text:
Whitefield, Bangalore

Whitefield is a suburb of Bangalore in the state of Karnataka, India. Established in 1882 as a settlement for the Eurasians and Anglo Indians of Bangalore, Whitefield remained a quaint little settlement at the eastern periphery of Bangalore city till the late 1990s when the local IT boom turned it into a major suburb. It is now a major part of Greater Bangalore. Whitefield is Bengaluru's first tech corridor to be connected by Namma Metro.

The locality is named after David Emmanuel Starkenburgh White, founder of the European and Anglo Indian Association which received 4,000 acres of land from Mysore Maharaja Chamaraja Wodeyar in the 19th century.

History
In 1782, King Chamaraja Wodeyar X, the Maharaja of the Mysore State, granted 3900 acre of land to the Eurasian and Anglo-Indian Association for the establishment of agricultural settlements at Whitefield, which lay within his territory. The association was then about 170 strong with a committee of 30 members. They were part of the formation of the only settlement in India that Europeans and Eurasians could call their own. Mr. White, the then president of the E&AI Association., took a lively interest in it and helped in its advancement which at the beginning was an uphill task.

In the first decade of the 1900s, there were about 45 houses: 18 were on the village site and the remainder were on farms throughout the settlement and contained about 2000 acre of land fit for cultivation. The number of residents in 1907 was 130. Lord Connemara, the then governor of Madras (1890) and General Sir Harry Prendergast, a British resident in Mysore, visited the settlement and lent support to the development of Whitefield. Subsequently, there were regular visits to Whitefield by the Bangalore District officials and high dignitaries from the Madras Presidency.

The settlement was 3 km south of the Bangalore-Madras (now Chennai) line and a station was built. It led to the influx of residents and their families who worked at Kolar Gold Fields, about 50 km (by train) to the east. It became convenient for those working at KGF to catch a train (running 3 to 4 times a day) and return to their families. There were frequent trains running to Bangalore 20 km to the west (by train). Reaching the settlement from the railway station was possible only by writing a letter to Mrs. Hamilton (wife of a James Hamilton, the keeper of the Waverly Inn) who would arrange for a bullock cart trip for 8 annas.

Until the late 1990s, Whitefield was a small village. It has since become a major hub for the Indian technology industry. The Export Promotion Industrial Park (EPIP) at Whitefield is one of the country's first information technology parks—International Tech Park, Bangalore (ITPB) which houses offices of many IT and ITES companies.

Whitefield is now officially part of Bangalore city which is part of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike.

Infrastructure
Whitefield has started seeing a boom in residential construction since the latter half of 1990s and especially during 2002 and onwards.

There are two major four-lane roads connecting Bangalore city with Whitefield – Whitefield road via Mahadevapura and Varthur road (HAL Old Airport Road) via Marathahalli. Both roads intersect with Karnataka State highway 35 (SH 35) which runs north–south (Siddlaghatta in the north to Anekal in the south).

The Whitefield railway station is about 3 km north of the Whitefield Bus stop. It lies on the Bangalore-Chennai route and is double and electrified, the Krishnarajapuram-Whitefield railway station section is slated to be converted to a quadruple line. The station is slated to become a junction with a new Whitefield-Kolar (53 km; 33 miles) line being laid. Neighbouring the Whitefield railway station is Brindavan, the ashram and winter residence of the Hindu spiritual leader Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba.

The Container Corporation of India (CONCOR) has a large inland container depot just off Whitefield road near ITPB.

Shopping malls like Nexus Whitefield (earlier called The Forum Neighborhood Mall), Phoenix Market City, VR Bengaluru, Ascendas Park Square Mall and Nexus Shantiniketan Mall are in the Whitefield area. It also houses the renowned super speciality hospital, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Medical Sciences, Whitefield, inaugurated by Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba on 19 January 2001, which offers all the medical services for free. Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre is the other major super-speciality hospital in Whitefield.

Whitefield has extensive city bus connectivity with a wide range of services offered by BMTC. A Traffic and Transit Management Centre (TTMC) in EPIP is functional with schedules connecting it with most areas of the city. The much anticipated Namma Metro project started catering to Whitefield under Phase 2 from 26 March 2023. The Purple line has been extended to cover stations from Baiyyappanahalli to Whitefield (Kadugodi) covering 13 stations in between. This 13.71 km long route was launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 25 March 2023.

Whitefield suffers from water shortages especially during summer months as the whole region relies almost entirely on groundwater. With the increase in housing and office space, the demand has been multiplying over the years, and groundwater depletion has been worsening alarmingly. BWSSB is supplying the region with water under the Cauvery Water Supply Scheme Stage IV, Phase II. BWSSB has been granted Rs. 1000 crore for water projects in 2012 including supplying water to areas of Greater Bangalore which includes Whitefield.

Geographic location
There are two main roads serving this area – Whitefield Road from Krishnarajapuram and Whitefield Main Road from Varthur. From HAL Old Airport Road and Kudhanahalli Gate is direct link between Central City and Whitefield .On 2 November 2020, Whitefield recorded its poorest air quality since the lockdown due to COVID-19. On 24 January 2021, residents petitioned the authorities to save the neighbouring Pattandur Agrahara Lake. They demanded removal of encroachments and rejuvenation of the water body by the city corporation. Most of the People live in Varthur, Thubhannahalli, AECS Layout, Kudhanahalli Gate area, BEML layout because it is located close to Major Tech company

Food and leisure
There are multiple malls and food hotspots in and around the Whitefield area, some of them include -

 * ITPL Mall (Park Square Mall)
 * Nexus Shantiniketan Mall
 * Phoenix Marketcity
 * VR Bengaluru
 * Inorbit Mall, Bangalore
 * Nexus Whitefield

These malls host multiple restaurants that cater to a variety of cuisines – Regional Indian cuisines, Japanese, fast food, etc.

Additional prominent standalone restaurants in the area apart from the ones hosted in malls include -

 * Stoners (burger and ice cream franchise)
 * Windmills Craftworks (restaurant and micro-brewery)
 * Pasta Street (Italian cuisine)
 * A2B – Adyar Ananda Bhavan (South Indian restaurant franchise)

title: Whitefield, Bangalore


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DiscussIT.org

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled DiscussIT.org.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

DiscussIT.org does not seem to be noteworthy (yet / any more)? --Zigger 17:50, 2004 May 13 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advert for a website with almost no content. Andris 23:20, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Same reason. -- Stevietheman 00:46, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * There doesn't appear to be anything there. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 00:07, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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


text:
Talk:Shock wave

"A shock wave travels through most media at a higher speed than an ordinary wave."
can this be cited or clarified? it suggests to me [FTL] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.5.192 (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I am amazed that this blunder has survived so long. A shock wave always travels at the speed of sound in the medium through which it propagates. That is the definition of the speed of sound: it is the speed that a disturbance of pressure or density propagates through a meduim [1].
 * Shock waves may be generated at a greater speed - e.g. the one at the front of a supersonic jet (which propagates from the jet to the observer at Mach 1.0), or the one at the blast front of an explosion, which may be generated at hypersonic speeds whilst the detonation is in progress, but, on completion of the detonation (after milliseconds) detach from the decaying detonation and propagates at Mach 1.0
 * Starling S. G & Woodall A. J. (1961) Physics, Longmans London p. 805  Gpsanimator (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

In supersonic flows ...
The section on supersonic flows contains the sentence "Shock waves form when the speed of a fluid changes by more than the speed of sound" which can't be right because it compares a change in speed with a speed. I assume what is meant is "speed of a fluid IS more than the speed of sound" but I don't want to edit an article on a subject I don't understand. oldrider (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "shock of type 1"
is used but not defined. oldrider (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Photo 2
I don't believe these patterns to be caused by the intersection of shock waves w/ the surface of the water as that would be a conic section basically in reverse of what is shown here. This appears to be a subsonic propagation or pressure wave moving at below Mach 1. Longinus876 (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The projectiles would trail a conical shock wave which would intersect the water surface (roughly) as a moving parabola. The expansion of the air inside the cannon creates an expanding spherical wave originating at the cannon tip, which intersects the water surface (roughly) as a circle. This wave is definitely supersonic here. A sonic (Mach 1) wave is basically a shock wave in the limit where it is reversible and there is no energy dissipation involved. Such a wave would be unable to disturb the water surface, by definition. As the supersonic spherical wave expands, it becomes weaker and slower and ultimately becomes a sound wave travelling at the speed of sound. Pressure cannot propagate slower than the speed of sound, and so Mach 1 is the hard lower limit on the speed at which that wave will propagate. Ariadacapo (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, correct. I was thinking, wrongly, of a supersonic projectile which this was not.  The hard edge on the pattern tells a story in itself.  Very interesting to me.  Thank you for your correction.  Where would we all be without a little help from our friends,,, or a shove?  Thanks also for the instant response.Longinus876 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

What is the temperature in the 200 nm thick film of the shockwave?
Mentioned are that in the shockwave, the pressure is x25 atmospheric pressure, the thickness of the shockwave film is 200 nm and it is mentioned the temperature increase are what makes shockwaves characteristics and to understand how the ram jet engine works, but I can't find what is the temperature in that film. Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shock wave


text:
Talk:Thomas Aquinas/Modern Criticism

(archive)

 * 1) In S. Theol. II II §153 and §154 St. Thomas addresses the sin of lust. In II II 153 3 he shows the gravity of lust in relation to reason: "The more necessary a thing is, the more it behooves one to observe the order of reason in its regard; wherefore the more sinful it becomes if the order of reason be forsaken. Now the use of venereal acts, as stated in the foregoing Article, is most necessary for the common good, namely the preservation of the human race. Wherefore there is the greatest necessity for observing the order of reason in this matter: so that if anything be done in this connection against the dictate of reason's ordering, it will be a sin. Now lust consists essentially in exceeding the order and mode of reason in the matter of venereal acts. Wherefore without any doubt lust is a sin" (emphases added).
 * 2) He gives concrete examples of the consequences of lust in II II 153 5, where he answers the objection: "It would seem that the daughters of lust are unfittingly reckoned to be 'blindness of mind, thoughtlessness, inconstancy, rashness, self-love, hatred of God, love of this world and abhorrence or despair of a future world.'"
 * 3) In II II 154 1 he lists those things of which lust consists : "simple fornication, adultery, incest, seduction, rape, and the unnatural vice" which are in the form of an objection which he answers.
 * 4) In Scholastic terms, he then expands on II II 153 3 by positing two ways in which the matter of a given species of lust "may be discordant with right reason.... First, because it is inconsistent with the end of the venereal act . In this way, as hindering the begetting of children, there is the ' vice against nature ,' which attaches to every venereal act from which generation cannot follow; and, as hindering the due upbringing and advancement of the child when born, there is 'simple fornication,' which is the union of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman." In other words, anything contraceptive; any kind of masturbation; and fornication, that could result in a child that would not be properly cared for; are examples of "vice against nature", also termed "the unnatural vice" below. He continues: "Secondly, the matter wherein the venereal act is consummated may be discordant with right reason in relation to other persons ; and this in two ways. First, with regard to the woman, with whom a man has connection, by reason of due honor not being paid to her; and thus there is 'incest,' which consists in the misuse of a woman who is related by consanguinity or affinity. Secondly, with regard to the person under whose authority the woman is placed: and if she be under the authority of a husband, it is 'adultery,' if under the authority of her father, it is 'seduction,' in the absence of violence, and 'rape' if violence be employed." In other words, venereal acts improperly associated with other persons, such as incest, adultery, fornication with what amounts to a minor in modern parlance, and rape, are contrary to right reason.
 * 5) Regarding " the unnatural vice ", which subsumes masturbation, about which contemporary mores are more enthusiastic, St. Thomas posits in II II 154 11 that it constitutes "a species of lust" — which, according to II II 153 3 "exceed[s] the order and mode of reason" — and gives specific instances of it: "First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of 'uncleanness' which some call 'effeminacy.' Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called 'bestiality.' Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rom 1:27): and this is called the 'vice of sodomy.' Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation." The first of those is a reference to masturbation.
 * 6) In II II 154 12 he posits that the unnatural vices are the worst sins in the overall category of lustful sin: "since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all. ... With regard to the other species of lust they imply a transgression merely of that which is determined by right reason, on the presupposition, however, of natural principles." In other words, "the unnatural vices" transgress nature and reason, whereas other forms of lust transgress only reason.
 * 7) Also in II II 154 12, St. Thomas posits that among the unnatural vices, "the lowest place belongs to the sin of uncleanness, which consists in the mere omission of copulation with another. While the most grievous is the sin of bestiality.... After this comes the sin of sodomy, because the use of the right sex is not observed. Lastly comes the sin of not observing the right manner of copulation, which is more grievous if the abuse regards the 'vas' [vessel] than if it affects the manner of copulation in respect of other circumstances." In other words, the hierarchy of sins among the unnatural vices according to St. Thomas appears to be, from most to least offensive: masturbation, bestiality, sodomy, and copulation in strange manners. St. Thomas, then, argues that masturbation is the worst sin in the category of sins of lust.

While it may seem odd to determine that masturbation is a worse sin than rape, and indeed the worst of the sins of lust, the proposition itself is one that can be debated, regarding which contemporary ethics probably lacks the vocabulary, e.g., to evaluate whether or not the distinction between transgressing nature and reason vs. transgressing only reason is meaningful. Modern mores are also biased toward affirming that masturbation and other sexual sins be recast as lifestyle choices.

Some critics believe that the hierarchy of sin detailed by St. Thomas was effectively repudiated by a passage in the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2352, which states that masturbation is "gravely disordered" but affords that there are extenuating circumstances such as "force of acquired habit" which reduce culpability — yet lessened culpability is an issue separate from observing the nature of the act itself. Rape, determined to be less offensive than masturbation in the hierarchy of sins of lust according to St. Thomas supra, is deemed in the Catechism to be "always an intrinsically evil act" (§2356) with no apparent extenuating circumstances listed. To the uncritical view, this may appear to be an assertion that rape is now deemed to be worse than masturbation in the hierarchy of the sins of lust. Yet the difference is a pastoral, not a theological, observation: a person who did not know that rape was a sin would not be as morally culpable as one who did know — yet virtually all persons on earth do know that rape is "intrinsically evil". On a pastoral level, one can observe that many people effectively do not know that masturbation is considered a sin in Catholic theology, let alone a serious one. Hence, their culpability is reduced in some measure, and that observation is not an implicit or explicit repudiation. St. Thomas argues that masturbation is the worst of the "unnatural vices" in the overall category of the sins of lust. This is consistent with observing that masturbation is "gravely disordered"; that a person may have a "force of acquired habit" is simply an observation of the condition of a person; the habit would be said, by St. Thomas, to be to commit an act that is the worst form of lust. That rape is "intrinsically evil" also affords no contradiction. St. Thomas explains in what precise way rape is "intrinsically evil": it is "inconsistent with the end of the venereal act;" "due honor not being paid"; and "if violence be employed." One must understand the distinction between a Catechism and a theological Summa. A catechism is a document of simpler organization and summary argument, whereas a Summa is a treatise intended to expound in detail the relations concepts have to each other.

title: Talk:Thomas Aquinas/Modern Criticism


text:
Virtual field trip

A virtual field trip is a guided exploration through the World Wide Web that organizes a collection of pre-screened, thematically based web pages into a structured online learning experience. (Foley, 2003). Since 2007, another dynamic and interactive form of a virtual field trip has been – and is – freely available. The first was the Pilbara VFT (pilbara.mq.edu.au) with a much more extensive and up-to-date suite of astrobiology-related VFTs at vft.asu.edu.

The non-interactive forms of VFT are an inter-related collection of images, supporting text and/or other media, delivered electronically via the World Wide Web, in a format that can be professionally presented to relate the essence of a visit to a time or place. The virtual experience becomes a unique part of the participants' life experience. (Nix, 1999)

Virtual field trips (VFTs) started appearing around 1995 (LEARNZ), but greatly grew in popularity starting around 2000. The VFT was seen as a way to organize the educational potential of the internet in a coherent, appropriate fashion, particularly for primary and secondary education. A VFT can contain a selection of topic-specific web pages that are strung together into a grade-targeted, organized package. Often these types of VFT are provided by commercial distributors, such as Tramline. www.tramline.com

There are a number of different formats used for VFTs and if you do a search on the Web, you will find thousands of trips. Some trips simply consist of a list of links on one web page, while other trips use some type of navigator (or buttons) to move through the tour. Following current pedagogy; in its best implementation, a VFT is a real time guided field trip that is supported by interactive pages on the Web that have been selected by educators and arranged in a "thread" that teachers and students can follow in either lineal or broad searching. The live links with experts on-site in real-time is a key aspect in creating a "real" experience for students. For example, with LEARNZ virtual field trips students have asked questions of scientists in Antarctica, mining staff underground and even electrical engineers on the top of wind turbines.

Real-time virtual field trips involve the use of videoconferencing and audioconferencing technologies to permit students in one location to virtually visit and learn about people or places in another location. The use of Tandberg and other sound stations make this form of communication more accessible in education. H.323 videoconferencing is increasingly used for educational virtual field trips, since this connectivity option eliminates connection costs over the commodity Internet.

A virtual field trip is a simulated, real-time field trip. In the case of interactive video conferencing, "students interact, in a live even, with a remotely located field trip host." Cole, Ray, Zanetis 2004

A virtual field trip for elementary learners is the opportunity to explore and see places, things, and people not normally seen on a typical classroom day. During a classroom virtual field trip, students can explore places across the high seas, states across our country, and many nearby or far away people, places, and things. This is an opportunity to see and experience the world without ever leaving the classroom.

The virtual field trip is cost-effective to schools. It eliminates the costs of renting transportation, additional insurance coverage and the cost of chaperons.

Elementary school teachers can explore many virtual field trip options through websites like Discovery Ed. There is a tremendous amount of information on the internet for planning virtual field trips geared towards this learning age. It is simple to find resources by searching the words 'virtual field trip for elementary learners' on the web.

title: Virtual field trip


text:
Bogdanov affair

The Bogdanov affair was an academic dispute regarding the legitimacy of obtaining Ph.D. degrees by French twins Igor and Grichka Bogdanov (alternatively spelled Bogdanoff) and a series of theoretical physics papers written by them in order to obtain degrees. The papers were published in reputable scientific journals, and were alleged by their authors to culminate in a theory for describing what occurred before and at the Big Bang.

The controversy began in 2002, with an allegation that the twins, popular celebrities in France for hosting science-themed TV shows, had obtained PhDs with nonsensical work. Rumors spread on Usenet newsgroups that their work was a deliberate hoax intended to target weaknesses in the peer review system that physics journals use to select papers for publication. While the Bogdanov brothers continued to defend the legitimacy of their work, the debate over whether it represented a contribution to physics spread from Usenet to many other internet forums, eventually receiving coverage in the mainstream media. A Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) internal report later concluded that their theses had no scientific value.

The incident prompted criticism of the Bogdanovs' approach to science popularization, led to a number of lawsuits, and provoked reflection among physicists as to how and why the peer review system can fail.

Origin of the affair
The Bogdanov brothers were born in 1949 in the small village of Saint-Lary, in the Gascony region of southwest France. The brothers each studied applied mathematics in Paris, but then began careers in television, hosting several popular programs on science and science fiction. The first of these, Temps X (Time X), ran from 1979 to 1989.

In 1991 the Bogdanovs published a book, Dieu et la Science (God and Science), drawn from interviews with Catholic philosopher Jean Guitton, which became a French bestseller. This book provoked a dispute of its own when University of Virginia astronomy professor Trinh Xuan Thuan accused the Bogdanovs of plagiarizing his 1988 book The Secret Melody: And Man Created the Universe. After a legal battle in France, during which a judge initially ruled in Thuan's favour, Thuan and the Bogdanovs settled out of court, and the Bogdanovs later denied all wrongdoing. Thuan suggests that the plagiarism suit pressed the brothers to obtain doctorates as fast as possible, since (according to Thuan) the back cover of the book claimed that the Bogdanovs held doctorates when they did not. In 1993, the brothers began work toward doctorates, first working under the mathematical physicist Moshé Flato of the University of Burgundy. Flato died in 1998, and his colleague Daniel Sternheimer (of CNRS) took over the job of supervising the Bogdanovs. According to Sternheimer, the twins viewed themselves as "the Einstein brothers" and had a propensity to voice vague, "impressionistic" statements; he considered guiding their efforts "like teaching My Fair Lady to speak with an Oxford accent." As he told The Chronicle of Higher Education, Sternheimer did not consider himself an expert in all the topics Grichka Bogdanov included in his thesis, but judged that those portions within his specialty were PhD-quality work.

Grichka Bogdanov was given a PhD by the University of Burgundy (Dijon) in 1999, though this doctorate is sometimes erroneously described as having been granted by the École Polytechnique. He originally applied for a degree in physics, but was instead given one in mathematics, and was first required to significantly rewrite his thesis, de-emphasizing the physics content. Around the same time, Igor Bogdanov failed the defense of his thesis. His advisors subsequently agreed to allow him to obtain a doctorate if he could publish three peer-reviewed journal articles. In 2002, after publishing the requisite articles, Igor was given a PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Burgundy. Both of the brothers received the lowest passing grade of "honorable", which is seldom given, as Daniel Sternheimer told The New York Times science reporter Dennis Overbye. In justifying the conferring of doctoral degrees to the Bogdanovs, Sternheimer told the Times, "These guys worked for 10 years without pay. They have the right to have their work recognized with a diploma, which is nothing much these days."

In 2001 and 2002 the brothers published five papers in peer-reviewed physics journals, including Annals of Physics and Classical and Quantum Gravity. The controversy over the Bogdanovs' work began on October 22, 2002, with an email sent by University of Tours physicist Max Niedermaier to University of Pittsburgh physicist Ezra T. Newman. Niedermaier suggested that the Bogdanovs' PhD theses and papers were "spoof[s]", created by throwing together instances of theoretical-physics jargon, including terminology from string theory: "The abstracts are delightfully meaningless combinations of buzzwords ... which apparently have been taken seriously." Copies of the email reached American mathematical physicist John Baez, and on 23 October he created a discussion thread about the Bogdanovs' work on the Usenet newsgroup sci.physics.research, titled "Physics bitten by reverse Alan Sokal hoax?" Baez was comparing the Bogdanovs' publications to the 1996 Sokal affair, in which physicist Alan Sokal successfully submitted an intentionally nonsensical paper to a cultural studies journal in order to criticize that field's lax standards for discussing science. The Bogdanovs quickly became a popular discussion topic, with most respondents agreeing that the papers were flawed. The story spread in public media, prompting Niedermaier to offer an apology to the Bogdanovs, admitting that he had not read the papers firsthand. The Bogdanovs' background in entertainment lent some plausibility to the idea that they were attempting a deliberate hoax, but Igor Bogdanov quickly denied the accusation.

The Bogdanov brothers themselves participated in the online discussions, sometimes using pseudonyms or represented by friends acting as proxies. They used these methods to defend their work and sometimes to insult their critics, among them the Nobel Prize recipient Georges Charpak.

In October 2002, the Bogdanovs released an email containing apparently supportive statements by Laurent Freidel, then a visiting professor at the Perimeter Institute. Soon after, Freidel denied writing any such remarks, telling the press that he had forwarded a message containing that text to a friend. The Bogdanovs then attributed the quoted passages to Freidel, who said, "I'm very upset about that because I have received e-mail from people in the community asking me why I've defended the Bogdanov brothers. When your name is used without your consent, it's a violation."

At the start of the controversy in the moderated group sci.physics.research, Igor Bogdanov denied that their published papers were a hoax, but when asked precise questions from physicists Steve Carlip and John Baez regarding mathematical details in the papers, failed to convince any other participants that these papers had any real scientific value. The New York Times reporter George Johnson described reading through the debate as "like watching someone trying to nail Jell-O to a wall", for the Bogdanovs had "developed their own private language, one that impinges on the vocabulary of science only at the edges."

Media reports and comments from scientists
The online discussion was quickly followed by media attention. The Register reported on the dispute on November 1, 2002, and stories in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Nature, The New York Times, and other publications appeared soon after. These news stories included commentary by physicists.

Thesis readers
One of the scientists who approved Igor Bogdanov's thesis, Roman Jackiw of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, spoke to The New York Times reporter Dennis Overbye. Overbye wrote that Jackiw was intrigued by the thesis, although it contained many points he did not understand. Jackiw defended the thesis:"All these were ideas that could possibly make sense. It showed some originality and some familiarity with the jargon. That's all I ask."

In contrast, Ignatios Antoniadis (of the École Polytechnique), who approved Grichka Bogdanov's thesis, later reversed his judgment of it. Antoniadis told Le Monde, I had given a favorable opinion for Grichka's defense, based on a rapid and indulgent reading of the thesis text. Alas, I was completely mistaken. The scientific language was just an appearance behind which hid incompetence and ignorance of even basic physics.

Pre- and post-publication official commentary on the journal articles
In May 2001, the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity (CQG) reviewed an article authored by Igor and Grichka Bogdanov, titled "Topological theory of the initial singularity of spacetime". One of the referees' reports stated that the article was "Sound, original, and of interest. With revisions I expect the paper to be suitable for publication." The paper was accepted by the journal seven months later.

However, after the publication of the article and the publicity surrounding the controversy, mathematician Greg Kuperberg posted to Usenet a statement written by the journal's senior publisher, Andrew Wray, and its co-editor, Hermann Nicolai. The statement read, in part,

Regrettably, despite the best efforts, the refereeing process cannot be 100% effective. Thus the paper ... made it through the review process even though, in retrospect, it does not meet the standards expected of articles in this journal... The paper was discussed extensively at the annual Editorial Board meeting ... and there was general agreement that it should not have been published. Since then several steps have been taken to further improve the peer review process in order to improve the quality assessment on articles submitted to the journal and reduce the likelihood that this could happen again.

The paper in question was, however, not officially withdrawn by the journal. Later, the editor-in-chief of the journal issued a slightly different statement on behalf of the Institute of Physics, which owns the journal, in which he insisted on the fact that their usual peer-review procedures had been followed, but no longer commented on the value of the paper. Moreover, Die Zeit quoted Nicolai as saying that had the paper reached his desk, he would have immediately rejected it.

In 2001, the Czechoslovak Journal of Physics accepted an article written by Igor Bogdanov, entitled "Topological Origin of Inertia". The referee's report concluded: "In my opinion the results of the paper can be considered as original ones. I recommend the paper for publication but in a revised form." The following year, the Chinese Journal of Physics published Igor Bogdanov's "The KMS state of spacetime at the Planck scale". The report stated that "the viewpoint presented in this paper can be interesting as a possible approach of the Planck scale physics." Some corrections were requested.

Not all review evaluations were positive. Eli Hawkins, acting as a referee on behalf of the Journal of Physics A, suggested rejecting one of the Bogdanovs' papers: "It is difficult to describe what is wrong in Section 4, since almost nothing is right. [...] It would take up too much space to enumerate all the mistakes: indeed it is difficult to say where one error ends and the next begins. In conclusion, I would not recommend that this paper be published in this, or any, journal."

Online criticism of the papers
After the start of the Usenet discussion, most comments were critical of the Bogdanovs' work. For example, John C. Baez stated that the Bogdanov papers are "a mishmash of superficially plausible sentences containing the right buzzwords in approximately the right order. There is no logic or cohesion in what they write." Jacques Distler voiced a similar opinion, proclaiming "The [Bogdanovs'] papers consist of buzzwords from various fields of mathematical physics, string theory and quantum gravity, strung together into syntactically correct, but semantically meaningless prose."

Others compared the quality of the Bogdanov papers with that seen over a wider arena. "The Bogdanoffs' work is significantly more incoherent than just about anything else being published", wrote Peter Woit. He continued, "But the increasingly low standard of coherence in the whole field is what allowed them to think they were doing something sensible and to get it published." Woit later devoted a chapter of his book Not Even Wrong (2006) to the Bogdanov affair.

Participants in the discussions were particularly unconvinced by a statement in the "Topological origin of inertia" paper that "whatever the orientation, the plane of oscillation of Foucault's pendulum is necessarily aligned with the initial singularity marking the origin of physical space." In addition, the paper claimed, the Foucault pendulum experiment "cannot be explained satisfactorily in either classical or relativistic mechanics". The physicists commenting on Usenet found these claims and subsequent attempts at their explanation peculiar, since the trajectory of a Foucault pendulum—a standard museum piece—is accurately predicted by classical mechanics. The Bogdanovs explained that these claims would only be clear in the context of topological field theory. Baez and Russell Blackadar attempted to determine the meaning of the "plane of oscillation" statement; after the Bogdanovs issued some elaborations, Baez concluded that it was a complicated way of rephrasing the following: "Since the big bang happened everywhere, no matter which way a pendulum swings, the plane in which it swings can be said to 'intersect the big bang'." However, Baez pointed out, this statement does not in fact concern the Big Bang, and is entirely equivalent to the following: "No matter which way a pendulum swings, there is some point on the plane in which it swings." Yet this rephrasing is itself equivalent to the following statement: "Any plane contains a point." If this was the essence of the statement, Baez noted, it cannot be very useful in "explaining the origin of inertia".

Urs Schreiber, then a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Hamburg, noted that the mention of the Foucault pendulum was at odds with the papers' general tone, since they generally relied upon more "modern terminology". (According to George Johnson, the Foucault pendulum is "an icon of French science that would belong in any good Gallic spoof." ) Schreiber identified five central ideas in the Bogdanovs' work—"'result' A" through "'result' E"—which are expressed in the jargon of statistical mechanics, topological field theory and cosmology. One bit of jargon, the Hagedorn temperature, comes from string theory, but as Schreiber notes, the paper does not use this concept in any detail; moreover, since the paper is manifestly not a string theory treatise, "considering the role the Hagedorn temperature plays in string cosmology, this is bordering on self-parody." Schreiber concludes that the fourth "result" (that the spacetime metric "at the initial singularity" must be Riemannian) contradicts the initial assumption of their argument (an FRW cosmology with pseudo-Riemannian metric). The fifth and last "result", Schreiber notes, is an attempt to resolve this contradiction by "invok[ing] quantum mechanics". The Bogdanovs themselves described Schreiber's summary as "very accurate"; for more on this point, see below. Schreiber concluded, Just to make sure: I do not think that any of the above is valid reasoning. I am writing this just to point out what I think are the central 'ideas' the authors had when writing their articles and how this led them to their conclusions.

Eli Hawkins of Pennsylvania State University voiced a similar concern about "The KMS state of spacetime at the Planck scale".

"The main result of this paper is that this thermodynamic equilibrium should be a KMS state. This almost goes without saying; for a quantum system, the KMS condition is just the concrete definition of thermodynamic equilibrium. The hard part is identifying the quantum system to which the condition should be applied, which is not done in this paper."

Both Baez and, later, Peter Woit noted that content was largely repeated from one Bogdanov paper to another.

Damien Calaque of the Louis Pasteur University, Strasbourg, criticized Grichka Bogdanov's unpublished preprint "Construction of cocycle bicrossproducts by twisting". In Calaque's estimation, the results presented in the preprint did not have sufficient novelty and interest to merit an independent journal article, and moreover the principal theorem was, in its current formulation, false: Grichka Bogdanov's construction yields a bialgebra which is not necessarily a Hopf algebra, the latter being a type of mathematical object which must satisfy additional conditions.

Eventually, the controversy attracted mainstream media attention, opening new avenues for physicists' comments to be disseminated. Le Monde quoted Alain Connes, recipient of the 1982 Fields Medal, as saying, "I didn't need long to convince myself that they're talking about things that they haven't mastered." The New York Times reported that the physicists David Gross, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin considered the Bogdanov papers nonsensical. Nobel laureate Georges Charpak later stated on a French talk show that the Bogdanovs' presence in the scientific community was "nonexistent".

The most positive comments about the papers themselves came from string theorist Luboš Motl:

...Some of the papers of the Bogdanoff brothers are really painful and clearly silly ... But the most famous paper about the solution of the initial singularity is a bit different; it is more sophisticated.

...it does not surprise me much that Roman Jackiw said that the paper satisfied everything he expects from an acceptable paper—the knowledge of the jargon and some degree of original ideas. (And be sure that Jackiw, Kounnas, and Majid were not the only ones with this kind of a conclusion.)

...Technically, their paper connects too many things. It would be too good if all these ideas and (correct) formulae were necessary for a justification of a working solution to the initial singularity problem. But if one accepts that the papers about these difficult questions don't have to be just a well-defined science but maybe also a bit of inspiring art, the brothers have done a pretty good job, I think. And I want to know the answers to many questions that are opened in their paper.

Motl's measured support for "Topological field theory of the initial singularity of spacetime", however, stands in stark contrast to Robert Oeckl's official MathSciNet review, which states that the paper is "rife with nonsensical or meaningless statements and suffers from a serious lack of coherence," follows up with several examples to illustrate his point, and concludes that the paper "falls short of scientific standards and appears to have no meaningful content." An official report from the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), which became public in 2010, concluded that the paper "ne peut en aucune façon être qualifié de contribution scientifique" ("cannot in any way be considered a scientific contribution"). The CNRS report summarized the Bogdanovs' theses thusly: "Ces thèses n’ont pas de valeur scientifique. […] Rarement aura-t-on vu un travail creux habillé avec une telle sophistication" ("These theses have no scientific value. [...] Rarely have we seen a hollow work dressed with such sophistication").

Claims of pseudonymous activity
One episode after the heyday of the affair involved the participation of an unidentified "Professor Yang". Using an e-mail address at the domain th-phys.edu.hk, an individual publishing under this name wrote to a number of individuals and on the Internet to defend the Bogdanov papers. This individual wrote to physicists John Baez, Jacques Distler and Peter Woit; to The New York Times journalist Dennis Overbye; and on numerous physics blogs and forums, signing his name "Professor L. Yang—Theoretical Physics Laboratory, International Institute of Mathematical Physics—HKU/Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong." It is the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology which is located in Clear Water Bay, not Hong Kong University (HKU), whose main campus is located in the Mid-Levels of Hong Kong Island.

The Bogdanovs have claimed that the "domain name 'th-phys.edu.hk' was owned by Hong Kong University." This was not confirmed officially by HKU and no Prof. Yang existed on the roster of the HKU physics department; nor did the university have an "International Institute of Mathematical Physics".

Suspicions were consequently raised that Professor L. Yang was actually a pseudonym of the Bogdanovs. However, Igor Bogdanov has maintained that Professor Yang is a real mathematical physicist with expertise in KMS theory, a friend of his, and that he was posting anonymously from Igor's apartment.

Rayons X and Avant Le Big Bang
In 2002, the Bogdanovs launched a new weekly TV show Rayons X (X Rays) on French public channel France 2. In August 2004, they presented a 90-minute special cosmology program in which they introduced their theory among other cosmological scenarios. The French mainstream media, in both the press and on the Internet, covered the renewed controversy to some extent; media outlets that reported upon it include Acrimed and Ciel et Espace.

In 2004, the Bogdanovs published a commercially successful popular science book, Avant Le Big Bang (Before the Big Bang), based on a simplified version of their theses, where they also presented their point of view about the affair. Both the book and the Bogdanovs' television shows have been criticized for elementary scientific and mathematical inaccuracies. Critics cite examples from Avant Le Big Bang including a statement that the "golden number" φ (phi) is transcendental, an assumption that the limit of a decreasing sequence is always zero, and that the expansion of the Universe implies that the planets of the Solar System have grown farther apart.

In October 2004, a journalist from Ciel et Espace interviewed Shahn Majid of Queen Mary, University of London about his report on Grichka Bogdanov's thesis. Majid said that the French version of his report on Grichka's thesis was "an unauthorized translation partially invented by the Bogdanovs." In one sentence, the English word "interesting" was translated as the French "important". A "draft [mathematical] construction" became "la première construction [mathématique]" ("the first [mathematical] construction"). Elsewhere, an added word demonstrated, according to Majid, that "Bogdanov does not understand his own draft results." Majid also described more than ten other modifications of meaning, each one biased towards "surestimation outrancière"—"outrageous over-estimation". Majid said that his original report described a "very weak" student who nevertheless demonstrated "an impressive amount of determination to obtain a doctorate." Later, Majid claimed in a Usenet post that, in an addendum to Avant Le Big Bang, Grichka intentionally misquoted Majid's opinion on the way this interview had been transcribed.

Additionally, in the same addendum, a critical analysis of their work made by Urs Schreiber, and affirmed by the Bogdanovs as "very accurate", was included with the exception of the concluding remark "Just to make sure: I do not think that any of the above is valid reasoning", thus inverting the meaning from criticism into ostensible support. Moreover, a comment by physicist Peter Woit written as, "It's certainly possible that you have some new worthwhile results on quantum groups", was translated as "Il est tout à fait certain que vous avez obtenu des résultats nouveaux et utiles dans les groupes quantiques" ("It is completely certain that you have obtained new and useful results on quantum groups") and published by the Bogdanovs in the addendum of their book.

Disputes on French and English Wikipedias
At the beginning of 2004, Igor Bogdanov began to post on French Usenet physics groups and Internet forums, continuing the pattern of behavior seen on sci.physics.research. A controversy began on the French Wikipedia when Igor Bogdanov and his supporters began to edit that encyclopedia's article on the brothers, prompting the creation of a new article dedicated to the debate (Polémique autour des travaux des frères Bogdanov—"Debate surrounding the work of the Bogdanov brothers"). The dispute then spread to the English Wikipedia. In November 2005, this led the Arbitration Committee, a dispute resolution panel that acts as the project's court of last resort, to ban anyone deemed to be a participant in the external dispute from editing the English Wikipedia's article on the Bogdanov Affair. A number of English Wikipedia users, including Igor Bogdanov himself, were explicitly named in this ban. In 2006, Baez wrote on his website that for some time the Bogdanovs and "a large crowd of sock puppets" had been attempting to rewrite the English Wikipedia article on the controversy "to make it less embarrassing to them". "Nobody seems to be fooled", he added.

Lawsuits
In December 2004, the Bogdanovs sued Ciel et Espace for defamation over the publication of a critical article entitled "The Mystification of the Bogdanovs". In September 2006, the case was dismissed after the Bogdanovs missed court deadlines; they were ordered to pay 2,500 euros to the magazine's publisher to cover its legal costs. There was never a substantive ruling on whether the Bogdanovs had been defamed.

Alain Riazuelo, an astrophysicist at the Institut d'astrophysique de Paris, participated in many of the online discussions of the Bogdanovs' work. He posted an unpublished version of Grichka Bogdanov's PhD thesis on his personal website, along with his critical analysis. Bogdanov subsequently described this version as "dating from 1991 and too unfinished to be made public". Rather than suing Riazuelo for defamation, Bogdanov filed a criminal complaint of copyright (droit d'auteur) violation against him in May 2011. The police detained and interrogated Riazuelo. He came to trial and was convicted in March 2012. A fine of 2,000 euros the court imposed was suspended, and only one euro of damages was awarded. But in passing judgement the court stated that the scientist had "lacked prudence", given "the fame of the plaintiff".

The verdict outraged many scientists, who felt that the police and courts should have no say in a discussion of the scientific merits of a piece of work. In April 2012, a group of 170 scientists published an open letter titled L'affaire Bogdanoff: Liberté, Science et Justice, Des scientifiques revendiquent leur droit au blâme (The Bogdanov Affair: Liberty, Science and Justice, scientists claim their right of critique).

In 2014, the Bogdanovs sued the weekly magazine Marianne for defamation, on account of reporting the magazine had published in 2010 which had brought the CNRS report to light. The weekly was eventually ordered to pay 64,000 euros in damages, a quantity less than the Bogdanovs had originally demanded (in excess of 800,000 euros each). The Bogdanovs also sued the CNRS for 1.2 million euros in damages, claiming that the CNRS report had "porté atteinte à leur honneur, à leur réputation et à leur crédit" ("undermined their honor, reputation and credit") and calling the report committee a "Stasi scientifique", but a tribunal ruled against them in 2015 and ordered them to pay 2,000 euros.

Megatrend University
In 2005, the Bogdanovs became professors at Megatrend University in Belgrade where they were appointed Chairs of Cosmology and said to direct the Megatrend Laboratory of Cosmology. Mića Jovanović, the rector and owner of Megatrend University, wrote a preface for the Serbian edition of Avant le Big Bang. Jovanović later became embroiled in controversy and resigned his post when it was revealed that he had not obtained a PhD at the London School of Economics as he had claimed. This scandal, combined with the presence of the Bogdanovs, contributed to an atmosphere of controversy surrounding Megatrend.

L'équation Bogdanov
In 2008, Presses de la Renaissance published L'équation Bogdanov: le secret de l'origine de l'univers? (The Bogdanov Equation: The Secret of the Origin of the Universe?), officially written in English by Luboš Motl and translated into French. A review in Science et Vie found that the book was light on detail and never actually said what the "Bogdanov equation" is: "Et arrivé à la conclusion, on n'est même plus très certain qu'elle existe réellement" ("Arriving at the conclusion, one is no longer even very certain that it really exists").

Reflections upon the peer-review system
During the heyday of this affair, some media coverage cast a negative light on theoretical physics, stating or at least strongly implying that it has become impossible to distinguish a valid paper from a hoax. Overbye's article in The New York Times voiced this opinion, for example, as did Declan Butler's piece in Nature. Posters on blogs and Usenet used the affair to criticize the present status of string theory; for the same reason, Peter Woit devoted a chapter of Not Even Wrong, a book emphatically critical of string theory, to the affair. On the other hand, George Johnson's report in The New York Times concludes that physicists have generally decided the papers are "probably just the result of fuzzy thinking, bad writing and journal referees more comfortable with correcting typos than challenging thoughts." String theorist Aaron Bergman riposted in a review of Not Even Wrong that Woit's conclusion "is undermined by a number of important elisions in the telling of the story, the most important of which is that the writings of the Bogdanovs, to the extent that one can make sense of them, have almost nothing to do with string theory. ... I first learned of the relevant papers in a posting on the internet by Dr. John Baez. Having found a copy of one of the relevant papers available online, I posted that 'the referee clearly didn't even glance at it.' While the papers were full of rather abstruse prose about a wide variety of technical areas, it was easy to identify outright nonsense in the areas about which I had some expertise. ... A pair of non-string theorists were able to get nonsensical papers generally not about string theory published in journals not generally used by string theorists. This is surely an indictment of something, but its relevance to string theory is marginal at best."

Jacques Distler argued that the tone of the media coverage had more to do with journalistic practices than with physics. "The much-anticipated New York Times article on the Bogdanov scandal has appeared. Alas, it suffers from the usual journalistic conceit that a proper newspaper article must cover a 'controversy'. There must be two sides to the controversy, and the reporter's job is to elicit quotes from both parties and present them side-by-side. Almost inevitably, this 'balanced' approach sheds no light on the matter, and leaves the reader shaking his head, 'There they go again...'" Distler also suggested that the fact that the Bogdanovs had not uploaded their papers to the arXiv prior to publication, as was standard practice by that time, meant that the physics community must have paid vanishingly little attention to those papers before the hoax rumors broke.

The affair prompted many comments about the possible shortcomings of the referral system for published articles, and also on the criteria for acceptance of a PhD thesis. Frank Wilczek, who edited Annals of Physics (and who would later share the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics), told the press that the scandal motivated him to correct the journal's slipping standards, partly by assigning more reviewing duties to the editorial board.

Prior to the controversy, the reports on the Bogdanov theses and most of the journal referees' reports spoke favorably of their work, describing it as original and containing interesting ideas. This has been the basis of concerns raised about the efficacy of the peer-review system that the scientific community and academia use to determine the merit of submitted manuscripts for publication; one concern is that over-worked and unpaid referees may not be able to thoroughly judge the value of a paper in the little time they can afford to spend on it. Regarding the Bogdanov publications, physicist Steve Carlip remarked:

"Referees are volunteers, who as a whole put in a great deal of work for no credit, no money, and little or no recognition, for the good of the community. Sometimes a referee makes a mistake. Sometimes two referees make mistakes at the same time."

I'm a little surprised that anyone is surprised at this. Surely you've seen bad papers published in good journals before this! ... referees give opinions; the real peer review begins after a paper is published.

Similarly, Richard Monastersky, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, observed, "There is one way...for physicists to measure the importance of the Bogdanovs' work. If researchers find merit in the twins' ideas, those thoughts will echo in the references of scientific papers for years to come." Before the controversy over their work arose, the scientific community had shown practically no interest in the Bogdanovs' papers; indeed, according to Stony Brook physics professor Jacobus Verbaarschot, who served on Igor Bogdanov's dissertation committee, without the hoax rumors "probably no one would have ever known about their articles." , the Bogdanovs' most recent paper was "Thermal Equilibrium and KMS Condition at the Planck Scale", which was submitted to the Chinese Annals of Mathematics in 2001 and appeared in 2003. That journal ceased publication in 2005. One retrospective commented,
 * Up to 2007 the databanks mention a total of six citations for the Bogdanovs' publications. Four of them are citations among themselves and only two are by other physicists.

Comparisons with the Sokal affair
Several sources have referred to the Bogdanov affair as a "reverse Sokal" hoax, drawing a comparison with the Sokal affair, where the physicist Alan Sokal published a deliberately fraudulent and indeed nonsensical article in the humanities journal Social Text. Sokal's original aim had been to test the effects of the intellectual trend he called, "for want of a better term, postmodernism". Worried by what he considered a "more-or-less explicit rejection of the rationalist tradition of the Enlightenment", Sokal decided to perform an experiment which he later cheerfully admitted was both unorthodox and uncontrolled, provoking a maelstrom of reactions which, to his surprise, received coverage in Le Monde and even the front page of The New York Times. The physicist John Baez compared the two events in his October 2002 post to the sci.physics.research newsgroup. Sociologist of science Harry Collins noted that all of the early reports of the incident made reference to the Sokal affair, and he speculated that without Sokal's precedent bringing the idea of hoax publications to mind, the Bogdanov papers would have sunk into the general obscurity of non-influential scientific writing.

Igor and Grichka Bogdanov have and had vigorously insisted upon the validity of their work, while in contrast, Sokal was an outsider to the field in which he was publishing—a physicist, publishing in a humanities journal—and promptly issued a statement himself that his paper was a deliberate hoax. Replying on sci.physics.research, Sokal referred readers to his follow-up essay, in which he notes "the mere fact of publication of my parody" only proved that the editors of one particular journal—and a "rather marginal" one at that—had applied a lax intellectual standard. (According to The New York Times, Sokal was "almost disappointed" that the Bogdanovs had not attempted a hoax after his own style. "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander", he said. ) Baez, who made a comparison between the two affairs, later retracted, saying that the brothers "have lost too much face for [withdrawing the work as a hoax] to be a plausible course of action".

In a letter to The New York Times, Cornell physics professor Paul Ginsparg wrote that the contrast between the cases was plainly evident: "here, the authors were evidently aiming to be credentialed by the intellectual prestige of the discipline rather than trying to puncture any intellectual pretension." He added that the fact some journals and scientific institutions have low or variable standards is "hardly a revelation". The observation was later confirmed by studies showing that high-prestige journals struggle to reach average reliability.

title: Bogdanov affair


text:
Léonin

Léonin (also Leoninus, Leonius, Leo; ) was the first known significant composer of polyphonic organum. He was probably French, probably lived and worked in Paris at the Notre-Dame Cathedral and was the earliest member of the Notre Dame school of polyphony and the ars antiqua style who is known by name. The name Léonin is derived from "Leoninus", which is the Latin diminutive of the name Leo; therefore it is likely that Léonin's given French name was Léo.

Overview
All that is known about him comes from the writings of a later student at the cathedral known as Anonymous IV, an Englishman who left a treatise on theory and who mentions Léonin as the composer of the Magnus Liber, the "great book" of organum. Much of the Magnus Liber is devoted to clausulae—melismatic portions of Gregorian chant which were extracted into separate pieces where the original note values of the chant were greatly slowed down and a fast-moving upper part is superimposed. Léonin might have been the first composer to use the rhythmic modes, and may have invented a notation for them. According to W.G. Waite, writing in 1954: "It was Léonin's incomparable achievement to introduce a rational system of rhythm into polyphonic music for the first time, and, equally important, to create a method of notation expressive of this rhythm."

The Magnus Liber was intended for liturgical use. According to Anonymous IV, "Magister Leoninus (Léonin) was the finest composer of organum; he wrote the great book (Magnus Liber) for the gradual and antiphoner for the sacred service." All of the Magnus Liber is for two voices, although little is known about actual performance practice: the two voices were not necessarily soloists.

According to Anonymous IV, Léonin's work was improved and expanded by the later composer Pérotin. See also Medieval music.

The musicologist Craig M. Wright believes that Léonin may have been the same person as a contemporaneous Parisian poet, Leonius, after whom Leonine verse may have been named. This could make Léonin's use of meter even more significant.

title: Léonin


text: Talk:Mexico City

title: Talk:Mexico City


text:
Mr. Nanny

Mr. Nanny is a 1993 American family comedy film starring professional wrestler Hulk Hogan. The working title of the film was Rough Stuff, and David Johansen also recorded a song by that name for the film.

Plot
Sean Armstrong is a former wrestler living in Palm Beach, Florida and suffering from wrestler-days' nightmares. Burt Wilson, Sean's friend and former manager, has a bum leg from saving Sean's life and financial difficulties with his personal security business. With much whining and acting, Burt manages to persuade Sean to take a bodyguard job for Alex Mason Sr., the head of the prestigious tech firm, Mason Systems, which is developing a new anti-missile system, the Peacefinder Project. The vital information for this project is stored on a microchip. But it is neither the inventor nor the chip Sean has to guard – he is to look after the two Mason kids: Alex Jr. and Kate.

Alex and Kate are two highly mischievous kids who vie for their often-too-absent father's attention by wreaking havoc in the household via elaborate and rather vicious pranks and booby-traps, with their specialty targets being the nannies he has assigned to take care of them (Alex Sr. is a widower). However, their father proves to be either too distracted or too lenient, which causes the children to continue their schemes. Thinking that he is a new, albeit unusual replacement, they find a new target in Sean. But after one prank too many, which involves a swimming pool full of red dye ("the Pit of Blood"), Sean finally exerts his authority and not only gets to quiet Alex and Kate down, he also manages to open the eyes of their father to his family problems, as well as bonding with the kids and managing to help them sort out problems of their own.

Mason's chip is coveted by Tommy Thanatos, an unscrupulous and vain criminal who will not stop at anything to get it. As it turns out, Sean and Burt had been once at the receiving end of one of his schemes: he had ordered them to throw a match, and when they had not complied, he attempted to shoot them. However, Burt threw himself in front of Sean, taking the bullet in his right leg; Sean had chased Thanatos to the roof of the stadium, and after a furious fight, Thanatos ended up plunging head-first into an empty pool. This accident fractured the top of his skull, forcing the attachment of a steel skullplate and removing the bulk of his proud afro mane.

Thanatos kidnaps Alex Sr. with the help of Frank Olsen, the corrupt security chief of Mason Systems (who is disposed of en route to the hideout), and demands of him to hand over the chip. When Alex Sr. (who stowed the chip in Kate's doll) refuses, Thanatos has Alex and Kate kidnapped in order to force him to comply. Despite a valiant effort, Sean is overpowered and Burt is taken as well, giving Thanatos an unexpected revenge bonus. But Sean manages to track down Thanatos, and with the help of his friends is able to beat the villains. As Thanatos prepares to charge Sean, Alex Sr. and the children activate an improvised electromagnet to launch him into the night sky, leaving only his skullplate.

The movie ends with Sean preparing to take a leave of absence from the Masons. But Alex and Kate intend to have him back much sooner – and therefore Sean falls victim to yet another prank.

Cast

 * Hulk Hogan as Sean Armstrong
 * Sherman Hemsley as Burt Wilson
 * Austin Pendleton as Alex Mason Sr.
 * Madeline Zima as Kate Mason
 * Robert Hy Gorman as Alex Mason Jr.
 * Mother Love as Corinne
 * David Johansen as Tommy Thanatos
 * Raymond O'Connor as Frank Olsen
 * Peter Kent as Wolfgang
 * Jen Sung as Kojiro
 * Jeff Moldovan as Jocko
 * Artie Malesci as Skipper
 * Tim Powell as Lieutenant
 * Sandy Mielke as Principal
 * Darci Osiecky as Teacher
 * Kelly Erin as Nanny
 * Joshua Santiago as Bully #1
 * Danny Fotou as Bully #2
 * Afa Anoa'i as himself
 * Brutus Beefcake as himself
 * George "The Animal" Steele as himself
 * Jim “The Anvil” Neidhart as himself (uncredited)
 * Kamala as himself (uncredited)
 * Angeline-Rose Troy as Student (uncredited)

Box office
The film was a box office bomb, grossing just $4.3 million against its $10 million budget.

Critical response
The film was poorly received by critics. On Rotten Tomatoes it has an approval rating of 6% based on reviews from 16 critics. On Metacritic, the film had an average score of 18 out of 100, based on 13 critics, indicating "overwhelming dislike".

Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times says the premise has potential but that the film is "needlessly crass and lethally heavy-handed" Chris Hicks of the Deseret News calls the film "a silly kiddie flick that retreads territory better covered by Mr. Mom, Home Alone and any number of clones." He calls the film predictable and finds the comic mayhem difficult to recommend for children.

title: Mr. Nanny


text:
Keck Graduate Institute

Keck Graduate Institute (KGI) is a private graduate school in Claremont, California. Founded by Henry Riggs  and David Galas  in 1997, it is the seventh and newest member of the Claremont Colleges.

History
Henry Riggs, then president of Harvey Mudd College, established the institute in 1997 to address what he perceived as a lack of scientists trained to convert new scientific discoveries into practical uses. He also became the institute's first president, serving until 2003. David J. Galas, co-founder of the 7th Claremont College, working closely with the visionary President, Henry Riggs, then served as the Chief Academic and Scientific Officer, Dean of the Faculty, Norris Professor of Applied Life Sciences.

The decision to establish Keck Graduate Institute as a seventh Claremont College was met with some opposition, particularly from faculty of the other Claremont Colleges who objected to its lack of tenure, and environmentalists who opposed its plans to build a campus next to the Bernard Field Station, an area of undeveloped scrubland. The environmental issue was largely settled when KGI decided to establish its campus at a different location, and other opposition gradually faded.

The institute received a $50 million endowment from the W. M. Keck Foundation, after which it was named. It awarded its first Master of Bioscience degree in 2002.

In 2003, Sheldon Schuster became the second president in the institute's history and in 2023, announced his retirement. Schuster took over from Riggs, who became chairman of the school's board of trustees. Schuster is a biochemist who previously served as director of the University of Florida's biotechnology research program. In 2024, Keck Graduate Institute's Board of Trustees named Mohamed Abousalem as KGI's third president.

Academics
Academic programs at KGI are organized into three schools: School of Applied Life Sciences, School of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, and School of Medicine. Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences is accredited by the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. The School of Pharmacy and Health Sciences is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). In August 2019, KGI appointed J. Mario Molina as dean of the new School of Medicine.

KGI also has a Master of Science in Human Genetics and Genetic Counseling program accredited by Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling.

Research centers
KGI maintains four research centers: the Center for Rare Disease Therapies, the Center for Biomarker Research, the Science Heritage Center and the Amgen Bioprocessing Center. The Amgen Bioprocessing Center was funded by a 2004 grant of $2 million to KGI from Amgen, a pharmaceutical company based in Thousand Oaks, California.

On December 28, 2016, KGI announced a plan to start a Master of Science in Human Genetics and Genetic Counseling program funded by an additional $1.5 million grant from Amgen.

Spin-off companies
Ionian Technologies was founded in 2000, and was the first spin-off company to commercialize technology developed at KGI. Ionian focuses on molecular diagnostics for emerging and infectious diseases, and in 2004 was awarded a contract to develop a handheld biothreat detector using isothermal amplification of DNA. Other KGI startups include Zuyder Pharmaceuticals and Claremont BioSolutions.

Presidents

 * Henry E. Riggs (1997–2003)
 * Sheldon Schuster (2003–2024)
 * Mohamed Abousalem (2024–)

title: Keck Graduate Institute


text:
Łańcut

Łańcut (, לאַנצוט; Ла́ньцут; Landshut) is a town in south-eastern Poland, with 18,004 inhabitants, as of 2 June 2009. Situated in the Subcarpathian Voivodeship (since 1999), it is the capital of Łańcut County.

History
Archeological investigations carried out in the region of Łańcut confirm the existence of human settlements from about 4000 years B.C.

The first owner of the town was Otton (z Pilczy) Pilecki, who was given the Łańcut estate by the Polish king, Casimir III the Great, in 1349, as a reward for his service. At the same time, the king also granted Łańcut its city rights according to Magdeburg law. In 1381 Łańcut was officially named a ‘town’ for the first time, by Otton Pilecki, in the foundation charter of the town. Łańcut remained under the ownership of the Pilecki family up to 1586.

The city was then owned consecutively by aristocratic Polish families of Stadnicki, Lubomirski, and Potocki. Łańcut was purchased by Stanisław Lubomirski in 1629, at which time he secured the services of architect Matteo (‘Maciej’) Trapola and the stuccoist Giovanni Battista Falconi, in order to build a fortified residence in the town, Łańcut Castle, completed in 1641 and reconstructed many times since. Jerzy Sebastian Lubomirski, fearing attack from the Swedes, further strengthened the fortifications. To perform these works he employed Tylman van Gameren, a Dutchman and one of the most prominent foreign architects to ever work in Poland.

The castle is situated in the centre of the town and constructed in the style of a grand aristocratic palace-residence. It was last owned until 1944 by the Potocki family, and made infamous in late 16th century during the times of Stanisław Stadnicki, who was known as 'the Devil of Łańcut' (Polish: diabeł łańcucki) for his violent behaviour. After 1775 the palace was owned by Izabella Lubomirska, who extended it and had the interiors remodelled. The palace is currently a museum particularly well known for its large collection of historic carriages. Since 1961, a well-known classical music festival is held there annually.

In 1772, after the First Partition of Poland, Łańcut became part of the Austrian Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria where it remained until 1918 when it became part of reborn independent Poland. In the 1830s, Ignacy Łukasiewicz, Polish pharmacist and inventor, known as the pioneer of the world's petroleum industry, was an apprentice in a pharmacy in Łańcut. At that time he joined the Polish secret resistance movement, and the Austrian police conducted the first investigation against him.

At the end of the 18th century, Duchess Izabela Lubomirska established a distillery on the vast estate of the Lubomirski family in Łańcut. Count Alfred Wojciech Potocki, a grandson and heir of the Duchess, started to run the Łańcut and Lwów Lubomirski estates in 1823. He modernised the management of these properties. The distillery has changed ownership several times and now exists under the name of Polmos Łańcut. It is well known for producing flavoured and sweetened vodkas.

Jews began to settle in Łańcut in the 16th century: the earliest mention of a settler is 1554. The landowner Stanisław Lubomirski employed a Jewish factor for his Łańcut estate in 1629. in 1707 the Council of Four Lands (the Polish Jewish parliament). met in Łańcut. A wooden synagogue burnt down in 1716 and new brick synagogue was commenced in 1726. The project was supported by the Lubomirski family and the synagogue, which still stands, was completed in 1761 (see below). Local Jewish cemeteries are the resting place of the famous Rabbi Zvi Naftali Horowitz, the Grand Rabbi of Ropczyce and Rabbi Ahron Moshe Leifer, the Grand Rabbi of Żołynia. Every year, followers of the Hasidic Judaism come to pray at their graves.

Within interwar Poland, Łańcut was a county seat administratively located in the Lwów Voivodeship. Prior to World War II, Łańcut had a thriving Jewish community constituting about one-third of the city population. In 1939 there were 2,750 Jews in Łańcut. The 10th Mounted Rifle Regiment of the Polish Army was stationed in Łańcut in the interbellum.

During the German invasion of Poland, which started World War II, on September 9, 1939, Łańcut was a place of fierce defense by Poles under the command of Colonel Stanisław Maczek, who would become one of the Polish heroes of World War II. During the subsequent German occupation, the Einsatzgruppe I entered the town between September 17 and October 5, 1939, to commit various atrocities against Poles. In November 1939, the Germans deceitfully requested the presence of Polish intelligentsia from the town and county at a supposed conference on the county's economic matters, at which they then arrested over 200 people, including local officials, teachers and priests (see Intelligenzaktion). Some of them were imprisoned in Rzeszów along with Poles from other towns of the region. A temporary prisoner-of-war camp for Polish soldiers was operated in Łańcut in 1939, and around 25,000 people were held there in mid-November 1939. Nevertheless, the Polish resistance movement was organized in the town, and since May 1940, underground Polish newspaper Odwet was distributed in Łańcut. From 1942 onwards the German occupiers began transportation and murder of the Jewish community; very few of the community survived. The Germans executed several Poles in the town for rescuing Jews, while at least one Polish man managed to escape and survive. There is also a well-known case where a Jewish family from Łańcut was hidden from the Germans by the Polish Ulma family in the nearby village of Markowa. In 1944 the Germans discovered the hideout and murdered the Polish family and two hidden Jewish families, 16 people in total, including children. The town's architecture avoided significant damage during the war.

The last owner of Łańcut, Alfred Antoni Potocki, (14 June 1886 – 30 March 1958), was one of the richest men in prewar Poland, accumulating a fantastic collection of art during his tenancy. Shortly before the arrival of the Red Army in 1944, he loaded 11 railway carriages of a specially chartered train to Vienna, with his most valuable possessions (about 700 boxes of movable property) and fled to Liechtenstein. Most of these valuables were gradually sold off to finance a lavish lifestyle.

The Music Festival in Łańcut has been an annual event since 1961. The Festival is a series of modern and classical music concerts performed by distinguished European soloists, ensembles and choirs.

Main sights

 * The Łańcut Castle, also called the Lubomirski and Potocki Palace. It was built in 1628–1641 by Stanisław Lubomirski, rebuilt in 1894–1903 in the style of French Neo-baroque. In the castle grounds there is a park with the little romantic castle, a coachhouse with a collection of carriages, a guest-house in the English style and other structures. The castle complex is a Historic Monument of Poland.
 * The Łańcut Synagogue, completed in 1761. German invaders in 1939 attempted to burn the synagogue down, but were prevented by Count Alfred Antoni Potocki. Although plain on the exterior, the interior walls and ceiling are decorated with restorations of paintings and stuccowork from the 18th century and polychromies from the 19th – 20th centuries.
 * The architectural complex of the ancient Church and the Dominican monastery (Rynek) rebuilt repeatedly, the oldest phase of the construction going back to the 15th century.
 * The Parish Church of Saint Stanislaus (Farna Street) going back to the 15th century. Rebuilt in 1884–1900.

Transport
Łańcut is located on the main West-East European E40 Highway, which goes from Calais in France via Belgium, across Germany, Poland, Ukraine and on to Russia and Kazakhstan. Other Polish cities located by the E40 highway are Wrocław, Opole, Katowice, Kraków, Tarnów, Rzeszów and Przemyśl.

The nearest airport is Rzeszów-Jasionka Airport located in the village of Jasionka, north of Rzeszów. It is about 18 km north-west of Łańcut on the A881 and takes about 25–30 minutes by car. Scheduled passenger services include flights to: Warsaw (WAW), Dublin, London (Stansted), Bristol, UK, Birmingham, UK, New York City (JFK Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport).

Łańcut has a railway station, located at Kolejowa Street 1. It is on the main line, Kraków Main station — Medyka. The line then continues on to Ukraine.

The bus station is located at the crossroads of Kościuszko Street and Sikorski Street.

Sports
The most notable sports club is basketball team, which competes since 2022/2023 in the Polish Basketball League, Poland's highest level league.

Twin towns – sister cities
Łańcut is twinned with:

title: Łańcut


text:
London Underground 1973 Stock

The London Underground 1973 Stock is a type of rolling stock used on the Piccadilly line of the London Underground. It was introduced into service in 1975 with the extension of the line to Hatton Cross, followed by a further extension to Heathrow Central in 1977. A total of 86 six-car trains were built.

The trains were built by Metro-Cammell between 1974 and 1977, and were refurbished by Bombardier Transportation between 1996 and 2001. They are some of the oldest trains running on the Underground, and in Britain as a whole, second only to the 1972 Stock running on the Bakerloo line.

History
In the early 1970s London Transport placed an order for a new fleet of trains to replace the 1938 Stock and 1959 Stock vehicles which previously operated on the Piccadilly line. Built between 1974 and 1977 by Metro Cammell in Birmingham, the first unit entered service on 19 July 1975 and the last was introduced by 1977. The trains featured longer cars and larger door space than the previous units, being designed for airport travellers with luggage.

The order was for $87 1/2$ 6-car trains, made up of 196 driving motor (DM) cars, 175 trailer (T) cars and 154 uncoupling non-driving motor (UNDM) cars. Each train is made up of two 3-car units, and most units are single-ended, formed DM-T-UNDM. There are also 21 double-ended units, formed DM-T-DM, to provide additional flexibility and to operate the Aldwych shuttle (now closed).

The initial order included two test units equipped with solid state traction equipment and electronic control systems. These were double-ended units 892-692-893 (delivered 1977) and 894-694-895 (delivered 1979), and were known collectively as the ETT (Experimental Tube Train). The first unit was equipped by Westinghouse, the second by GEC. In order to provide additional units for the opening of the Heathrow loop, these units were converted to standard at Acton Works, entering service between 1986 and 1987.

One three-car unit (166-566-366) was damaged in a terrorist attack on 7 July 2005 and subsequently scrapped.

Refurbishment
From 1996 to 2001, the entire fleet was refurbished by Bombardier Prorail at Horbury railway works. The interior was completely remodelled, with changes including the removal of transverse seating, replacement of the original wooden flooring with new floor material, replacement of straphangers with new grab rails, new enclosures for the ceiling ventilation fans, brighter lighting with new diffusers, installation of car-end windows and new perch seats in the centre of the cars, creating more luggage space for airport passengers.

The original unpainted exterior was painted in London Underground's corporate livery, and a new emergency detrainment system was fitted in the cabs. The external destination blinds were also replaced with LCDs, and these were subsequently replaced with new LED units in 2015.

Interior dot-matrix displays were also introduced around this time, with later refurbished trains having a more compact surrounding than earlier refurbished cars.

The final refurbished unit re-entered service on 10 July 2001.

Future replacement
The Deep tube programme (DTP) originally covered the replacement of the trains and signalling on the Bakerloo and Piccadilly lines, and had been expanded to cover rolling stock requirements arising from the planned extension of the Northern line to Battersea, the eventual replacement of Central line trains, and proposed increased service frequency on the Northern and Jubilee lines. The EVO tube concept design, a lighter articulated train with walk-through cars, was introduced early in 2011.

In early 2014 the Bakerloo, Piccadilly, Central and Waterloo & City line rolling stock replacement project was renamed New Tube for London (NTfL) and moved from its feasibility stage to the design and specification stage. The proposal introduces fully automated trains and signalling to increase capacity first on the Piccadilly line in 2025, followed by the Central, Waterloo & City, and Bakerloo lines by 2033. The fully automated trains may not have drivers. The ASLEF and RMT trade unions that represent the drivers strongly oppose this, saying it would be unsafe.

In June 2018, TfL announced 94 nine-car 2024 stock trains to replace the 1973 Stock. As of early 2021, these are expected to enter service from 2025.

title: London Underground 1973 Stock


text:
KGI

KGI is an acronym for:

 * Keck Graduate Institute
 * Kernel Graphics Interface
 * Knight Global Investments
 * KGI Bank

KGI may also refer to:

 * Kalgoorlie-Boulder Airport, IATA airport code

title: KGI


text:
Talk:Irrawaddy

Untitled
this is weird!

title: Talk:Irrawaddy


text:
User:Dominus/Sandbox

Backup of MJD article
User:Dominus/Sandbox/MJD

Stuff
A Discourse Concerning the Beauty of Providence (1649) took an unfashionable line, namely that divine providence was more inscrutable than current interpreters were saying. It added to the reputation of Wilkins, when the Stuarts returned to the throne, to have warned that the short term reading of events as managed by God was risky.

---

--

citation

-

$$      { \Gamma \vdash \alpha  \qquad  \Sigma, \beta  \vdash \gamma \over \Gamma, \Sigma, \alpha\rarr\beta \vdash\gamma} \qquad  ({\rm Left} \rarr) $$

(Left →) -

$$\input prooftree$$

-

B|-b         a|-a -- Left \rarr ('G = b, 'S = {}) g |- g            b,b\rarr a |- a        --- Left \rarr ('G = g, S = b\rarr a)                g,b\rarr a,g\rarr b |- a                - Right \rarr b\rarr a,g\rarr b |- g\rarr a               -- Right \rarr b\rarr a |- (g\rarr b) \rarr g\rarr a               --- Right \rarr |- (b\rarr a) \rarr (g\rarr b) \rarr g\rarr a

$$

{{ {  {\gamma\vdash \gamma \qquad {{\beta\vdash \beta \qquad \alpha\vdash \alpha} \over {\beta,\, \beta\rarr \alpha \vdash \alpha}} Left \rarr (\Gamma = \beta,\, \Sigma = \emptyset)} \over {\gamma,\, \beta\rarr \alpha,\, \gamma\rarr \beta \vdash \alpha} } Left \rarr (\Gamma = \gamma,\, \Sigma = \beta\rarr \alpha) } \over { \beta\rarr\alpha,\, \gamma\rarr\beta\vdash\gamma\rarr\alpha}} Right \rarr

$$

—Dominus 17:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC) —Dominus (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

title: User:Dominus/Sandbox


text:
London Underground 1959 Stock

The 1959 Tube Stock was a type of London Underground tube train constructed in the late 1950s. They were intended for use on the Piccadilly line, but also saw use on several other tube lines. It was the first production tube stock to have unpainted aluminium alloy bodywork.

Construction
The 1959 Stock was built by Metro-Cammell in Birmingham and were closely based on the prototype aluminium alloy bodied 1956 Stock. As with the 1956 stock, the DM cars seated 42, the NDM and T cars seated 40 each. They were initially built for service on the Piccadilly line, where they first entered service on 14 December 1959. It operated at various times on the Northern, Bakerloo, Central and Piccadilly lines. The units had a long career, with a few examples remaining in service until 2000, three years beyond their intended withdrawal date.

The 1959 Stock entered service on the Piccadilly line, but most units were first drafted to the Central line because that line's "Standard stock" was becoming very unreliable. The Central line's version of the 1959 stock, the 1962 stock, later took over.

Transfer from the Piccadilly line
The Piccadilly line extension to Heathrow, which opened in the late 1970s, coincided with the introduction of new 1973 Stock. Therefore, the 1959 Stock was transferred to the Northern line between 1975 and 1979, allowing the scrapping of the oldest 1938 Stock on that line. The 1959 Stock also saw service on the Bakerloo line from 1983 to 1989, again to facilitate withdrawal of 1938 Stock, before being replaced by the 1972 Mk2 Stock in 1989. Although never assigned to it, the 1959 trains are also known to have run occasional service on the Jubilee line following its 1979 split from the Bakerloo.

When new, the 1959 stock was seen as distinctive because of the clean 'silver' exterior. Over the years, however, the trains' unpainted exteriors became jaded and dirty. The blue and grey interiors dated quickly. Stylistically the 1959 stock looked worn, but without the aesthetic red and green charm or old-fashioned thirties ambience of the more celebrated 1938 stock.

By the mid-1990s, these units were getting old and were in need of works attention. By this time, all the remaining 1959 Stock was concentrated on the Northern line. Minor refurbishment of the stock took place, painting the blue/grey interiors white and replacing some of the seat moquettes. This was done in a haphazard manner, the white interiors becoming very dirty inside by 1998, and with a failure rate that had risen to 1 in 1864 mi, the 1959 Stock was in urgent need of replacement.

Replacement
New trains in the form of 1995 Stock were built as replacements for both the 1959 stock and the 30 trains of 1972 stock also operating on the Northern line. Originally it had been planned to keep the 1972 stock running with the new trains, with the same extensive refurbishment as done to the 1972 stock on the Bakerloo line, but after one trial refurbishment of a Northern line 1972 stock carriage it was decided that it would be more cost-effective in the long run to have the line operated by one type of train only. Withdrawal of the 1959 Stock was a drawn-out affair, and when the last example was withdrawn on 27 January 2000, it was the last remaining tube train to be crewed with a motorman and a guard. One unit was repainted in "heritage" red and cream livery in 1990 to commemorate the line's 100th anniversary. One trailer forms part of the Central Line Sandite train, the other cars were the 1962 stock.

Several vehicles have been preserved, at various locations, including one complete 4-car unit (1304). The complete list is shown below.

title: London Underground 1959 Stock


text:
Ponginae

Ponginae, also known as the Asian hominids, is a subfamily in the family Hominidae. Once a diverse lineage of Eurasian apes, the subfamily has only one extant genus, Pongo (orangutans), which contains three extant species; the Sumatran orangutan (Pongo abelii), the Tapanuli orangutan (Pongo tapanuliensis) and the Bornean orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus). All three species are listed as critically endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Evolutionary history
The first pongine genera appear in the Miocene, Sivapithecus and Khoratpithecus, six or seven million years before evidence of orangutans was found from Pleistocene southeast Asia and southern China. Ponginae may also include the genera Lufengpithecus, Ankarapithecus, and Gigantopithecus. However, phylogenetic analysis in 2004, which originally found Lufengpithecus and Ankarapithecus to be most closely related to the orangutan, gave different results "under an analytical method that attempted to reduce stratigraphic incongruence", instead placing them on the base of the stem of the African ape-human clade.

Meganthropus was considered by the majority of paleoanthropologists as falling within the variation of Homo erectus. However, a study from 2019 of tooth morphology found Meganthropus a valid genus of non-hominin hominid ape, most closely related to Lufengpithecus

The most well-known fossil genus of Ponginae is Sivapithecus, consisting of several species from 12.5 million to 8.5 million years ago. It differs from orangutans in dentition and postcranial morphology.

Taxonomy
Ponginae
 * †Lufengpithecini
 * †Lufengpithecus
 * Lufengpithecus lufengensis
 * Lufengpithecus keiyuanensis
 * Lufengpithecus hudienensis
 * †Meganthropus
 * Meganthropus palaeojavanicus
 * †Sivapithecini
 * †Ankarapithecus
 * Ankarapithecus meteai
 * †Sivapithecus
 * Sivapithecus parvada
 * Sivapithecus sivalensis
 * Sivapithecus indicus
 * †Gigantopithecus
 * Gigantopithecus bilaspurensis
 * Gigantopithecus blacki
 * †Indopithecus
 * Indopithecus giganteus
 * Pongini
 * †Khoratpithecus
 * Khoratpithecus ayeyarwadyensis
 * Khoratpithecus piriyai
 * Khoratpithecus chiangmuanensis
 * Pongo (orangutans)
 * †Pongo hooijeri
 * †Pongo weidenreichi
 * Sumatran orangutan, Pongo abelii
 * Bornean orangutan, Pongo pygmaeus
 * Tapanuli orangutan, Pongo tapanuliensis

title: Ponginae


text:
Ustrzyki Dolne

Ustrzyki Dolne (Istrik, Устри́ки-Долі́шні) is a town in south-eastern Poland, situated in the Subcarpathian Voivodeship (since 1999) close to the border with Ukraine. It is the capital of Bieszczady County, with 9,383 inhabitants (02.06.2009).

In existence since the 15th century, Ustrzyki received its city charter around 1727. During the First Partition of Poland, in 1772 it became part of the Habsburg monarchy where it remained until 1918. After the defeat of Austria-Hungary Ustrzyki became part of the newly independent Poland. Major growth of the Ustrzyki economy began in the 19th century, when a railway connection to Przemyśl and Sanok was built in 1872, and the exploitation of local oil fields began. Temporarily in the USSR after the Vistula–Oder Offensive in 1944–45, it became part of postwar Poland following the 1951 Polish-Soviet territorial exchange.

The word Dolne means Lower. There exists a village Ustrzyki Górne - Upper.

Timeline of history

 * 1497, Foundation of Ustrzyki Dolne as a royal village in the district Przemyśl
 * 1723, Old town is built. First Jews appear in the town
 * 1772, Ustrzyki Dolne together with Galicia becomes part of the Austrian Empire
 * 1800–1850, Ustrzyki Dolne is part of the district Sanok (Königreich Galizien)
 * 1850–1918, Ustrzyki Dolne is part of the district Lisko
 * During World War I, Ustrzyki Dolne was occupied for six months by the Russian army and in 1918 for two months by Ukrainian troops.
 * 1919–1939, Ustrzyki Dolne is part of the Lwów Voivodeship. On 1 January 1939 in city lived 4,300 residents (550 Ukrainians, 1,150 Polish people, 2,600 Jews).
 * 1939 September, Occupation by German troops. 100 Jews are killed. Soon transferred to Soviet Union as part of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact
 * 1939–1941, Soviet annexation. Part of the Drohobych Oblast
 * 1941–1944, German occupation. The city is initially taken by Slovak troops and transferred under the German administration. Jewish population is killed in the town or deported to Belzec where they are immediately gassed. Probably only ten or fewer of Ustrzyki Dolne's prewar Jewish population survived the war.
 * 1944–1951, Soviet administration. Part of the Drohobych Oblast
 * 1951–1974, As part of a land swap with the Soviet Union, Ustrzyki Dolne becomes Polish again and is part of the province Rzeszów.
 * 1974–1998, Ustrzyki Dolne becomes part of the Krosno Voivodeship.
 * 1998, Ustrzyki Dolne becomes part of the Subcarpathian Voivodeship (capital Rzeszów)

Twin towns — Sister cities
Ustrzyki Dolne is twinned with:
 * 🇺🇦 Sambir, Ukraine
 * 🇸🇰 Giraltovce, Slovakia
 * 🇭🇺 Zamárdi, Hungary

title: Ustrzyki Dolne


text:
User talk:JonMauser

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your material on primates. I hope you like it here and stick around. If you want, you can drop us a note at New user log to introduce yourself.

Before you start doing a lot of editing, you'll want to take the Tutorial. It gives all the basic info you'll need as you start contributing.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using " " for your username and " ~ " for your username and a timestamp.

If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Help desk. You can also drop me a question on my talk page.

Happy editing, Isomorphic 18:21, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:JonMauser