text:
Carnatic region

The Carnatic region is the peninsular South Indian region between the Eastern Ghats and the Bay of Bengal, in the erstwhile Madras Presidency and in the modern Indian states of Tamil Nadu and southern coastal Andhra Pradesh. During the British era, demarcation was different and the region included current day Karnataka and the whole region south of the Deccan.

Etymology
A number of theories exist as to the derivation of the term Carnatic or Karnatic.

According to Bishop Robert Caldwell, in his Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian Languages, the term is derived from Kar, "black", and nadu, "country", i.e. "the black country", which refers to the black soil prevalent on the plateau of the Southern Deccan.

When the English settled on the East Coast, all South India, from the river Krishna to Cape Comorin, was under the rule of a Kanarese dynasty, reigning at Vijayanagar, and was known as the Karnataka Realm. Hence the name "Carnatic" has come to be popularly applied to the coastal plains south of Madras, although these are Tamil-speaking districts and quite outside the Kanarese country proper.

Geography
The region that was named Carnatic or Karnatak (Kannada, Karnata, Karnatakadesa) by Europeans lies between the Eastern Ghats and the Coromandel Coast in the presidency of Madras.

The name is applicable only to the country of the Kanarese extending between the Eastern and Western Ghats, over an irregular area narrowing northwards, from Palghat in the south to Bidar in the north including Mysore. The extension of the name to the country south of the Karnata was probably due to the Mahommedan conquerors who in the 16th century overthrew the kingdom of Vijayanagara and extended the name which they used for the country north of the Ghats to that south of them. After this period the plain country of the south came to be called Karnata Payanghat, or "lowlands", as distinguished from Karnata Balaghat, or "highlands." The misapplication of the name Carnatic was carried by the British a step further. Officially, however, this name is no longer applied, "the Carnatic" having become a mere geographical term. Administratively the name Carnatic (or rather Karnatak) is now applied only to the Bombay portion of the original Karnata, viz. the districts of Belgaum, Dharwar, and Bijapur, part of North Kanara, and the native states of the Southern Mahratta agency and Kolhapur.

Sub-divisions
The region was generally known to Europeans as the Carnatic, not a political or administrative division, is of great historical importance. It extended along the eastern coast about 600 kilometers in length, and between 50 and 100 kilometers in breadth. It was bounded on the north by the Guntur circar, and thence it stretched southward to Cape Comorin. It was divided into the Southern, Central, and Northern Carnatic. The region south of the river Coleroon, passing the town of Trichinopoly, was called the Southern Carnatic. The principal towns of this division were Tanjore, Trichinopoly, Madurai, Tranquebar, Negapatam and Tinnevelly. The Central Carnatic extended from the Coleroon river to the river Pennar; its chief towns being Madras, Pondicherry, Arcot, Vellore, Cuddalore, Pulicat, Nellore and a few other towns. The Northern Carnatic extended from the river Pennar to the northern limit of the country, and the chief town was Ongole. The Carnatic, as above defined, comprehended within its limits the maritime provinces of Nellore, Chingleput, South Arcot, Tanjore, Madurai and Tinnevelly, besides the inland districts of North Arcot and Trichinopoly. The population of this region consisted chiefly of Brahmanical Hindus. Muslims were thinly scattered over the country.

History
In the earliest historical period, the area now known as the Carnatic was divided between the Pandya and Chola kingdoms, which with that of Chera dynasty or Kerala formed the three Tamil kingdoms of southern India. The Pandya kingdom practically coincided in extent with the districts of Madurai and Tinnevelly; that of the Cholas extended along the Coromandel coast from Nellore to Pudukottai, being bounded on the north by the Pennar River (Penner River) and on the south by the Southern Vellaru.

The government of the area was shared for centuries with these dynasties by numerous independent or semi-independent chiefs, evidence of whose perennial internecine conflicts is preserved in the multitudes of forts and fortresses, the deserted ruins of which crown almost all the elevated points. Despite this passion of the military classes for war, the Tamil civilization in the country was highly developed. This was sustained largely through the wealth of the country, famous in the earliest times as now for its pearl fisheries. Of this fishery, Korkai (the Greek KhXxot), now a village on the Tambraparni River in Tinnevelly but once the Pandya capital, was the centre long before the Christian era.

In Pliny's day, owing to the silting up of the harbour, its glory had already decayed and the Pandya capital had been removed to Madurai, famous later as a centre of Tamil literature. The Chola kingdom, which four centuries before Christ had been recognized as independent by the Maurya king Ashoka, had for its chief port Kaviripaddinam at the mouth of the Kauvery, every vestige of which is now buried in the sand.

Tamil literature (particularly Iyal, in prose and poetry) contains in itself vast amounts of knowledge on Carnatic music. Starting from the earliest Tamil literature available today (around 200 BC), it is possible to trace the various forms of music (Isai) that had existed in different periods and the way it has transformed into today's Carnatic music, by absorbing techniques from other Indian forms of music.

For the first two centuries after Christ, a large sea-borne trade was carried on between the Roman Empire and the Tamil kingdoms; but after Caracalla's massacre at Alexandria in A.D. 215, this ceased, and with it all intercourse with Europe for centuries also. Henceforward, until the 9th century, the history of the country is illustrated only by occasional and broken lights.

The 4th century saw the rise of the Pallava power, which for some 400 years encroached on, without extinguishing, the Tamil kingdoms. When in A.D. 640 the Chinese traveller Hsuan Tsang visited Kanchi (Conjevaram), the capital of the Pallava king, he learned that the kingdom of Chola (Chu-li-ya) embraced but a small territory, wild, and inhabited by a scanty and fierce population; in the Pandya kingdom (Malakuta), which was under Pallava suzerainty, literature was dead, Buddhism all but extinct, while Hinduism and the naked Jain saints divided the religious allegiance of the people, and the pearl fisheries continued to flourish.

The power of the Pallava kings was shaken by the victory of Vikramaditya Chalukya in AD 740, and shattered by Aditya Chola at the close of the 9th century. From this time onward, the inscriptional records are abundant. The Chola Dynasty, which in the 9th century had been weak, now revived, its power culminating in the victories of Rajaraja the Great, who defeated the Chalukyas after a four years war, and, about AD 994, forced the Pandya kings to become his tributaries. A magnificent temple at Tanjore, once his capital, preserves the records of his victories engraved upon its walls. His career of conquest was continued by his son Rajendra Choladeva I, self-styled Gangaikonda owing to his victorious advance to the Ganges, who succeeded to the throne in AD 1018. The ruins of the new capital which he built, called Gangaikonda Cholapuram, still stand in a desolate region of the Trichinopoly district. His successors continued the eternal wars with the Chalukyas and other dynasties, and the Chola power continued in the ascendant until the death of Kulottunga Chola III in 1278, when a disputed succession caused its downfall and gave the Pandyas the opportunity of gaining for a few years the upper hand in the south.

In 1310, however, the invasion under Malik Kafur overwhelmed the Hindu states of southern India in a common ruin. Though crushed, however, they were not extinguished; a period of anarchy followed, the struggle between the Chola kings and the Mussulmans issuing in the establishment at Kanchi of a usurping Hindu dynasty which ruled till the end of the 14th century, while in 1365 a branch of the Pandyas succeeded in re-establishing itself in part of the kingdom of Madurai, where it survived till 1623.

At the beginning of the 15th century, the whole country had come under the rule of the kings of Vijayanagar; but in the anarchy that followed the overthrow of the Vijayanagar empire by the Mussulmans in the 16th century, the Hindu viceroys (Nayaks) established in Madurai, Tanjore and Kanchi made themselves independent, only in their turn to become tributary to the kings of Golconda and Bijapur, who divided the Carnatic between them.

Muslim era
Towards the close of the 17th century, the northernmost part of The Carnatic region was reduced by the armies of Aurangzeb, who in 1692 appointed Zulfikar Ali, Nawab of the Carnatic, with his seat at Arcot. Meanwhile, the Marathas power had begun to develop; in 1677 Shivaji had suppressed the last remnants of the Vijayanagar power in Vellore, Gingee and Kurnool, while his brother Venkoji, who in 1674 had overthrown the Nayaks of Tanjavur, established in that city a dynasty which lasted for a century. The collapse of the Delhi power after the death of Aurangzeb produced further changes. The Nawab Saadet-Allah of Arcot (1710–1732) established his independence; his successor Dost Ali (1732–1740) conquered and annexed Madurai in 1736, and his successors were confirmed in their position as Nawabs of Northern Carnatic by the Nizam of Hyderabad after that potentate had established his power in South-Central India. After the death of Nawab Mahommed Anwar-ud-din (1744–1749), the succession was disputed between Mahommed Ali and Husein Dost. In this quarrel, the French and English, then competing for influence in the Carnatic, took opposite sides. The victory of the British established Mahommed Ali in power over northern Carnatic till his death in 1795. Meanwhile, however, the region had been exposed to other troubles. In 1741 Madurai, which the Nawab Dost Ali (1732–1740) had added to his dominions in 1736 after the demise of the Nayaks of Madurai, was conquered by the Marathas; and in 1743 Hyder Ali of Mysore overran and ravaged the central Carnatic. The latter was re-conquered by the British, to whom Madurai had fallen in 1758; and, finally, in 1801 all the possessions of the Nawab of Arcot were transferred to them by a treaty which stipulated that an annual revenue of several lakhs of pagodas should be reserved to the Nawab, and that the British should undertake to support a sufficient civil and military force for the protection of the country and the collection of the revenue. On the death of the Nawab in 1853, it was determined to put an end to the nominal sovereignty, a liberal establishment being provided for the family.

The rest of the Carnatic region, when first entered into by the British, was ruled by military chieftains called Poligars. In 1805, after the decisive defeat of the Poligars, the Poligar forts and military establishments were destroyed.

The Carnatic region was a place of Carnatic Wars between the Mughal Empire, Britain and France which ultimately led to British victory and the domination of the British Empire over India.

title: Carnatic region


text:
Talk:Faraday's law of induction

Note on Faraday's law
Ok, I am fairly new to physics and I dont understand everything about this article, but I have the impression that in chapter "Faraday's law", subchapter "Quantitative", the paragraph part " B·dA is a vector dot product (the infinitesimal amount of magnetic flux through the infinitesimal area element dA)" should probably rewritten in a way that would reflect the contribution of angle θ between the surface area and the direction of magnetic flux like " B·dA·cosθ is a vector dot product (the infinitesimal amount of magnetic flux through the infinitesimal area element dA multiplied by cosθ, where θ is the angle between the vertical to the area element dA and the direction of the magnetic field in that area", or at least imply that the concept of cosθ is integrated in the notion of surface element dA.

Could someone more expert than me take a look at it? 2A02:587:4511:2200:71DC:846:1E07:ADC (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Bolded quantities are vectors, so B • dA conveys all of that already. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

 * I had suspected something like that, but it's nice to clarify it for the non-experts. Anyway, thanks for the answer.  2A02:587:4511:2200:7DFB:B05C:1AC6:4256 (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, clarification could happen. We might need to create template to explain the notation so that could be re-used in articles. Bouncing ball explains the notation (take a look at the article, to see if the notation is clear to you), since this is often encountered by people unused to seeing vectors. Faraday's law of induction isn't really an introduction topic, so you ought to be familiar with vectors by the time you encounter it. But it's good to think about people who would come with a trades background (e.g. car mechanics), rather than academic background. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Proof of Faraday's law
In the section entitled "Proof of Faraday's law" it is said that:
 * The four Maxwell's equations (including the Maxwell–Faraday equation), along with the Lorentz force law, are a sufficient foundation to derive everything in classical electromagnetism.[15][16] Therefore, it is possible to "prove" Faraday's law starting with these equations.[24][25]

Um, isn't this confusing? Maxwell's equations include Faraday's law. So, I don't think this couple of sentences make sense. In particular, as far was I can see, the "proof" of Faraday's law from the Lorentz force law only invokes Gauss's law, not the other three of Maxwell's equations (and certainly not Faraday's law!). Anyway, I think these sentences need to be fixed, but I thought I'd first ask other editors what they thing of this. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

 * You're getting confused by the fact that there are two related laws that are sometimes called by the same name. In this article we're calling one of them (∇×E=-∂B/∂t) "the Maxwell–Faraday equation" and the other one (EMF=-d(flux)/dt) "Faraday's law", but different people use different terminology, and in particular lots of people call the Maxwell-Faraday equation by the term "Faraday's law" (confusingly). Anyway, "The Maxwell–Faraday equation" (∇×E=-∂B/∂t) is one of the four Maxwell's equations. "Faraday's law" (EMF=-d(flux)/dt) is not. Does that help?

 * The article used to have a clearer explanation of this than it does right now... --Steve (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for this technical pointer. Attic Salt (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Equation needs source
The following equation needs a citation
 * $$ \mathbf E_s (\mathbf r) \approx -\frac{1}{4\pi}\iiint_V \ \frac{(\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}} {\partial t}\,dV)\times\mathbf{\hat r'}}{|\mathbf r'|^2} $$

The folowing has been suggested as a citation : However, the equation does not appear in that page range. It has been suggested that the material in that page range justifies the equation. It appears that this is a case of SYN. Simple manipulation of mathematical formulas are allowed, but this cased appears to be too complicated. Further, I think that the equation, if it is correct, needs some qualifying remarks. The B field is generally unlimited in space, so the volume integral must be an integral over all space in the most common cases, the most common cases. If correct, it seems to have dubious value. Constant314 (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 * It seems to come from inverting ∇×E=∂B/∂t using the formula e.g. here. It's dubious in that the inversion is generally not unique, basically it "needs some qualifying remarks" just like you said. Even if it's true, I don't think it's sufficiently important to be worth writing down here. I agree, let's delete it. --Steve (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 * It isn't dubious, it expresses the electric field as a function directly, instead of as part of an equation that needs solving. It is a suitable non-relativistic general solution which satisfies all the realistic boundary conditions.
 * For example, Steve showed in the moving magnet and conductor problem that the curls are equal, but it doesn't prove that the fields are equal. With this formula, that can be accomplished.
 * Please sign your comments by appending four tildes ~ at the end of your comment. Wikipedia will convert that into your user name.  Also use leading colons to indent your comments.Constant314 (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Just to be clear, by dubious, I'm questioning the equation's value to the article. I also question its notability if it doesn't appear in any reliable source. With regard to qualifying remarks, B is often non-zero over all space, so the integral is over all space, yet there is no use of retarded time.  In the analogous integral for B as an integral of J, it is also an integral over all space, but J is usually limited to small volume much less than a wavelength, so that integral works without retarded time.  But, in any case, the equation needs to appear explicitly in a reliable source so insure both correctness and notability. Minor manipulation such as the source uses different symbols for the variables or has them in a different order is allowed. Constant314 (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes, I mentioned "non-relativistic", so only applying to a small region of space. Faraday's law gives the bulk scalar quantity of the voltage, without all the fine details. The Maxwell-Faraday equation only provides the curl, and doesn't give readers much conception of the field where the curl is zero. With the electric field as a function, it gives readers a more complete understanding of the structure of the field, they can realize that the field assumes circular forms. Legit War Articles (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Looks like I have answered my own objection. The equation in in Griffiths 4th edition on page 321.  However, he doesn't dwell on it.  It is just an intermediate eqution toward the derivation of Faraday's law in integral form.Constant314 (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It is said Franz Ernst Neumann offers the mathematical formula of Faraday's law. If someone can offer a details what Franz Ernst Neumann did that will be wonderful.

Maxwell also did the derivation of Faraday's law in the paper 1855/1856 On Faraday's Lines of Force. If someone can following the thought of Maxwell but use today's mathematical symbols that will be wonderful. Imrecons (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Silver plates experiment
The article states the flux changes dramatically when the current follows the red lines. But there is hardly an emf. Conclusion: the current doesn't follow the red lines. Madyno (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Rule of left hand
Hi everyone, I'm reading through the section where a left-hand rule is given to compute emf. It states that, aligning the left hand fingers with the loop, the thumb indicates the normal to the surface. Then if the variation of flux is positive, the emf follows the fingers (and the opposite if the variation of flux is negative): ok. This first step, I believe, is misleading: the normal of a surface enclosed by a path is given by the right hand rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-hand_rule) If we use the right hand rule to compute the normal then the direction of emf becomes opposite to the fingers, which is correct.

To keep using the left-hand rule in the text, I think it should be mentioned that the thumb is the direction opposite to the normal, thus embedding the sign "-" of Faraday's law. Then the rest of the text is correct. But the figure needs to be remade, as it still shows the normal aligning with the thumb. What do you think? OOTeSkew (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistency in notation throughout the article
The first equation under "Faraday's law" (in "Mathematical statement") uses two integrals to describe integration over a surface. This is the only use of this notation throughout the article: Every other occurrence of integration over a surface uses a single integral sign. In my opinion, the double integral notation is better (as it is more explicit), but in either case the notation should be consistent. Proxagonal (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

"Two phenomena"
It depends on how you are modeling electromagnetic interactions. Faraday's experiments established that emf induced in a loop is attributable to the RELATIVE MOTION of the loop and the ambient magnetic flux, commonly represented by "field lines." That's one phenomenon, not two.

One contribution to the electromagnetic force per charge on a particle is the gradient of a scalar--but that will produce no emf when integrated around a loop. The rest is due to the relative motion of the particle and the ambient magnetic flux, the so-called "cutting" of field lines. Feynman's exceptions to Faraday's Law are attributable to the motion, or lack thereof, of the conductor across magnetic field lines. Motion relative to magnetic flux is the underlying principle.

From the next section: "In the general case, explanation of the motional emf appearance by action of the magnetic force on the charges in the moving wire or in the circuit changing its area is unsatisfactory. As a matter of fact, the charges in the wire or in the circuit could be completely absent, will then the electromagnetic induction effect disappear in this case?"

Answer: The emf is the integral, around the loop, of the force PER CHARGE. Of course if the charge is zero then the force is zero, but this is as true for an electric force as for a motional magnetic one. If the absence of charges or a circuit would make emf disappear in the former case, it would in the latter case as well. If there is anything unsatisfactory about understanding motional emf on the basis of magnetic forces, the case has not been made here.

"From the physical point of view, it is better to speak not about the induction emf, but about the induced electric field strength..."

I see no real basis for this assertion.

"If the circuit area is changing in case of the constant magnetic field, then some part of the circuit is inevitably moving, and the electric field emerges in this part of the circuit in the comoving reference frame K’ as a result of the Lorentz transformation of the magnetic field, present in the stationary reference frame K, which passes through the circuit."

True, but if different segments of the circuit are moving with different velocities (which must be the case if the area is changing) then the frame-dependent voltages induced in each segment can't be added up to give the total emf. Faraday's law provides the emf in a single frame.

"In the reference frame K, it looks like appearance of emf of the induction, the gradient of which in the form of , taken along the circuit, seems to generate the field ."

Looks like? Seems to? LTFGD (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

 * This is why we stick to paraphrasing reliable sources. Of course, that can produce incorrect results also.  The Feynman Lectures are a special problem.  Feynman was teaching, not creating a textbook.  We know that sometimes he would intentionally state an incorrect conclusion as a didactic artifice.  Of course, he would correct it later, but you have to read carefully and be sure that you are using the correct statement and not the provocative statement. Constant314 (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who the "we" and the "you" are in your response. It looks like the Wikipedia entry is using the "provocative" statement, whether or not Feynman may have taken it back later. LTFGD (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We and you are being used rhetorically. Yes, I think that statement was intended as a make-you-think statement rather than the literal truth. Feynman writes $$ \frac F q = E + v \times B $$ and calls it two phenomena which is odd because E and B are just two parts of the electromagnetic field which is one phenomenon.  I don't know where he fixes it, probably when he discusses relativity.  Some people, like me, who have read The Feynman Lectures extensively can find examples of intentionally incorrect statements.  That is a problem when using statements from The Feynman Lectures out of context.  The rest of the context may be in another chapter.  It would be reasonable to request additional citations. Constant314 (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I added the dubious template Constant314 (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I little self-disclosure: Recently I came across an article in American Journal of Physics that was casting shade on Faraday's Law (or the "flux rule") and contained a significant error. I couldn't get a corrective note published even after the reviewer conceded my point. There seems to be some sort of consensus that Faraday's Law is wrong or defective and we need to go back to relying on Maxwell's equations directly, and even if an error is identified it shouldn't be published for fear of disrupting that narrative. So I started looking around and found another paper, in European Journal of Physics Education, doubting that "cutting field lines" could account for certain voltage measurements, when it patently does cause those results. Now I'm thinking writing a more extensive paper for the second journal and have been looking through the literature. Eventually I became curious as to what I'd find on Wikipedia. If I do write the longer paper, I might adopt some of the wording to include as a revision here. Thanks for the response. LTFGD (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Modern physics has banished "lines of flux" as being non-physical. You cannot have motion with respect to lines of flux.  In the equation $$ \frac F q = E + v \times B $$, v, the velocity is the velocity measured with respect to the observer's frame of reference.  Likewise, F, E, and B are as measured in the observer's frame of reference.  Most especially, v is not velocity with respect to the magnetic field. Constant314 (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Pure assertion, and false on its face. Lines of flux are simply a way of representing the directed flux density, i.e., magnetic field, relative to which a particle patently can have a velocity. You can enter a region of flux, you can exit. Or, given a moving magnet, the flux can move past you. It can move into a loop and out of the loop again. Start on one side of a bar magnet, move to the other side. Did you not cross, i.e., have motion relative to, magnetic flux? Or move the magnet, so that all the flux was on one side of you and now it's all on the other side. Did the flux not move? Give me a reputable modern (i.e., living) reference for your statement that field lines have been banished from modern physics and I'll be happy to take it up with the author. LTFGD (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not my problem, but "We have something like this in the electromagnetic field. For we may picture the field to ourselves as consisting of lines of force. If we wish to interpret these lines of force to ourselves as something material in the ordinary sense, we are tempted to interpret the dynamic processes as motions of these lines of force, such that each separate line of force is tracked through the course of time. It is well known, however, that this way of regarding the electromagnetic field leads to contradictions." -- Einstein, 1920 Constant314 (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "...something material in the ordinary sense..." Nobody (except possibly Faraday in his later years) is saying that. Field lines are a representation of magnetic flux density, relative to which one can obviously have a velocity. Your problem is being able to back up your assertions. Among academics, the invitation to offer a reference is generally understood to mean book, author, page or journal paper, author, page. Or if you just poked around on the web until you found something likable, you could at least include the link. It's a free country and you're under no obligation, but the Wiki article obviously needs some repair, which I may get around to offering. LTFGD (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The physical existence of lines of flux and motion relative to them has been banished for over a century. It is hard to find references that say, "Oh by the way, we don't consider lines of flux to be physical anymore.  You cannot have velocity with respect to the field."  References simply don't spend much effort on non-facts.  So, yes, I grabbed something that was easy to find from a long time ago, because it was settled a long time ago.  Here you see Einstein using that as an established fact, in 1920, to explain something else.  Everybody got it back then, because it was relatively new.  If you read the rest of that resource, you will see that Einstein explains that motion only exists between objects and not between objects and immaterial things such as fields.  Thus, you can have motion between the coil and the magnet, but not between the coil and the field.  You may think that it is the same thing, but it is not.
 * Let me turn it around and ask you to find a reliable reference (a real, widely used, physics textbook) that says the velocity in question is the velocity relative to the field and not the velocity observed by the observer. This could save you a lot of embarrassment.  Please avoid engineering texts because those mostly use 19th century physics (which is still quite useful). Constant314 (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Where do I see Einstein saying such & such in 1920?. If I read the rest of what resource? What's the reference for what Einstein said?
 * You are apparently ignoring what I wrote. I am not claiming the physical existence of field lines. They are a representation of magnetic flux, or flux density (which is B). Get it? A representation. As I explained, you can move into and through and out the other side of a region of magnetic field, i.e., you can move relative to the field. Or, you can pick up a magnet and move it so that flux enters one side of a loop and comes out the other side, i.e., in this frame the flux/field has a velocity across the loop. The point is patently obvious. I don't need a reference for that--I am the reference because I know the physics and taught it at the college level for over 40 years. I am not relying on what others say, because I am fully able to argue the issue on its merits. Emf is accounted for in all cases by relative motion of charges and magnetic fields. If some dogma to the contrary has developed, that is a matter first of all to be taken up in the journals.
 * If you would (could?) address arguments on their merits, rather than just keep making assertions about what others say (spiced finally with a snide and irrelevant comment about engineering texts), a fruitful discussion might be possible. Otherwise, we're done. When the time comes, I'll offer the needed amendments to this article. LTFGD (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I had intended to include the link Unfortunately, Einstein spoke in German and that is a translation.

Einstein is the best I can do as far as sources to refute your mistaken belief that velocity is with respect to the field, which is why I urge you to try find a reference that says explicitly that velocity is with respect to the field. And from The Feynman Lectures (this time, I think he means it). Skip down to section 15-4 and read what he says about real fields. To paraphrase: fields are nothing but numbers that do nothing expect provide a computational convenience. And I mean it about the engineering texts. They use pre-relativity physics for the most part. Anyway, I have had my say. Cheers. Constant314 (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 * I said I was done, but I forgot this simple analogy. Put your leg on a bed with your toe pointed up. Throw a blanket over your toe.  The blanket now has a lump.  Move your foot laterally.  The position of the lump moves, but the fabric does not.  In this analogy, your foot is the magnet, the fabric is the field.  The height of the lump is the value of the field (a scalar field in this case).  Motion with respect to your foot is not the same as motion with respect to the fabric.  It is an imperfect analogy, because the fabric is made of material stuff.  You can have motion with respect to the fabric. Constant314 (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Einstein's speech is one in which he is pushing the idea of an ether in general relativity. Talk about ideas that have been banished! (whether justly so, I offer no comment here.) But again, as mentioned two or three times earlier, I am not claiming that magnetic field lines are "something material in the ordinary sense." That dispenses with the Einstein quote.
 * Feynman 15-4? I don't see anything to the effect that you can't have a velocity relative to the field. He says you can't put your hand out and feel B, but you certainly could if your hand contained sufficient ferromagnetic material. His main point in "B versus A" seems to be that the "reality" of the field resides in our ability to use it to calculate or explain things without resorting to action at a distance. Fair enough. We could in principle calculate ourselves to death using (retarded) action at a distance, but instead we make use of representations. And a perfectly fine representation, as I noted at the outset, is magnetic field (or flux, or flux density, or field lines), with force on a charged particle being ascribed to the relative motion between it and the field. But again, you are not addressing my arguments on their merits but making reference to dicta which do not themselves even address those arguments.
 * I don't need an analogy, because my argument addressed the actual situation. But, your analogy only makes my point. The foot would be a moving magnet. The lump is the field, and it moves. A cat, seeing the moving lump, could chase it, thereby having motion relative to the lump. The fabric would be some sort of ether, which is superfluous to the discussion.
 * I'm a little disappointed you didn't trot out the old "infinitely long solenoid" for which B outside is zero even though emf is induced by changing the current. (Hint: B outside is not zero while the current is changing.) Or even the toroid, which is more interesting but still explainable. But, since you seem unwilling to make arguments, I see no reason to rebut them here. All the best. LTFGD (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to prove anything. You seem to want to challenge some articles in journals and it is an Occom's razor situation: you should challenge your assumptions.  I'm just trying to point to the path of the next level of understanding.  Good luck with your efforts. <b style="color: #4400bb;">Constant314</b> (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it. You don't have any serious arguments, even in defense of your own Wiki contribution, but you imagine yourself in a position to point my way to higher understanding. LTFGD (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess I just cannot stop. Consider this, an observer in a large cardboard box has a moving charged particle in his box.  He can measure the velocity of the particles and all the fields local to the particle in his frame of reference.  The B field is caused by a moving magnet that is outside the box that he cannot see and is unaware of.  What does he used for velocity in the equation $$ F = q ( E + v \times B)     $$? <b style="color: #4400bb;">Constant314</b> (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If he doesn't have access to the full picture, he might inquire of someone who does. (Any representation that you would use for explanation and/or calculation requires access to sufficient information.) If the field is sufficiently uniform, our blinded observer could not detect the relative motion but would of course observe a uniform electric field in addition to the magnetic field. He would not know from limited data whether the perceived E was due to relative motion or due to a pair of invisible parallel charged plates. Of course, the uniform fields would not give rise to any emf around a loop. If, however, the B field is not uniform, as long as the observer has a time-dependent record of B at each location in his region, he could observe the motion of the array of B values (the flux density) move through the region and I suppose infer the velocity from that. By the way, no one is denying the existence of frame-dependent E or the validity of Maxwell's equations. There is more than one way to represent a situation. Motion relative to B is a very useful way of understanding and calculating induced emf as well as electromagnetic force-per-charge not stemming from the gradient of a potential. LTFGD (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Now go back to Feynman's definition of a real field: "A real field is then a set of numbers we specify in such a way that what happens at a point depends only on the numbers at that point. You don't need to know the velocity of a magnet outside the box to compute what is going on inside the box if you have measured E and B inside the box. <b style="color: #4400bb;">Constant314</b> (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course you can measure what happens in the box without knowing what's happening outside. And of course the observer in the box CAN ascribe the force on the particle to the combined effect of an electric and magnetic field. The interesting question here is how to understand and even calculate what's happening inside based on what's happening outside, which you already said was a magnet moving past. So there were no parallel capacitor plates, and the E field inferred by the informationally crippled observer in the box is not the gradient of a potential.
 * Of course you can calculate that E from knowing B in the rest frame of the magnet, then Lorentz transforming the field tensor to the frame of the lab/box. (Keeping in mind that relativistically, this B is not the same as B in the lab that causes the qvxB force on the particle.) What will you get for the force?
 * What you will get (in addition to the original qvxB force from the motion of the particle) is a (negative) qvxB force where THIS v is the velocity of the field through the lab and B is the magnetic field in the lab frame. (I can demonstrate that but won't try to do so here in this format). It is easy to see therefore that the entire force on the particle CAN (doesn't have to be) understood in terms of relative motion of the particle and the magnetic field (as long as there is not an electric field that is the gradient of a potential). The line integral of this force (per charge) around a closed loop is the emf around that loop, and it is easy to see that this will be equal to the rate of change of flux through the loop.
 * Thus, induced emf can be ascribed entirely to motion relative to the magnetic field (represented by field lines). One phenomenon. Not two different phenomena. That was my original point. The only thing left out of the above analysis is the case where the field lines are moving because the field itself is changing. For example, if the current is increasing, the B it causes will increase, causing field lines to move in closer together. There's no way for a charged particle to know whether the motion of the field lines is due to motion of a magnet or a changing field strength.
 * If our magnet is moving relativistically, then the component of B perpendicular to this motion (which is all that matters) is increased by the factor gamma from its value in the rest frame of the magnet. This is easily understood by Lorentz contraction compressing flux into a smaller area. Non relativistically (for the benefit of those benighted engineers and intro physics students), the method described here is a vast simplification because no transformation of field tensors is required and gamma equals 1 to close approximation.
 * I've carried on much longer than I intended, but it's not wasted time because all of this has to be articulated anyway in a journal paper, not to mention answering the inevitable concerns of reviewers. So, thanks. Any other questions? LTFGD (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Good luck with your efforts. <b style="color: #4400bb;">Constant314</b> (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. I use the line cutting model a lot. It may be 19th century physics, but it is still very useful. <b style="color: #4400bb;">Constant314</b> (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. LTFGD (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Faraday's law of induction


text:
Ainsley Harriott

Ainsley Denzil Dubriel Harriott (born 28 February 1957) is an English chef and television presenter. He is known for his BBC cooking game shows Can't Cook, Won't Cook and Ready Steady Cook.

Early life
Harriott was born in Paddington, London, to Peppy (née Strudwick) and pianist and singer, Chester Leroy Harriott (1933–2013). He has Jamaican heritage. Harriott attended Wandsworth Comprehensive School then trained at Westminster Kingsway College (formerly Westminster Technical College), and obtained an apprenticeship at Verrey's restaurant in London's West End, later working as a commis chef.

Career
Harriott's talents lie in comedy and singing as well as cooking. He formed the Calypso Twins with school friend Paul Boross, releasing a hit record in the early 1990s, "World Party". The Calypso Twins were regular performers at the Comedy Store and Jongleurs; they also performed in America and on TV and radio shows. Harriott became head chef at the Long Room of Lord's Cricket Ground. He was asked to present More Nosh, Less Dosh on BBC Radio 5 Live, and also has appeared as an extra in Hale and Pace.

Television work
Harriott became the resident chef on Good Morning with Anne and Nick and later the main presenter of Can't Cook, Won't Cook and originally a chef on Ready Steady Cook before he went on to host it in 2000, both shows involving members of the public. He has presented more straightforward how-to-cook programmes such as Ainsley's Barbecue Bible, Ainsley's Meals in Minutes, Ainsley's Big Cook Out and Ainsley's Gourmet Express.

Harriott played the part of a GELF chief in the sci-fi comedy series Red Dwarf in 1993. In 1998, for the show's 10th anniversary, Harriott presented a special edition of Can't Cook, Won't Cook called Can't Smeg, Won't Smeg with the cast of the show cooking a meal while remaining in character.

In 2000, Harriott made his debut on US television with The Ainsley Harriott Show, syndicated by Buena Vista Television, which ran for more than 100 episodes. Following this he went on to host Ready.. Set... Cook!, the US version of Ready Steady Cook. Ainsley was guest chef on Something for the Weekend on 10 May 2009 and 21 February 2010 alongside guests JLS. In February 2010, Harriott joined the morning show GMTV with Lorraine featuring cookery recipes. From 2002 until 2007, Harriott appeared in TV adverts for Fairy Liquid.

In September 2008, Harriott took part in the genealogy documentary series Who Do You Think You Are?. Harriott knew that his great-grandfather Ebenezer Harriott was in the colonial West India Regiment, and had assumed that they were descended from slaves. In Barbados, he confirmed that his great-grandfather had a distinguished military career, and learnt that he had fought on the side of the British in the Hut Tax War of 1898 – an increasingly violent series of protests against systems of taxation in Sierra Leone. Although Harriott had assumed that his great-great-grandfather, James Gordon Harriott, was a black slave, he was revealed to be the descendant of a long line of white slaveowners.

Harriott appeared in the final My Family Christmas special in 2010 "Mary Christmas". On 11 August 2015, he was announced as the second contestant of the thirteenth series of Strictly Come Dancing. On 5 September 2015 it was revealed Harriott was paired with professional dancer Natalie Lowe for the thirteenth series. He was the fourth contestant to be voted off and finished twelfth.

Harriott was appointed Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in the 2020 New Year Honours for services to broadcasting and the culinary arts.

Writing
Harriott is a best-selling author, publishing twelve books as well as numerous others in conjunction with his television shows. Including foreign-language translations, he has sold over 2 million books worldwide.

Other work
Harriott was the President of the Television and Radio Industries Club (TRIC) 2004–05 and presented their awards ceremony that year. He markets his own range of food, including couscous, risotto, soups and cereal bars.

Harriott played the role of the Narrator in The Rocky Horror Show at the New Theatre, Cardiff in March 2010, at the Churchill Theatre, Bromley in October 2010, and again at the Richmond Theatre in November 2010.

He made a guest appearance in the BBC radio comedy series Giles Wemmbley Hogg Goes Off as himself in 2006.

In 2022 Harriot, along with others including the DIY SOS presenter Nick Knowles, helped to save his sister Jacqueline from drowning after she fell into a water feature at the Chelsea Flower Show.

In December 2023 Harriot won the Christmas special of The Masked Singer as Partridge (in a Pear Tree).

Personal life
Harriott married former costume designer Clare Fellows, the youngest sister of comedian and actor Graham Fellows. They have two children. In November 2012, the couple were reported to have separated and they remain on good terms.

Harriott is a supporter of Arsenal F.C.

title: Ainsley Harriott


text:
Fielder

Fielder may refer to:

Sports

 * Fielding (cricket), the action of fielders in collecting the ball after it is struck by the batsman
 * Fielders, any of various baseball positions including:
 * Infielder, a player positioned near first, second or third base
 * Outfielder, a player positioned beyond the infield, including the left fielder, center fielder, and right fielder
 * Lake County Fielders, baseball team based in Zion, Illinois

Places

 * Fielder Creek, a stream in the U.S. state of Oregon
 * Fielder House, a historic house in Fordyce, Arkansas
 * Fielder Mountain, a summit in the U.S. state of Oregon
 * Fielder railway station, Melbourne
 * Fielders Sports Ground, a cricket ground in Hornchurch, England
 * Fielders Stadium, an unfinished baseball park in Zion, Illinois

Names

 * Fielder (surname)
 * Fielder Cook (1923–2003), American television and film director, producer, and writer
 * Fielder Jones (1871–1934), American center fielder and manager

Other uses

 * Toyota Fielder, a car model

title: Fielder


text:
User:Mukerjee

I started on Wikipedia in May 2004, and had some 4,200 edits upto 2013, when I semi-retired. Most of my edits are large-scale text changes, often "merciless" makeovers of poorly-organized articles. I usually try to preserve earlier facts, but add new matter - usually with tons of online citations, esp for BOLP.

Today, I sometimes forget I had edited a page and it is startling to recognize my text while browsing.

Why Wikipedia "revert" policies don't help Wikipedia
In my long history at Wikipedia, I rarely reverted anyone. I feel that if the other person has added content, some form of it deserves to be there. So I usually edit parts of their content into my text. I feel this type of editing is more in the interests of Wikipedia. However, there are very few editors who bother to edit text. There are too many reverters. Supposing I make a 2000 char edit, even if some part is not to your liking, it would not be appropriate to revert the whole thing. But this is an everyday occurrence here...

I feel that the revert rules should restrict reverts to malicious or hijack attempts. Serious edits, with "good faith" content should be re-edited into the text, and NEVER deleted. This Assume good faith rule exists, but needs to be strengthened. In any event, I would rather add content than go into the elaborate conflict-resolution process of wikipedia decision-making to get reverts fixed or whatever.

Also I feel that tags should be restricted. There are too many tagging editors in Wikipedia, who specialize in tags such as "uncategorized" or "poorly written", "has no article linking it" etc. What I don't understand is why they don't just add the categories or some citations themselves. It takes nearly as much time, I would say!

Attachment to our own text on wikipedia
Another thing that surprises me is the extent to which we editors remain attached to our "public-domain" text. Wikipedia policy (pillar three) clearly says that all text "will be mercilessly edited". But in practice, we all have our egos, which is part of why we work on wikipedia. In fact, wikipedia policy realizes this, which is why one informs the article creator and others about big changes.

After many wikipedia battles, these days I rarely track the articles I edited, though I keep getting notices that some article I had created is slated for "speedy deletion" or whatever. Fortunately, in most situations other editors find the sense not to delete these.

Also, I have often found other editors who have battled the revert wars on my edits. I can cite the article on Abhishek Mishra (thanks, User:Meters and User:Shriram) or on P. N. Oak, where User:Paul Barlow is still keeping the wolves at bay (hats off to your perseverance!).

But many other edits are quietly reverted. e.g. in Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, an entire section on "2G Spectrum Scam Arrests and Chargesheets" was anonymously deleted, along with 12 citations. The removed summary paragraph will tell you why:

 * ADAG group flagship company Reliance Communications was named in February 2011 for having provided favours to DMK minister A. Raja and others in exchange for a hugely discounted spectrum license in the 2G scam[5]. The company was chargesheeted in April 2011, and senior VP Surendra Pipara, VP Hari Nair, and group MD Gautam Doshi were arrested for bribery and denied bail[6]. Anil Ambani visited the executives in Tihar jail in June[7].

Similarly the article on Indian navy secrets leak accused Ravi Shankaran, someone has deleted the sentences
 * Shankaran is a retired naval officer and the nephew of the wife of Admiral Arun Prakash. At the time of the leak, Prakash was head of the Indian navy. ... Ravi's mother, Malati Shankaran, was the admiral's wife's sister[3]. As the admiral's nephew (and as a retired navy officer) Ravi Shankaran was a regular invitee to the Arun Prakash's house [4].

Semi-retirement from Wikipedia
I find revert wars and firefights very draining. Quite often one comes across revert tsars, who feel they own an article, and keep reverting well-researched content along with lots of inline citations.

What I find particularly irritating is how revert tsars do not bother to edit the document but simply revert out large swathes of content. This has happened to me repeatedly.

Most recently, I introduced, in one go, a long table with 403 winning candidates in the Uttar Pradesh elections 2012. It was about half the article. The page for the Uttar Pradesh Elections 2007 had a similar table of winning candidates. In fact, the new table compared the new results with the old, constituency by constituency, which was very painstakingly done, since most of the election areas had changed after a population reassessment, all of which i had documented with citations.

A month after a talk page debate, and seemingly accepting the change and making some edits on the enlarged version, the earlier editor suddenly reverted to his months-old version, claiming that consensus had not been reached. I did not wish to continue the war, so wikipedia now has an impoverished version without any list of winning candidates. You can use if you need to see the candidates.

Since this event in 2012, I have more or less withdrawn from Wikipedia. Whereas I used to create tens of articles every month, I edit now only when I am really impelled towards a topic.

A sad wiki war narrative: Johannes Gutenberg
In October 2006, the Gutenberg article said in the lead sentence:
 * Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg was a German goldsmith and inventor who achieved fame for his invention of the technology of with (sic) movable types during 1447.

By then it was well-known that movable type and printing in China pre-dated Gutenberg by several centuries, and these ideas may have osmos-ed west during the Mongol Empire. Movable type was documented in China four centuries before Gutenberg, and an iron printing press in Korea two centuries back. Thus, calling Gutenberg the "inventor of movable type" seemed like eurocentricism.

At the time when I started editing, the Johannes Gutenberg article becamme very active - about 100 edits per month. From Oct 1 to Oct 18, the article had grown by 0.7KB to 14.6KB. In my edit of Oct 19, I added 4K of text, 10 citations from three new references, re-did the entire lead and almost every part of the article.

My lead sentence went:
 * [JG] a German goldsmith and inventor who was believed to have invented the technology of printing with movable types in 1447, but it turns out this technology was known in Korea at least in 1234.

I completely re-did the section Printing: the Invention of Movable Type in Europe calling it "Printing in Asia and in Europe", and added many details documenting East Asian priority in inventing printing. The edit was promptly reverted:
 * 05:23, October 19, 2006 Dicklyon (14,622 bytes) (rv; too much of a change to do without discussion) (undo)

I protested on the talk page, arguing that wikipedia supports "bold" changes, and
 * 11:18, October 19, 2006 Mukerjee m (18,290 bytes) (reverted to Mukerjee Oct 18. Please address the issues on the talk page and MERGE the changes; don't blindly revert) (undo)

Then I went on to re-edit the entire article, added many parts to the sections on life, removed random speculations - etc. I was supported by some of the editors (e.g. DGG).

But I kept getting reverted with remarks like:
 * Mukerjee, you've done it again. A huge wide-ranging edit of all sections, each edit apparently designed to make sure that Gutenberg doesn't get much if any credit for his invention... I reverted the lot because it was impossible to see what all to consider based on the huge diff. Try again, piece by piece... (Oct26)

I kept up a lone battle, fighting half a dozen editors on the talk page, and in related articles such as the History of Typography. I even went to the village pump arguing that histories of technology could not be Euro-centric. Eventually I got the title of that article changed to "history of western typography".

Within a month (nov 18), Johannes Gutenberg had doubled to 28K, with 16 citations (up from 6). I dare say the language was far more crisp than the present version. 12 new citations had been added by me, to document a range of details about his life, and subsections on his printing press, the court case he lost, his later life. I also added a section Gutenberg's method of printing with movable type with a nuanced discussion on the lack of detail and questions raised about whether JG's types were made from reusable moulds. Five years on, most of my text in these sections still remain.

The lead sentence after my last nov 27 edit went:

 * Johannes [Gutenberg] ... was a German goldsmith and inventor credited with inventing movable type printing in Europe (ca. 1450).

Was Gutenberg influenced by East Asian printing?

Since the use of printing from movable type arose in East Asia well before it did in Europe, it is relevant to ask whether Gutenberg may have been influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Korean or Chinese discoveries of movable type printing, or their earlier discoveries of block printing. This question is particularly relevant since it is becoming increasingly accepted that European woodblock printing was derived from processes perfected in China. In Joseph Needham's Science and Civilization in China a chapter on Paper and Printing suggests that "European block printers must not only have seen Chinese samples, but perhaps had been taught by missionaries or others who had learned these un-European methods from Chinese printers during their residence in China."

Movable types made from clay were introduced in China by Bi Sheng, between 1041 to 1048. Cast metal movable type was introduced during the Goryeo dynasty of Korea and is associated with Chae Yun-eui (around 1230). A set of ritual books, Sangjong Gogeum Yemun were printed with the movable metal type in 1234. The oldest surviving book printed with movable type is from Korea, dated 1377.

By the 1300s the Mongol Empire stretched from Korea to Damascus and Kiev, and movable type printing radiated westward out of Korea. Among the people known to have used movable type are the Uighurs of Central Asia, whose written script was adopted for the Mongol script. There has been considerable conjecture whether some news of this technology, if not printed samples, had reached Europe, e.g. in this article by Tom Christensen :

 * What is certain, however, is that printing with movable wooden type is documented from the eleventh century; that printing with movable metal type had been an active enterprise in Korea since 1234; that other printing technologies had Asian origins and were subsequently transmitted to the West; that a single empire (the Mongol khanates) stretched from Korea to Europe through much of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, facilitating cross-cultural exchange across a large region; that there was considerable East-West travel, contact, and exchange during this period; that the written record of such contacts records only a fraction of what actually occurred; and that there was awareness of Asian printing in Europe in the centuries before Gutenberg....[but] as Eva Hanebutt-Benz properly observes, “We do not know if Johannes Gutenberg had any kind of knowledge of the fact that long before his invention printing with moveable type was done in East-Asia.”

However, there were key differences between the European technologies and that in Korea. Gutenberg used a press, unlike in East Asia, oil-based inks, and other devices that were significantly different. Whatever the facts regarding Asian influences in this invention, there can be no doubt about Gutenberg's genius in putting together the technologies that eventually went on to fuel the European renaissance.

I did not agree with the view of "inventing X in Europe". I mean, how should there be as many inventors as there are regions in the world? But this was the consensus then.

But when a large chunk of an associated edit in the History of Typography article was removed to create a new article on History of printing in East Asia, and even the editors who had sided with me earlier agreed on this, I thought I would simply stop editing on wikipedia. Though I came back later, i haven't edited any article related to printing since then.

Eurocentric Bias
In particular, a section I had added, _Was Gutenberg influenced by East Asian printing_, was vehemently opposed for demeaning Gutenberg's "invention". It was removed many times, and others kept bringing it back, saying it was relevant and had been agreed on on the talk page.

On Feb 8, 2007, the entire section on _influence of East Asian printing_ was deleted by the most rabid of the three editor i was debating. Along with this section, more than a quarter of the article's citations were deleted.

I am not going back to edit the article, but i feel that some of what i had said then would still enrich the article, so i am quoting here what I had on my last-ever JG edit, from Nov 27, 2006

Revisiting Gutenberg October 2011
After many years, I chanced upon the Johannes Gutenberg page today. I found that the lead does not refer to him as "inventor of printing". After some poorly constructed language, it reads:
 * His usage of movable type printing started the Printing Revolution.

Thus it posits Gutenberg as an "user" of movable type, not as its "inventor". This is the very point is one on which I had fought my bitterest battle on wikipedia, in 2007.

I am not sure if my rants about it on this talk page may have contributed to this reassessment - though most likely its just l'air du temps.

Wikipedia Fatigue
Today, looking around at editors from my early days, I realize I am somewhat of a survivor on wikipedia; while dozens of old-timers are still around, hundreds of other editors seem to have given up and disappeared.

And people wonder what causes "wikipedia fatigue"(volunteers log off as wikipedia ages, WSJ).

Articles

 * = new article created

Birds
Bank Myna* (+Photo) Barred Buttonquail Black-throated Weaver* Black-winged Cuckoo-shrike Blue-headed rock thrush Brahminy Myna (+Photo) Brown Rock Chat* (+ Photo; Wikipedia DYK) Common Hawk-cuckoo Common Kingfisher Coppersmith Barbet Hill Myna Long-tailed Shrike Munia Passenger Pigeon Purple Swamphen Red-wattled Lapwing (+Photo) Sand Lark* (Photo needed) Sirkeer Malkoha Ultramarine Flycatcher White-eyed Buzzard

Culture
Bansuri Baul Darbari Kanada* Dennis the Menace Durga Puja Durga Fatwa Freedom of the press Lady Tennant Stradivarius Mahishasura Monsoon Wedding Music of Bengal Radio France Internationale Sahitya Akademi Sanskrit College Shrinking penis Stradivarius Taranga (Jain Temple) Thaat The Shadow Lines Thumri Villanelle Whistleblower

History
Kipchaks Blood In The Water match List of largest empires Merkit Moken Mongol Empire Movable type Printing press Salesians of Don Bosco Typography White Phosphorus

India-Related
BMW case Battle of Plassey Bofors scandal Category:Indian criminal-politicians Category:Indian mobsters Central Bureau of Investigation Ganga Canal Golden Quadrangle Road Network Guest Keen Williams Hindu calendar Indian Railways Indian calendar Indian law Jainism Mass media in India Sino-Indian War Tandoor University of calcutta

Linguistics
Abugida Abahatta Agglutinative language Apabhrangsha Assimilation Bangla Categorization Chagatai language Indian Sign Language History of the Hindi language Indo-Pakistani Sign Language Language Movement Linguistic Relativism List of alphabets List of languages by number of native speakers List of sign languages List of writing systems Maithili language Metonymy Middle Indo-Aryan Morphemic Prabhakara* Prototype Theory Sakatayana* Sanskrit Sanskrit Grammarian Sapir–Whorf hypothesis Shiva Sutra Valency (linguistics) Vyakarana

Mathematics, Science, Logic
Degrees of freedom (engineering) Fibonacci number Food fortification Gopala-Hemachandra number Hemachandra number Indian Logic Magnetic capacitivity Micromineral Micronutrient Mirror neuron Navya Nyaya Spherical trigonometry Yawn

Recent edits

 * Arthur Schnitzler - "fraulein else" may be a response to a critique of his Jewish roots
 * Arun Kolatkar - one of India's most influential bilingual poets (Marathi-English) (major edits, image)
 * Arun Prakash - retired chief of Naval staff.
 * Arvind Krishna Mehrotra * - Indian English poet and critic
 * Assia Djebar - powerful Algerian woman novelist
 * Binjamin Wilkomirski - or does his memory really reconstruct himself as a holocaust survivor?
 * Bimal Krishna Matilal - indian philosopher
 * Bobby Fischer - chess prodigy (added details to his early chess career)
 * Carl Ernst - Islamic scholar (name change)
 * D R Kaprekar * - Indian amateur mathematicians who has several numbers named after him
 * Dattila - author of ancient treatise on Indian classical music
 * Desi Sangye Gyatso - possibly the son of Dalai Lama V, he ruled for 16 years while the death of the Dalai Lama was kept hidden
 * Douglas Prasher - scientist behind 2009 chemistry nobel is now drives shuttle vans for a living
 * Ehsan Jafri * - Indian politican killed in the 2002 Gujarat riots; created page w 10K w 12 refs
 * Feroze Gandhi - the "Gandhi" whose gave the last name to Indira, Rajiv, Sonia Rahul etc. major expansion + refs
 * Githa Hariharan - inflential Indian authors; won a case to have the children named after her (instead of father only)
 * Gopal Chandra Bhattacharya * - Indian biologist and popular science writer
 * Hans Raj Khanna * - Supreme court judge who had the integrity to dissent the taking away of Habeas Corpus during the Emergency; he was subsequently superceded for CJI by Indira Gandhi.
 * Haridas Mundhra * - major indian stock market scamster from the 1950s
 * Harshad Mehta - stock market scamster from the 90s
 * Hena Shahab * - wife and proxy candidate for Mohammad Shahabuddin
 * Indira Gandhi - added details and refs related to marriage
 * Indira Jaising - Indian woman lawyer
 * Jamuna Nishad * - Indian politician was minister in Mayawati govt; forced to resign after allegedly murdering a policeman; created page 7K w 12 refs
 * Jayaprabha * - Telugu poet and feminist
 * K. G. Balakrishnan - highlighted humble background from which he rose to become CJI of Supreme Court
 * K. Shivaram Karanth - Kannada author
 * K. Ullas Karanth - noted Indian conservation zoologist
 * Kersy Katrak * - Indian English poet and advertising man
 * Khondaker Mostaq Ahmad - 2nd president of Bangladesh
 * Lasantha Wickrematunge - complete re-do of lead and other parts
 * Madhava of Sangamagrama - 14th c. indian inventor of infinite series, the basis of calculus, two centuries before Newton or Leibniz
 * Mukul Deva * - Indian author
 * Natu Gopal Narhar * - marathi poet
 * Nigar Hanim - 20th c. Turkish woman poet - details of poetry w quote + refs
 * Om Prakash Yadav * - the MP who overcame Mohammad Shahabuddin's muscle in Siwan, Bihar
 * P. B. Sawant * - details of role in Gujarat riots commission, created w 5 refs
 * P.N. Oak - Indian pseudo-historian who is very popular in Hindutva sites. In 2007, my first edits, citing lots of sources that called him "Professor" PN Oak, were heavily attacked by users like User:Kkm5848 and user:Bakasuprman and several anonymous ids, possibly because they believed in him, or maybe they were hindutva believers. For some time, User:Paul Barlow valiantly defended my 4K-ish edits (with lots of citations) from being reverted.  But eventually others un-edited it bit by bit.  However, over time, it became clearer that Oak was indeed a fraud, and the edit battles quietened down, and I was able to re-edit it to get in the substance of of my original changes.  It is still being defended by Barlow, but attacks appear to be less frequent.
 * Parameshvara Namboodri - Kerala school mathematician, discovered the Taylor Series expansion of sin(x) four centuries before Brook Taylor.
 * Paul Ekman - psychologist working on lying
 * Peary Chand Mitra - 19th c. pioneering bengali author
 * Priyanka Vadra - I had put in a "allegation of links with Massimo Quattrocchi" - with several sources, but this whole section was edited out mysteriously along with another citation suggesting that she may have met Robert Vadra at the Ottavio Quattrocchi residence
 * Pulak Biswas * - Indian children's book illustrator, author of "Tiger on a tree"
 * Raja Bhaiyya or Raghuraj Pratap Singh - Indian politician
 * Rajiv Gandhi - childhood - rift between parents
 * Ramkrishna Dalmia - details on his six wives
 * Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh * - first Indian politician to go to jail for corruption; father of present minister Arjun Singh
 * Rashid Khan - noted Indian classical vocalist, one of my all-time favourites
 * Rashid-al-Din Hamadani - Islamic scholar and first multi-cultural historian
 * Ratna Singh - Indian politician
 * Reetika Vazirani - woman poet of Indian origin who killed herself and baby boy in the US
 * Rudrangshu Mukherjee - Indian historian, editor and author
 * Shujaat Husain Khan - Indian fusion musician from the Imdadkhani gharana, son of Vilayat Khan
 * Sipra Bose - Indian classical singer, student of Begum Akhtar
 * Swami Haridas - religious saint and Dhrupad musician, guru of Tansen
 * T. U. Kuruvilla - Keralite politician who resigned after trying to sell some land which he may not have owned
 * Talwinder Singh Parmar - Sikh separatist militant, Canadian citizen. Involved in Air India bombing
 * Tansen - noted Hindustani music composer; although Muslim, composed many Hindu devotional songs
 * Umlesh Yadav * - wife of politican DP Yadav, she is currently an MLA in Uttar Pradesh
 * V. R. Krishna Iyer - cleanup re: Gujarat riots commission
 * Vidyapati - major poet in the Bhakti tradition
 * Vikas Yadav - convicted murderer of Nitish Katara, son of politician billionaire D. P. Yadav,
 * Yambo Ouloguem - talented Malian author; charged with plagiarism
 * Yogesh Kumar Sabharwal former Chief Justice of India, accused of poor ethics in pursuing cases related to son's business interest
 * Yusef Komunyakaa - details re: Reetika Vazirani suicide
 * Zohrabai Agrewali * - one of the most influential Hindustani classical singers from the turn of the century

Before 2007
Acharya Hemachandra Adil Shah Suri Adityanath Yogi Amarmani Tripathi Amitav Ghosh Annasaheb M.K. Patil Arun Gawli Arvind Kejriwal Aryabhata Ata al-Mulk Juvayni Atique Ahamad Bahadur Shah II Banarasidas Bao Ninh Baudhayana Bikram Grewal* Bimal Krishna Matilal Chae Yun-ui* Chhatrapal Singh Lodha* Christian Baldensberger Dara Singh (murderer) Dharam Pal Yadav* Dinesh Das* Edward L. Thorndike Genghis Khan Gopala* Harcharan Singh Balli* Hazrat muhammad Hemanta Kumar Mukhopadhyay J. C. Daniel* Jatindramohan Bagchi* Jean Hélène* Jessica Lall Jibananda Das Johannes Gutenberg John Clark Marshman John Maxwell Coetzee Juvayni Kabir Suman Katyayana Kazi Nazrul Islam Kumarapala L. Subramaniam Manu Sharma Maqbool Bhat Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Mikhail Bakhtin Mir Qasim Mir Taqi Mir Narendra Kumar Kushwaha Nawab Akbar Bugti Nitish Katara Ottavio Quattrocchi Otto Pfister (naturalist)* Phoolan Devi Pranab Mukherjee Priyadarshini Mattoo Rabindranath Tagore Rafael Leónidas Trujillo Rashid al-Din Ronu Majumdar Salman Rushdie Sanjeev Nanda Satyendra Dubey Shanmughan Manjunath Suman Chatterjee* Sunil Gangopadhyay Surjit Singh Barnala Uljetu Vachaspati Mishra Vachaspati Veerapandiyan Kattabomman Veerappan Venod Sharma Vidyapati Vijay Singh Virahanka*

Places
Ballygunge Bara Imambara Beit Lahia Bengal Bhagirathi River Bithoor Buddhas of Bamiyan Dagdi Chawl Delhi Ganges River Ghaghara River Greenland Hooghly River Ib Kalpi Kanpur Lake McDonald Lod Munger Musa Qala Mysore Palace Mâcon Nathu La Nawabgunj Bird Sanctuary New Delhi Onderbanken Onondaga, Michigan Palashi Panama Canal Sarayu Son River Varanasi Vinh Long

Writing Philosophy
Kenneth Clark, writing of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica,
 * It must be the last encyclopædia in the tradition of Diderot which assumes that information can be made memorable only when it is slightly coloured by prejudice.

I couldn't agree more. However, this prejudice that Clark is talking about is more idiosyncratic rather than sectarian, it is more of an intellectual bias which is of a personal nature, which makes the writing that bit more interesting. After all, among the authors of the eleventh edition was Bertrand Russell, whose History of Western Philosophy reflects extremely personal views bordering on cantankerousness (e.g. against Aristotle), which one reads with abandonment and delight. It is Russell who produced this wry comment contrasting Animal Behaviour studies by Edward Thorndike and Wolfgang Koehler:
 * "All of the animals that have been carefully observed...have all displayed the national characteristics of the observer. Animals studied by Americans rush about frantically, with an incredible display of hustle and pep, and at last achieve the desired result by chance. Animals observed by Germans sit stiff and think, and at last evolve the solution out of their inner consciousness." [If a Lion Could Talk:  Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of Consciousness, by Stephen Budiansky]]

Let's raise a glass to fun-to-read idiosyncratic writing, within the NPOV framework.

Translations
Must reflect what the author might have said had he been with us today. Translation is a shift, not only in language (space), but also in time.

I also contribute to the বাংলা wikipedia

title: User:Mukerjee


text:
David Bates

David Bates may refer to:

 * David Bates (English artist) (1840–1921), English landscape artist
 * David Bates (American artist) (born 1952), American modernist artist
 * David Bates (footballer) (born 1996), Scottish footballer
 * David Bates (historian) (born 1945), British historian and writer
 * David Bates (physicist) (1916–1994), Northern Irish mathematician and physicist
 * David Bates (poet) (1809–1870), American poet
 * David Bates (rugby league) (born 1980), Irish rugby league footballer
 * David Bates (swimmer) (born 1976), Australian open water swimmer
 * David Bates (politician) (1941–2017), American politician
 * David W. Bates (born 1957), American-born physician, biomedical informatician and professor

title: David Bates


text:
User:Jbbois

Student

Wiki articles: Tunnels of Cu Chi and Strategic Hamlet Program

title: User:Jbbois


text:
Botnet

A botnet is a group of Internet-connected devices, each of which runs one or more bots. Botnets can be used to perform distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, steal data, send spam, and allow the attacker to access the device and its connection. The owner can control the botnet using command and control (C&C) software. The word "botnet" is a portmanteau of the words "robot" and "network". The term is usually used with a negative or malicious connotation.

Overview
A botnet is a logical collection of Internet-connected devices, such as computers, smartphones or Internet of things (IoT) devices whose security have been breached and control ceded to a third party. Each compromised device, known as a "bot," is created when a device is penetrated by software from a malware (malicious software) distribution. The controller of a botnet is able to direct the activities of these compromised computers through communication channels formed by standards-based network protocols, such as IRC and Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP).

Botnets are increasingly rented out by cyber criminals as commodities for a variety of purposes, including as booter/stresser services.

Architecture
Botnet architecture has evolved over time in an effort to evade detection and disruption. Traditionally, bot programs are constructed as clients which communicate via existing servers. This allows the bot herder (the controller of the botnet) to perform all control from a remote location, which obfuscates the traffic. Many recent botnets now rely on existing peer-to-peer networks to communicate. These P2P bot programs perform the same actions as the client–server model, but they do not require a central server to communicate.

Client–server model
The first botnets on the Internet used a client–server model to accomplish their tasks. Typically, these botnets operate through Internet Relay Chat networks, domains, or websites. Infected clients access a predetermined location and await incoming commands from the server. The bot herder sends commands to the server, which relays them to the clients. Clients execute the commands and report their results back to the bot herder.

In the case of IRC botnets, infected clients connect to an infected IRC server and join a channel pre-designated for C&C by the bot herder. The bot herder sends commands to the channel via the IRC server. Each client retrieves the commands and executes them. Clients send messages back to the IRC channel with the results of their actions.

Peer-to-peer

In response to efforts to detect and decapitate IRC botnets, bot herders have begun deploying malware on peer-to-peer networks. These bots may use digital signatures so that only someone with access to the private key can control the botnet, such as in Gameover ZeuS and the ZeroAccess botnet.

Newer botnets fully operate over P2P networks. Rather than communicate with a centralized server, P2P bots perform as both a command distribution server and a client which receives commands. This avoids having any single point of failure, which is an issue for centralized botnets.

In order to find other infected machines, P2P bots discreetly probe random IP addresses until they identify another infected machine. The contacted bot replies with information such as its software version and list of known bots. If one of the bots' version is lower than the other, they will initiate a file transfer to update. This way, each bot grows its list of infected machines and updates itself by periodically communicating to all known bots.

Core components
A botnet's originator (known as a "bot herder" or "bot master") controls the botnet remotely. This is known as the command-and-control (C&C). The program for the operation must communicate via a covert channel to the client on the victim's machine (zombie computer).

Control protocols
IRC is a historically favored means of C&C because of its communication protocol. A bot herder creates an IRC channel for infected clients to join. Messages sent to the channel are broadcast to all channel members. The bot herder may set the channel's topic to command the botnet. For example, the message  from the bot herder alerts all infected clients belonging to #channel to begin a DDoS attack on the website www.victim.com. An example response  by a bot client alerts the bot herder that it has begun the attack.

Some botnets implement custom versions of well-known protocols. The implementation differences can be used for detection of botnets. For example, Mega-D features a slightly modified Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) implementation for testing spam capability. Bringing down the Mega-D's SMTP server disables the entire pool of bots that rely upon the same SMTP server.

Zombie computer
In computer science, a zombie computer is a computer connected to the Internet that has been compromised by a hacker, computer virus or trojan horse and can be used to perform malicious tasks under remote direction. Botnets of zombie computers are often used to spread e-mail spam and launch denial-of-service attacks (DDoS). Most owners of zombie computers are unaware that their system is being used in this way. Because the owner tends to be unaware, these computers are metaphorically compared to zombies. A coordinated DDoS attack by multiple botnet machines also resembles a zombie horde attack.

The process of stealing computing resources as a result of a system being joined to a "botnet" is sometimes referred to as "scrumping".

Global law enforcement agencies, with the DOJ and FBI, dismantled the 911 S5 botnet, responsible for $5.9 billion in theft and various cybercrimes. Chinese national YunHe Wang, charged with operating the botnet, faces up to 65 years in prison. Authorities seized $60 million in assets, including luxury items and properties.

Command and control
Botnet command and control (C&C) protocols have been implemented in a number of ways, from traditional IRC approaches to more sophisticated versions.

Telnet
Telnet botnets use a simple C&C botnet protocol in which bots connect to the main command server to host the botnet. Bots are added to the botnet by using a scanning script, which runs on an external server and scans IP ranges for telnet and SSH server default logins. Once a login is found, the scanning server can infect it through SSH with malware, which pings the control server.

IRC
IRC networks use simple, low bandwidth communication methods, making them widely used to host botnets. They tend to be relatively simple in construction and have been used with moderate success for coordinating DDoS attacks and spam campaigns while being able to continually switch channels to avoid being taken down. However, in some cases, merely blocking of certain keywords has proven effective in stopping IRC-based botnets. The RFC 1459 (IRC) standard is popular with botnets. The first known popular botnet controller script, "MaXiTE Bot" was using IRC XDCC protocol for private control commands.

One problem with using IRC is that each bot client must know the IRC server, port, and channel to be of any use to the botnet. Anti-malware organizations can detect and shut down these servers and channels, effectively halting the botnet attack. If this happens, clients are still infected, but they typically lie dormant since they have no way of receiving instructions. To mitigate this problem, a botnet can consist of several servers or channels. If one of the servers or channels becomes disabled, the botnet simply switches to another. It is still possible to detect and disrupt additional botnet servers or channels by sniffing IRC traffic. A botnet adversary can even potentially gain knowledge of the control scheme and imitate the bot herder by issuing commands correctly.

P2P
Since most botnets using IRC networks and domains can be taken down with time, hackers have moved to P2P botnets with C&C to make the botnet more resilient and resistant to termination.

Some have also used encryption as a way to secure or lock down the botnet from others, most of the time when they use encryption it is public-key cryptography and has presented challenges in both implementing it and breaking it.

Domains
Many large botnets tend to use domains rather than IRC in their construction (see Rustock botnet and Srizbi botnet). They are usually hosted with bulletproof hosting services. This is one of the earliest types of C&C. A zombie computer accesses a specially-designed webpage or domain(s) which serves the list of controlling commands. The advantages of using web pages or domains as C&C is that a large botnet can be effectively controlled and maintained with very simple code that can be readily updated.

Disadvantages of using this method are that it uses a considerable amount of bandwidth at large scale, and domains can be quickly seized by government agencies with little effort. If the domains controlling the botnets are not seized, they are also easy targets to compromise with denial-of-service attacks.

Fast-flux DNS can be used to make it difficult to track down the control servers, which may change from day to day. Control servers may also hop from DNS domain to DNS domain, with domain generation algorithms being used to create new DNS names for controller servers.

Some botnets use free DNS hosting services such as DynDns.org, No-IP.com, and Afraid.org to point a subdomain towards an IRC server that harbors the bots. While these free DNS services do not themselves host attacks, they provide reference points (often hard-coded into the botnet executable). Removing such services can cripple an entire botnet.

Others
Calling back to popular sites such as GitHub, Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, the XMPP open source instant message protocol and Tor hidden services are popular ways of avoiding egress filtering to communicate with a C&C server.

Traditional
This example illustrates how a botnet is created and used for malicious gain.

 * 1) A hacker purchases or builds a Trojan and/or exploit kit and uses it to start infecting users' computers, whose payload is a malicious application—the bot.
 * 2) The bot instructs the infected PC to connect to a particular command-and-control (C&C) server. (This allows the botmaster to keep logs of how many bots are active and online.)
 * 3) The botmaster may then use the bots to gather keystrokes or use form grabbing to steal online credentials and may rent out the botnet as DDoS and/or spam as a service or sell the credentials online for a profit.
 * 4) Depending on the quality and capability of the bots, the value is increased or decreased.

Newer bots can automatically scan their environment and propagate themselves using vulnerabilities and weak passwords. Generally, the more vulnerabilities a bot can scan and propagate through, the more valuable it becomes to a botnet controller community.

Computers can be co-opted into a botnet when they execute malicious software. This can be accomplished by luring users into making a drive-by download, exploiting web browser vulnerabilities, or by tricking the user into running a Trojan horse program, which may come from an email attachment. This malware will typically install modules that allow the computer to be commanded and controlled by the botnet's operator. After the software is downloaded, it will call home (send a reconnection packet) to the host computer. When the re-connection is made, depending on how it is written, a Trojan may then delete itself or may remain present to update and maintain the modules.

Others
In some cases, a botnet may be temporarily created by volunteer hacktivists, such as with implementations of the Low Orbit Ion Cannon as used by 4chan members during Project Chanology in 2010.

China's Great Cannon of China allows the modification of legitimate web browsing traffic at internet backbones into China to create a large ephemeral botnet to attack large targets such as GitHub in 2015.

Common uses

 * Distributed denial-of-service attacks are one of the most common uses for botnets, in which multiple systems submit as many requests as possible to a single Internet computer or service, overloading it and preventing it from servicing legitimate requests. An example is an attack on a victim's server. The victim's server is bombarded with requests by the bots, attempting to connect to the server, therefore, overloading it. Google fraud czar Shuman Ghosemajumder has said that these types of attacks causing outages on major websites will continue to occur regularly due the use of botnets as a service.
 * Spyware is software which sends information to its creators about a user's activities – typically passwords, credit card numbers and other information that can be sold on the black market. Compromised machines that are located within a corporate network can be worth more to the bot herder, as they can often gain access to confidential corporate information. Several targeted attacks on large corporations aimed to steal sensitive information, such as the Aurora botnet.
 * E-mail spam are e-mail messages disguised as messages from people, but are either advertising, annoying, or malicious.
 * Click fraud occurs when the user's computer visits websites without the user's awareness to create false web traffic for personal or commercial gain.
 * Ad fraud is often a consequence of malicious bot activity, according to CHEQ, Ad Fraud 2019, The Economic Cost of Bad Actors on the Internet. Commercial purposes of bots include influencers using them to boost their supposed popularity, and online publishers using bots to increase the number of clicks an ad receives, allowing sites to earn more commission from advertisers.
 * Credential stuffing attacks use botnets to log in to many user accounts with stolen passwords, such as in the attack against General Motors in 2022.
 * Bitcoin mining was used in some of the more recent botnets have which include bitcoin mining as a feature in order to generate profits for the operator of the botnet.
 * Self-spreading functionality, to seek for pre-configured command-and-control (CNC) pushed instruction contains targeted devices or network, to aim for more infection, is also spotted in several botnets. Some of the botnets are utilizing this function to automate their infections.

Market
The botnet controller community constantly competes over who has the most bots, the highest overall bandwidth, and the most "high-quality" infected machines, like university, corporate, and even government machines.

While botnets are often named after the malware that created them, multiple botnets typically use the same malware but are operated by different entities.

Phishing
Botnets can be used for many electronic scams. These botnets can be used to distribute malware such as viruses to take control of a regular users computer/software By taking control of someone's personal computer they have unlimited access to their personal information, including passwords and login information to accounts. This is called phishing. Phishing is the acquiring of login information to the "victim's" accounts with a link the "victim" clicks on that is sent through an email or text. A survey by Verizon found that around two-thirds of electronic "espionage" cases come from phishing.

Countermeasures
The geographic dispersal of botnets means that each recruit must be individually identified/corralled/repaired and limits the benefits of filtering.

Computer security experts have succeeded in destroying or subverting malware command and control networks, by, among other means, seizing servers or getting them cut off from the Internet, denying access to domains that were due to be used by malware to contact its C&C infrastructure, and, in some cases, breaking into the C&C network itself. In response to this, C&C operators have resorted to using techniques such as overlaying their C&C networks on other existing benign infrastructure such as IRC or Tor, using peer-to-peer networking systems that are not dependent on any fixed servers, and using public key encryption to defeat attempts to break into or spoof the network.

Norton AntiBot was aimed at consumers, but most target enterprises and/or ISPs. Host-based techniques use heuristics to identify bot behavior that has bypassed conventional anti-virus software. Network-based approaches tend to use the techniques described above; shutting down C&C servers, null-routing DNS entries, or completely shutting down IRC servers. BotHunter is software, developed with support from the U.S. Army Research Office, that detects botnet activity within a network by analyzing network traffic and comparing it to patterns characteristic of malicious processes.

Researchers at Sandia National Laboratories are analyzing botnets' behavior by simultaneously running one million Linux kernels—a similar scale to a botnet—as virtual machines on a 4,480-node high-performance computer cluster to emulate a very large network, allowing them to watch how botnets work and experiment with ways to stop them.

Detecting automated bot attacks is becoming more difficult each day as newer and more sophisticated generations of bots are getting launched by attackers. For example, an automated attack can deploy a large bot army and apply brute-force methods with highly accurate username and password lists to hack into accounts. The idea is to overwhelm sites with tens of thousands of requests from different IPs all over the world, but with each bot only submitting a single request every 10 minutes or so, which can result in more than 5 million attempts per day. In these cases, many tools try to leverage volumetric detection, but automated bot attacks now have ways of circumventing triggers of volumetric detection.

One of the techniques for detecting these bot attacks is what's known as "signature-based systems" in which the software will attempt to detect patterns in the request packet. However, attacks are constantly evolving, so this may not be a viable option when patterns cannot be discerned from thousands of requests. There is also the behavioral approach to thwarting bots, which ultimately tries to distinguish bots from humans. By identifying non-human behavior and recognizing known bot behavior, this process can be applied at the user, browser, and network levels.

The most capable method of using software to combat against a virus has been to utilize honeypot software in order to convince the malware that a system is vulnerable. The malicious files are then analyzed using forensic software.

On 15 July 2014, the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, held a hearing on the threats posed by botnets and the public and private efforts to disrupt and dismantle them.

The rise in vulnerable IoT devices has led to an increase in IoT-based botnet attacks. To address this, a novel network-based anomaly detection method for IoT called N-BaIoT was introduced. It captures network behavior snapshots and employs deep autoencoders to identify abnormal traffic from compromised IoT devices. The method was tested by infecting nine IoT devices with Mirai and BASHLITE botnets, showing its ability to accurately and promptly detect attacks originating from compromised IoT devices within a botnet.

Additionally, comparing different ways of detecting botnets is really useful for researchers. It helps them see how well each method works compared to others. This kind of comparison is good because it lets researchers evaluate the methods fairly and find ways to make them better.

Historical list of botnets
The first botnet was first acknowledged and exposed by EarthLink during a lawsuit with notorious spammer Khan C. Smith in 2001. The botnet was constructed for the purpose of bulk spam, and accounted for nearly 25% of all spam at the time.

Around 2006, to thwart detection, some botnets were scaling back in size.

 * Researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara took control of a botnet that was six times smaller than expected. In some countries, it is common that users change their IP address a few times in one day. Estimating the size of the botnet by the number of IP addresses is often used by researchers, possibly leading to inaccurate assessments.

title: Botnet


text: User talk:213.115.251.132

title: User talk:213.115.251.132