is more like madness, and that to be considered truly courageous, one needs to know what he is engaged in. But after agreeing that courageous people are necessarily knowledgeable, and therefore wise, Protagoras sees through Socrates' tricks, as the latter was indeed trying to push for a unification theory of virtue on the premise that everything, courage and justice included, are essentially wisdom, and therefore the same thing. Protagoras tells Socrates that while he agreed that the courageous are knowledgeable, he did not agree about the inverse, that wise men are also courageous. The link between courage and knowledge in other words is not commutative (350c-351b). Socrates needs to start another thread.

Socrates finally asks why it is that men do harm to themselves, by overeating or overindulging in other pleasures, and asks Protagoras whether his view is the standard one, that these men do so because of pleasure. Protagoras agrees, and Socrates continues by saying that what we call bad is not necessarily unpleasant in the short term, but necessarily so in the long term, like certain foods that cause pleasurable sensations but harm the body in the long run.

Socrates then concludes that the only reason why people exchange good for bad, like the pleasant taste of food for the sickness that comes by eating it, is because they do not know that the first (the pleasure) is short, while the second (the pain) is long. The error they make is just like one in judging the sizes of different objects when they are far away, assuming one is smaller because it's further away. So if men were taught the art of calculating these things correctly, they would not act harmfully (357c–358d). To be "overcome by pleasure" then means just this, ignorance. So, in a way, all virtues are essentially knowledge and can be considered one and the same, more like parts of golden objects (as discussed above) rather than the parts of a face. And that's how the issue of courage can finally be addressed, after Socrates was cut short by Protagoras only a short time before. Given that courage is good, as both agree, then the lack of it, must necessarily be a lack of knowledge, and so Protagoras was wrong in saying that some courageous men are also ignorant.

Conclusion: The mutual exchange of the debator's positions
While Socrates seems to have won the argument, he points to the fact that if all virtue is knowledge, it can in fact be taught. He draws the conclusion that to an observer he and Protagoras would seem crazy, having argued at great lengths only to mutually exchange positions, with Socrates now believing that virtue can be taught and Protagoras that all virtues are one (361a). Protagoras acknowledges that Socrates is a notable opponent in dispute while being much younger than he and predicts that he could become one of the wisest men alive. Socrates departs for whatever business he claimed he had when he wanted to end the dialogue earlier.

Texts and translations

 * Beresford, A., Plato. Protagoras and Meno (Penguin, 2005). ISBN 978-0140449037 (English with notes)
 * Burnet, J., Plato. Opera, Vol. III (Oxford University Press, 1922). ISBN 978-0-19-814542-4 (Greek with critical apparatus)
 * Denyer, N., Plato. Protagoras (Cambridge University Press, 2008). ISBN 978-0-521-54969-1 (Greek with English commentary)
 * Lamb, W. R. M., Plato, Vol. II (Harvard University Press, 1924). ISBN 978-0-674-99183-5 (Greek and English)
 * Lombardo, S. & Bell, K., Plato. Protagoras (Hackett Publishing, 1992). ISBN 978-0-87220-094-4 (English with notes)
 * Taylor, C. C. W., Plato. Protagoras, Revised Edition (Oxford University Press, 1990). ISBN 978-0-19-823934-5 (English with commentary)
 * Bartlett, R. Protagoras and Meno (Cornell University Press, 2004). ISBN 978-0801488658 (English with notes and commentary)

title: Protagoras (dialogue)


text:
Summer Lightning

Summer Lightning is a novel by P. G. Wodehouse, first published in the United States on 1 July 1929 by Doubleday, Doran, New York, under the title Fish Preferred, and in the United Kingdom on 19 July 1929 by Herbert Jenkins, London. It was serialised in The Pall Mall Magazine (UK) between March and August 1929 and in Collier's (US) from 6 April to 22 June 1929.

It forms part of the Blandings Castle saga, being the third full-length novel to be set there, after Something Fresh (1915) and Leave It to Psmith (1923). Heavy Weather (1933) forms a semi-sequel to the story, with many of the same characters involved.

Plot introduction
Gally is down at Blandings and writing his memoirs, to the horror of all who knew him in their wild youths, particularly Lord Emsworth's neighbour and pig-fancying rival Sir Gregory Parsloe-Parsloe. While sinister forces, including the efficient Baxter and the unpleasant Percy Pilbeam, scheme to put a stop to the book, Ronnie Fish and his old pal Hugo Carmody are entangled in difficult relationships, which require much subterfuge, some pig-theft and a little imposter-ing to resolve.

Plot summary
Hugo Carmody, who became secretary to Lord Emsworth following the failure of The Hot Spot, the night club he ran with Ronnie Fish, is conducting a secret affair with Millicent Threepwood, Emsworth's niece. They hide this from Lady Constance, who is distracted with worries that the book of memoirs her brother Galahad is writing will bring shame to the family.

Ronnie, meanwhile, is secretly engaged to Sue Brown, a chorus girl and an old friend of Hugo. When they run into Lady Constance in London one day, Ronnie introduces Sue as Myra Schoonmaker, an American heiress he and his mother Lady Julia recently met in Biarritz.

Ronnie travels to Blandings, where Baxter has just returned, called in by Lady Constance to steal the memoirs. Hoping to get money out of Lord Emsworth, his trustee, Ronnie claims to love pigs, but his uncle has seen him bouncing a tennis ball on the Empress' back, and is enraged. Ronnie, inspired, steals the pig, planning to return it and earn his uncle's gratitude, roping in Beach to help; they hide her in a cottage in the woods.

Hugo is sent to London to fetch a detective; the job is refused by Percy Pilbeam. Hugo takes Sue out dancing, but when Ronnie arrives at the club he sees Pilbeam, who admires Sue, sat at her table. Ronnie gets angry at Pilbeam, makes a scene, spends a night in jail, and in the morning snubs Sue, who he believes has betrayed him. Millicent, feeling the same about Hugo, breaks off their engagement also. Meanwhile, Sir Gregory Parsloe-Parsloe, worrying about the memoirs, hires Pilbeam to retrieve them; Pilbeam agrees, realising he can use the pig-finding job to get into the castle.

Sue heads to Blandings, posing as Myra Schoonmaker. Just after her arrival, Mortimer Mason, Sue's employer, visits Galahad in the library to discuss the memoirs. He recognizes Sue in the garden and talks about her, so Galahad learns her true identity, sharing the knowledge only with Sue. Percy Pilbeam arrives, recognises Sue, and tries to get her help in his memoir-stealing scheme. Baxter, meanwhile, has grown suspicious that the pig was stolen by Carmody as a means of insuring his job; he spots Beach heading off to feed the pig, and follows him, just as the storm breaks.

Beach reaches the cottage to find Hugo and Millicent, gone there to shelter from the rain. Their relationship is healed, Hugo having explained about Sue and Ronnie, and Beach, protecting Ronnie, claims he stole the pig for Hugo to return and win Lord Emsworth's favour. Beach leaves, as Carmody takes the pig to a new hiding spot.

Baxter accuses Beach in front of Emsworth, and the three of them head to the cottage, Emsworth growing ever warier of Baxter's sanity. They find no pig, Carmody having moved it to Baxter's caravan, where Pilbeam, also caught in the rain, saw him stow it. While Emsworth, Lady Constance, Gally and Millicent go to dinner with Parsloe-Parsloe (lured away to leave the memoirs unguarded), Ronnie Fish confronts Pilbeam, and learns that Sue was indeed out in London with Carmody, and that she has come to Blandings to be near Ronnie.

Pilbeam gets tipsy, and tells Beach about Sue, and then tells Carmody that he saw him hide the pig. Carmody, in a panic, calls Millicent at Matchingham Hall; she advises him to tell Emsworth where the pig is at once. He does so, Emsworth is overjoyed, and agrees to their marriage, much to Lady Constance's disgust.

Meanwhile, Baxter intercepts a telegram meant for Lady Constance from Myra Schoonmaker in Paris, and goes to the imposter Sue's room to retrieve a note he sent her, criticising Lord Emsworth. Trapped by Beach bringing her dinner, he hides under the bed while she and Ronnie are reunited. Ronnie spots Pilbeam climbing into the room to steal Galahad's memoirs, and chases him downstairs; the returning dinner party assume they are fleeing Baxter, now confirmed as mad by the presence of the stolen pig in his caravan, and Emsworth charges into Sue's room with a shotgun. Baxter crawls out from under the bed, flustered and enraged by his experience and Emsworth's harsh words, reveals Sue's deception and storms off.

Galahad, learning that Sue Brown is Dolly Henderson's daughter, reveals that he loved her mother but was forbidden to marry her, and views Sue as a kind of honorary daughter. He tells Lady Constance that he will suppress his book if she agrees to sanction Sue and Ronnie's marriage, and to persuade her sister Julia to do likewise. Pilbeam, hearing this as he once again climbs the drainpipe, gives up his mission, leaving Galahad to tell Sue the old story of Sir Gregory Parsloe-Parsloe and the prawns.

Characters

 * Lord Emsworth, absent-minded master of Blandings Castle
 * Lady Constance Keeble, his domineering sister, châtelaine at the castle
 * Galahad Threepwood, Emsworth's brother, visiting the castle to write his memoir
 * Ronnie Fish, Emsworth's vertically challenged nephew
 * Sue Brown, an enterprising chorus girl engaged to Ronnie
 * Mortimer "Pa" Mason, theatrical impresario, Sue's employer, and long time friend of Galahad, who visits the castle.
 * Millicent Threepwood, Lord Emsworth's niece
 * Hugo Carmody, Millicent's fiancé, currently Lord Emsworth's secretary
 * Rupert Baxter, formerly Lord Emsworth's secretary
 * Percy Frobisher Pilbeam, head of a detective agency, who greatly admires Sue
 * Sir Gregory Parsloe-Parsloe, Lord Emsworth's neighbour and rival pig-rearer
 * Beach, butler at the castle

Publication history
The story was serialised under the title Summer Lightning in twelve parts in Collier's, with illustrations by John H. Crosman. In Pall Mall Magazine, Summer Lightning was published in six parts and illustrated by Gilbert Wilkinson. The story was printed with the same title, Summer Lightning, in the Sydney Evening News in 1929.

The UK edition has a preface by Wodehouse. The UK edition also has a dedication: "To Denis Mackail, author of 'Greenery Street', 'The Flower Show' and other books which I wish I had written". Denis Mackail was an English writer.

The story was included in the 1979 collection Life at Blandings, published by Penguin Books. The collection also includes Something Fresh and Heavy Weather.

Adaptations
The novel has twice been adapted as a film, with the 1933 version Summer Lightning directed by Maclean Rogers. A 1938 Swedish adaptation, under the title Thunder and Lightning, was directed by Anders Henrikson and starred Olof Winnerstrand and his wife Frida Winnerstrand.

In 1987, the book was adapted as a radio drama in the Blandings radio series.

A stage play, adapted by Giles Havergal, was first performed at Glasgow's Citizens Theatre in 1992; a 1998 revival starred Helen Baxendale as Sue Brown. The play was performed at Keswick's Theatre by the Lake in 2009.

The novel was dramatised by Archie Scottney for BBC Radio 4 in 2010, with Charles Dance as Galahad Threepwood, Patricia Hodge as Lady Constance, Martin Jarvis as Lord Emsworth, and Ian Ogilvy as the narrator.

Continuity with other novels
Percy Pilbeam first appeared in Bill the Conqueror (1924). Hugo Carmody and Ronnie Fish had previously been introduced to readers in Money for Nothing (1928), while the Empress appeared in the shorts "Pig-hoo-o-o-o-ey" and "Company for Gertrude", the latter also featuring the devious Sir Gregory Parsloe-Parsloe.

Most of the cast would remain at Blandings for the excitements of Heavy Weather (1933).

title: Summer Lightning


text:
Gravity Probe B

Gravity Probe B (GP-B) was a satellite-based experiment to test two unverified predictions of general relativity: the geodetic effect and frame-dragging. This was to be accomplished by measuring, very precisely, tiny changes in the direction of spin of four gyroscopes contained in an Earth-orbiting satellite at 650 km of altitude, crossing directly over the poles.

The satellite was launched on 20 April 2004 on a Delta II rocket. The spaceflight phase lasted until 2005 ; Its aim was to measure spacetime curvature near Earth, and thereby the stress–energy tensor (which is related to the distribution and the motion of matter in space) in and near Earth. This provided a test of general relativity, gravitomagnetism and related models. The principal investigator was Francis Everitt.

Initial results confirmed the expected geodetic effect to an accuracy of about 1%. The expected frame-dragging effect was similar in magnitude to the current noise level (the noise being dominated by initially unmodeled effects due to nonuniform coatings on the gyroscopes). Work continued to model and account for these sources of error, thus permitting extraction of the frame-dragging signal. By August 2008, the frame-dragging effect had been confirmed to within 15% of the expected result, and the December 2008 NASA report indicated that the geodetic effect was confirmed to be better than 0.5%.

In an article published in the journal Physical Review Letters in 2011, the authors reported analysis of the data from all four gyroscopes results in a geodetic drift rate of $−6601.8 mas$ and a frame-dragging drift rate of $−37.2 mas$, in good agreement with the general relativity predictions of $−6606.1 mas/yr$ and $−39.2 mas/yr$, respectively.

Overview
Gravity Probe B was a relativity gyroscope experiment funded by NASA. Efforts were led by the Stanford University physics department with Lockheed Martin as the primary subcontractor. Mission scientists viewed it as the second relativity experiment in space, following the successful launch of Gravity Probe A (GP-A) in 1976.

The mission plans were to test two unverified predictions of general relativity: the geodetic effect and frame-dragging. This was to be accomplished by measuring, very precisely, tiny changes in the direction of spin of four gyroscopes contained in an Earth satellite orbiting at 650 km altitude, crossing directly over the poles. The gyroscopes were intended to be so free from disturbance that they would provide a near-perfect spacetime reference system. This would allow them to reveal how space and time are "warped" by the presence of the Earth, and by how much the Earth's rotation "drags" space-time around with it.

The geodetic effect is an effect caused by space-time being "curved" by the mass of the Earth. A gyroscope's axis when parallel transported around the Earth in one complete revolution does not end up pointing in exactly the same direction as before. The angle "missing" may be thought of as the amount the gyroscope "leans over" into the slope of the space-time curvature. A more precise explanation for the space curvature part of the geodetic precession is obtained by using a nearly flat cone to model the space curvature of the Earth's gravitational field. Such a cone is made by cutting out a thin "pie-slice" from a circle and gluing the cut edges together. The spatial geodetic precession is a measure of the missing "pie-slice" angle. Gravity Probe B was expected to measure this effect to an accuracy of one part in 10,000, the most stringent check on general relativistic predictions to date.

The much smaller frame-dragging effect is an example of gravitomagnetism. It is an analog of magnetism in classical electrodynamics, but caused by rotating masses rather than rotating electric charges. Previously, only two analyses of the laser-ranging data obtained by the two LAGEOS satellites, published in 1997 and 2004, claimed to have found the frame-dragging effect with an accuracy of about 20% and 10% respectively,  whereas Gravity Probe B aimed to measure the frame dragging effect to a precision of 1%. However, Lorenzo Iorio claimed that the level of total uncertainty of the tests conducted with the two LAGEOS satellites has likely been greatly underestimated. A recent analysis of Mars Global Surveyor data has claimed to have confirmed the frame dragging effect to a precision of 0.5%, although the accuracy of this claim is disputed. Also the Lense–Thirring effect of the Sun has been recently investigated in view of a possible detection with the inner planets in the near future.

The launch was planned for 19 April 2004 at Vandenberg Air Force Base but was scrubbed within 5 minutes of the scheduled launch window due to changing winds in the upper atmosphere. An unusual feature of the mission is that it only had a one-second launch window due to the precise orbit required by the experiment. On 20 April, at 9:57:23 AM PDT (16:57:23 UTC) the spacecraft was launched successfully. The satellite was placed in orbit at 11:12:33 AM (18:12:33 UTC) after a cruise period over the south pole and a short second burn. The mission lasted 16 months. Some preliminary results were presented at a special session during the American Physical Society meeting in April 2007. NASA initially requested a proposal for extending the GP-B data analysis phase through December 2007. The data analysis phase was further extended to September 2008 using funding from Richard Fairbank, Stanford and NASA, and beyond that point using non-NASA funding only. Final science results were reported in 2011.

Experimental setup

The Gravity Probe B experiment comprised four London moment gyroscopes and a reference telescope sighted on IM Pegasi, a binary star in the constellation Pegasus. In polar orbit, with the gyro spin directions also pointing toward IM Pegasi, the frame-dragging and geodetic effects came out at right angles, each gyroscope measuring both.

The gyroscopes were housed in a dewar of superfluid helium, maintaining a temperature of under 2 K. Near-absolute zero temperatures were required to minimize molecular interference, and enable the lead and niobium components of the gyroscope mechanisms to become superconductive.

At the time of their manufacture, the gyroscopes were the most nearly spherical objects ever made (two gyroscopes still hold that record, but third place has been taken by the silicon spheres made by the Avogadro project). Approximately the size of ping pong balls, they were perfectly round to within forty atoms (less than $10 nm$). If one of these spheres were scaled to the size of the Earth, the tallest mountains and deepest ocean trench would measure only 2.4 m high. The spheres were made of fused quartz and coated with an extremely thin layer of niobium. A primary concern was minimizing any influence on their spin, so the gyroscopes could never touch their containing compartment. They were held suspended with electric fields, spun up using a flow of helium gas, and their spin axes were sensed by monitoring the magnetic field of the superconductive niobium layer with SQUIDs. (A spinning superconductor generates a magnetic field precisely aligned with the rotation axis; see London moment.)

IM Pegasi was chosen as the guide star for multiple reasons. First, it needed to be bright enough to be usable for sightings. Then it was close to the ideal positions near the celestial equator. Also important was its well-understood motion in the sky, which was helped by the fact that this star emits relatively strong radio signals. In preparation for the setup of this mission, astronomers analyzed the radio-based position measurements with respect to far distant quasars taken over several years to understand its motion as precisely as needed.

History

The conceptual design for this mission was first proposed by an MIT professor, George Pugh, who was working with the U.S. Department of Defense in 1959 and later discussed by Leonard Schiff (Stanford) in 1960 at Pugh's suggestion, based partly on a theoretical paper about detecting frame dragging that Schiff had written in 1957. It was proposed to NASA in 1961, and they supported the project with funds in 1964. This grant ended in 1977 after a long phase of engineering research into the basic requirements and tools for the satellite.

In 1986 NASA changed plans for the Space Shuttle, which forced the mission team to switch from a shuttle-based launch design to one that was based on the Delta 2, and in 1995 tests planned of a prototype on a shuttle flight were cancelled as well.

Gravity Probe B marks the first time that Stanford University has been in control of the development and operations of a space satellite funded by NASA.

The total cost of the project was about $750 million.

Mission timeline

This is a list of major events for the GP-B experiment.

 * 20 April 2004
 * Launch of GP-B from Vandenberg AFB and successful insertion into polar orbit.

 * 27 August 2004
 * GP-B entered its science phase. On mission day 129 all systems were configured to be ready for data collection, with the only exception being gyro 4, which needed further spin axis alignment.

 * 15 August 2005
 * The science phase of the mission ended and the spacecraft instruments transitioned to the final calibration mode.

 * 26 September 2005
 * The calibration phase ended with liquid helium still in the dewar. The spacecraft was returned to science mode pending the depletion of liquid helium.

 * February 2006
 * Phase I of data analysis complete

 * September 2006
 * Analysis team realised that more error analysis was necessary (particularly around the polhode motion of the gyros) than could be done in the time to <time datetime="2007-04">April 2007 and applied to NASA for an extension of funding to the end of 2007.

 * <time datetime="2006-12">December 2006
 * Completion of Phase III of data analysis

 * <time datetime="2007-04-14">14 April 2007
 * Announcement of best results obtained to date. Francis Everitt gave a plenary talk at the meeting of the American Physical Society announcing initial results: "The data from the GP-B gyroscopes clearly confirm Einstein's predicted geodetic effect to a precision of better than 1 percent. However, the frame-dragging effect is 170 times smaller than the geodetic effect, and Stanford scientists are still extracting its signature from the spacecraft data."

 * <time datetime="2010-12-08">8 December 2010
 * GP-B spacecraft decommissioned, left in its 642 km polar orbit.

 * <time datetime="2011-05-04">4 May 2011
 * GP-B Final experimental results were announced. In a public press and media event at NASA Headquarters, GP-B Principal Investigator, Francis Everitt presented the final results of Gravity Probe B.

 * <time datetime="2015-11-14">19 November 2015
 * Publication of GP-B Special Volume (Volume #32, Issue #22) in the peer-reviewed journal, Classical and Quantum Gravity.

On <time datetime="2007-02-09">9 February 2007, it was announced that a number of unexpected signals had been received and that these would need to be separated out before final results could be released. In <time datetime="2007-04">April it was announced that the spin axes of the gyroscopes were affected by torque, in a manner that varied over time, requiring further analysis to allow the results to be corrected for this source of error. Consequently, the date for the final release of data was pushed back several times. In the data for the frame-dragging results presented at the <time datetime="2007-04">April 2007 meeting of the American Physical Society, the random errors were much larger than the theoretical expected value and scattered on both the positive and negative sides of a null result, therefore causing skepticism as to whether any useful data could be extracted in the future to test this effect.

In <time datetime="2007-06">June 2007, a detailed update was released explaining the cause of the problem, and the solution that was being worked on. Although electrostatic patches caused by non-uniform coating of the spheres were anticipated, and were thought to have been controlled for before the experiment, it was subsequently found that the final layer of the coating on the spheres defined two-halves of slightly different contact potential, which gave the sphere an electrostatic axis. This created a classical dipole torque on each rotor, of a magnitude similar to the expected frame dragging effect. In addition, it dissipated energy from the polhode motion by inducing currents in the housing electrodes, causing the motion to change with time. This meant that a simple time-average polhode model was insufficient, and a detailed orbit by orbit model was needed to remove the effect. As it was anticipated that "anything could go wrong", the final part of the flight mission was calibration, where amongst other activities, data was gathered with the spacecraft axis deliberately misaligned for <time datetime="PT24h">24 hours, to exacerbate any potential problems. This data proved invaluable for identifying the effects. With the electrostatic torque modeled as a function of axis misalignment, and the polhode motion modeled at a sufficiently fine level, it was hoped to isolate the relativity torques to the originally expected resolution.

Stanford agreed to release the raw data to the public at an unspecified date in the future. It is likely that this data will be examined by independent scientists and independently reported to the public well after the final release by the project scientists. Because future interpretations of the data by scientists outside GP-B may differ from the official results, it may take several more years for all of the data received by GP-B to be completely understood.

NASA review
A review by a panel of 15 experts commissioned by NASA recommended against extending the data analysis phase beyond 2008. They warned that the required reduction in noise level (due to classical torques and breaks in data collection due to solar flares) "is so large that any effect ultimately detected by this experiment will have to overcome considerable (and in our opinion, well justified) skepticism in the scientific community".

Data analysis after NASA
NASA funding and sponsorship of the program ended on <time datetime="2008-09-30">30 September 2008, but GP-B secured alternative funding from King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia that enabled the science team to continue working at least through <time datetime="2009-12">December 2009. On <time datetime="2008-08-29">29 August 2008, the 18th meeting of the external GP-B Science Advisory Committee was held at Stanford to report progress.

The Stanford-based analysis group and NASA announced on <time datetime="2011-05-04">4 May 2011 that the data from GP-B indeed confirms the two predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. The findings were published in the journal Physical Review Letters. The prospects for further experimental measurement of frame-dragging after GP-B were commented on in the journal Europhysics Letters.

title: Gravity Probe B


text:
Harry Bateman

Harry Bateman FRS (29 May 1882 – 21 January 1946) was an English mathematician with a specialty in differential equations of mathematical physics. With Ebenezer Cunningham, he expanded the views of spacetime symmetry of Lorentz and Poincare to a more expansive conformal group of spacetime leaving Maxwell's equations invariant. Moving to the US, he obtained a Ph.D. in geometry with Frank Morley and became a professor of mathematics at California Institute of Technology. There he taught fluid dynamics to students going into aerodynamics with Theodore von Karman. Bateman made a broad survey of applied differential equations in his Gibbs Lecture in 1943 titled, "The control of an elastic fluid".

Biography
Bateman was born in Manchester, England, on 29 May 1882. He first gained an interest in mathematics during his time at Manchester Grammar School. In his final year, he won a scholarship to Trinity College, Cambridge. Bateman studied with coach Robert Alfred Herman to prepare for the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos. He distinguished himself in 1903 as Senior Wrangler (tied with P.E. Marrack) and by winning the Smith's Prize (1905).

His first paper, "The determination of curves satisfying given conditions", was published when he was still an undergraduate student. He studied in Göttingen and Paris, and taught at the University of Liverpool and University of Manchester. After moving to the US in 1910, he taught at Bryn Mawr College and then Johns Hopkins University. There, working with Frank Morley in geometry, he achieved his Ph.D., prior to which he had already published more than 60 papers, including some of his celebrated papers. In 1917, he took up his permanent position at the California Institute of Technology, which was then known as the "Throop Polytechnic Institute".

Eric Temple Bell says, "Like his contemporaries and immediate predecessors among Cambridge mathematicians of the first decade of this century [1901–1910]... Bateman was thoroughly trained in both pure analysis and mathematical physics, and retained an equal interest in both throughout his scientific career."

Theodore von Kármán was called in as an advisor for a projected aeronautics laboratory at Caltech and later gave this appraisal of Bateman: "In 1926 Cal Tech [sic] had only a minor interest in aeronautics. The professorship that came nearest to aeronautics was occupied by a shy, meticulous Englishman, Dr. Harry Bateman. He was an applied mathematician from Cambridge who worked in the field of fluid mechanics. He seemed to know everything but did nothing important. I liked him."

Harry Bateman married Ethel Horner in 1912 and had a son named Harry Graham, who died as a child. Later, the couple adopted a daughter named Joan Margaret. He died on his way to New York in 1946 of coronary thrombosis.

Scientific contributions
In 1907, Harry Bateman was lecturing at the University of Liverpool together with another senior wrangler, Ebenezer Cunningham. In 1908, together they came up with the idea of a conformal group of spacetime (now usually denoted as $C(1,3)$) which involved an extension of the method of images.

In nuclear physics, the Bateman equation is a mathematical model describing abundances and activities in a decay chain as a function of time, based on the decay rates and initial abundances. The model was formulated by Ernest Rutherford in 1905 and the analytical solution was provided by Harry Bateman in 1910.

For his part, in 1910 Bateman published The Transformation of the Electrodynamical Equations. He showed that the Jacobian matrix of a spacetime diffeomorphism which preserves the Maxwell equations is proportional to an orthogonal matrix, hence conformal. The transformation group of such transformations has 15 parameters and extends both the Poincaré group and the Lorentz group. Bateman called the elements of this group spherical wave transformations.

In evaluating this paper, one of his students, Clifford Truesdell, wrote: "The importance of Bateman's paper lies not in its specific details but in its general approach. Bateman, perhaps influenced by Hilbert's point of view in mathematical physics as a whole, was the first to see that the basic ideas of electromagnetism were equivalent to statements regarding integrals of differential forms, statements for which Grassmann's calculus of extension on differentiable manifolds, Poincaré's theories of Stokesian transformations and integral invariants, and Lie's theory of continuous groups could be fruitfully applied." Bateman was the first to apply Laplace transform to the integral equation in 1906. He submitted a detailed report on integral equations in 1911 to the British association for the advancement of science. Horace Lamb in his 1910 paper solved an integral equation
 * $$2\int_0^\infty f(y-\zeta^2)\,d\zeta = F(y)$$

as a double integral, but in his footnote he says, "Mr. H. Bateman, to whom I submitted the question, has obtained a simpler solution in the form"
 * $$f(y) = \frac 1 \pi \int_{-y}^\infty \frac{F'(-z)}{\sqrt{z+x}}dz$$.

In 1914, Bateman published The Mathematical Analysis of Electrical and Optical Wave-motion. As Murnaghan says, this book "is unique and characteristic of the man. Into less than 160 small pages is crowded a wealth of information which would take an expert year to digest." The following year he published a textbook Differential Equations, and sometime later Partial differential equations of mathematical physics. Bateman is also author of Hydrodynamics and Numerical integration of differential equations. Bateman studied the Burgers' equation long before Jan Burgers started to study.

Harry Bateman wrote two significant articles on the history of applied mathematics: "The influence of tidal theory upon the development of mathematics", and "Hamilton's work in dynamics and its influence on modern thought".

In his Mathematical Analysis of Electrical and Optical Wave-motion (p. 131), he describes the charged-corpuscle trajectory as follows: "a corpuscle has a kind of tube or thread attached to it. When the motion of the corpuscle changes a wave or kink runs along the thread; the energy radiated from the corpuscle spreads out in all directions but is concentrated round the thread so that the thread acts as a guiding wire." This figure of speech is not to be confused with a string in physics, for the universes in string theory have dimensions inflated beyond four, something not found in Bateman's work. Bateman went on to study the luminiferous aether with an article "The structure of the Aether". His starting point is the bivector form of an electromagnetic field, $$\mathbf{E} + i \mathbf{B}$$. He recalled Alfred-Marie Liénard's electromagnetic fields, and then distinguished another type he calls "aethereal fields": "When a large number of 'aethereal fields' are superposed their singular curves indicate the structure of an 'aether' which is capable of supporting a certain type of electromagnetic field."

Bateman received many honours for his contributions, including election to the American Philosophical Society in 1924, election to the Royal Society of London in 1928, and election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1930. He was elected as vice-president of the American Mathematical Society in 1935 and was the Society's Gibbs Lecturer for 1943. He was on his way to New York to receive an award from the Institute of Aeronautical Science when he died of coronary thrombosis. The Harry Bateman Research Instructorships at the California Institute of Technology is named in his honour.

After his death, his notes on higher transcendental functions were edited by Arthur Erdélyi, Wilhelm Magnus, Fritz Oberhettinger, and Francesco G. Tricomi, and published in 1953.

Publications
In a review of Bateman's book Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics, Richard Courant says that "there is no other work which presents the analytical tools and the results achieved by means of them equally completely and with as many original contributions" and also "advanced students and research workers alike will read it with great benefit".

 * 1908: The Conformal Transformations of a Space of Four Dimensions and their Applications to Geometrical Optics, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 7: 70–89.
 * 1910: History and Present State of the Theory of Integral Equations, Report of the British Association.
 * 1914: (dissertation) The Quartic Curve and its Inscribed Configurations, American Journal of Mathematics 36(4).
 * 1915: The Mathematical Analysis of Electrical and Optical Wave-motion on the Basis of Maxwell's Equations, Cambridge University Press.
 * 1918: Differential equations, Longmans, Green, London, Reprint Chelsea 1966.
 * 1932: Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press 1932, Dover 1944, 1959.
 * 1933: (with Albert A. Bennett, William E. Milne) Numerical Integration of Differential Equations, Bulletin of the National Research Council, Dover 1956.
 * 1932: (with Hugh Dryden, Francis Murnaghan) Report of the Committee on Hydrodynamics, Bulletin of the National Research Council, Washington D.C.
 * 1945: The Control of an Elastic Fluid, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 51(9):601–646 via Project Euclid, also found in Selected Papers on Mathematical Trends in Control Theory (Richard Bellman & Robert Kalaba editors).
 * Bateman Manuscript Project: Higher Transcendental Functions, 3 vols., McGraw Hill 1953/1955, Krieger 1981.
 * Bateman Manuscript Project: Tables of Integral Transforms, 2 vols., McGraw Hill 1954.

title: Harry Bateman


text:
Talk:Greatest Hits (2002 Kylie Minogue album)

Shouldn't this article be titled more specifically, e.g. Kylie Minogue: Greatest Hits 1987 - 1999??? Lee M 19:21, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I can't see any problem for now, I doubt many people will come here by mistake. If in the future someone else releases anything with the same title, then we should change it. Dmn 22:09, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kyliegreatesthits8797album.jpg
Image:Kyliegreatesthits8797album.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)