text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/synthetic consciousness

An article created today in parallel to artificial consciousness article because two users there didn't want to respect others who edit his article. This is not a Wikipedia policy to create parallel articles. But this is not the first time when these two users did this. They should edit artificial consciousness article instead and respect the people there. Tkorrovi 17:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep --These two paradymes are common themes in AI and not well understood. They both have valid thoughts to offer the "consciousness and AI" sections.  While the content of Artificial vs syhtnetic leaves muchto be desired, it remains two well represented theoretical platforms in Ai today.  If I were conscious I'd keep it..Quickwik
 * Please sign and date your entries, it helps when votes are time-sensitive as they are here. --Ben Brockert 21:53, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep --One page is tiresomely argumentative and is the residence of a troll. Hopefully something better comes out fo the other.  Paul Beardsell 18:27, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: and is the residence of a troll - made me laugh that phrase. Trolls wearing sock puppets in the consciousness.  Lovely image --bodnotbod 23:10, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge any unique content from synthetic consciousness to artificial consciousness and redirect. Forking articles, for better or worse, is not the WP way. "Artificial consciousness" is a much more common term than "synthetic consciousness", so the article should have the former name. -- That said, I have to admit I don't know what's an effective way to deal with a troll. Unfortunately AI seems to attract them. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I take back what I said about trolling. It's not clear to me who the troll is here. Vote unchanged. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:14, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * This is me who he calls a troll. In spite of all my attempts to make things better, he doesn't stop offending me, and recently confirmed that he is not going to have a slightest respect towards me. I asked him on his talk page, I talked on public places, but there is nothing I can do, in spite many people in Wikipedia know that, such behaviour is tolerated in Wikipedia. I'm thoroughly discredited by his numerous offenses and attempts to ridicule me, I cannot imagine worst self-demotion than writing article in Wikipedia where such behaviour is tolerated, and supported by the action of sysops. I think I'm going to write about it and Wikipedia somewhere in the Internet, it is very unfortunate, but unfortunately this is the truth about Wikipedia. But I stay and continue to edit the article, I shall never leave in spite of continuous offending and ridiculing of me for several months now by a single person, and the only reason for that is that I in principle cannot allow gaining a power by unfair methods such as consistent offending of single individual. But against such offending there is nothing I can do, I didn't reply to many offenses, and replied most politely whenever I could, but whenever offender feels even a silent support by others, there is no reason for him to stop. Tkorrovi 12:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep, for the time being. The assertion that synthetic consciousness should be deleted was made by the person who it is alleged is the troll, and who, it seems to me, appears to make a proprietorial claim on the artificial consciousness article, having been its progenitor. As can be seen from the AC talk page and its voluminous archives, progress in light of this misplaced ownership claim has been turbulent. I started the synthetic consciousness page, but would agree that eventually there should be one page to cover this topic, which has no agreed nomenclature. The terms artificial consciousness, digital consciousness, digital sentience, artificial neuroconsciousness, synthetic consciousness (and there may be others) all seem to be related and perhaps should eventually all redirect to the same place, which might itself be a subsection of artificial intelligence. In the mean time, I have thrown down the gauntlet to the original author of artificial consciousness to tolerate the 'competing' synthetic consciousness page and to hold a poll in due course to determine which of the two is the better article which should then become the definitive wikipedia offering. He has responded to my challenge by flagging synthetic consciousness for deletion, though I note that User:Wikiwikifast has just suggested at Talk:Artificial_consciousness that the artificial consciousness page should mainly be deleted. Matt Stan 10:52, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I said clearly that I don't support parallel articles. You always supported Paul Beardsell in offending me, you were the two who came together a long time after I created artificial consciousness article and started a long series of offenses against me. But in spite of such treatment, I never didn't prevent editing the article by anybody. Except a single unfortunate event many months ago when I tried to prevent an attempt to almost completely remove the content of he article, and was severely punished by sysops then, maybe I indeed violated some rules of Wikipedia, but not intentionally, and this is a matter of interpretation, but I comply. If you assert that I make a proprietorial claim on the article, then you must specify where I did it. I never made any proprietary claim on the article, and didn't prevent anybody editing it, most of the text in the article is not written by me, and all views, presented by anybody, for and against, are present, so the article is also NPOV, in spite of contrary claims. Tkorrovi 12:54, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * This is typical misrepresentation and is wrong in practically all respects. It is easy to demonstrate this.  Time and time again Tkorrovi makes unwarranted and false assertions about AC and about others' behaviour.  Just read the archived talk pages:  You will be entertained, if nothing else.  Paul Beardsell 17:30, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * This is a matter for mediation, not VfD. I support merging the two articles back together and working out your difficulties instead of this extended pissing match, which is just destructive. Snowspinner 19:26, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, it's not funny. Tkorrovi 20:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)


text:
Nikolai Khokhlov

Nikolai Yevgenievich Khokhlov (Cyrillic: Николай Евгеньевич Хохлов; 7 June 1922 – 17 September 2007) was a KGB officer who defected to the United States in 1954. He testified about KGB activities. The KGB unsuccessfully tried to kill him with poison in 1957.

Family background
Nikolai Khoklov was born in 1922, in Nizhny Novgorod. Khokhlov's parents divorced when he was very young. He was not well-acquainted with his father, who later served as a commissar in the Red Army. During the Battle for Moscow, the elder Khokhlov was transferred to a penal battalion because he had made unfavourable remarks about Joseph Stalin. Khokhlov's father died in the battalion.

His stepfather, a lawyer, volunteered to defend Moscow in 1941 and died in action almost immediately. As Khokhlov later put it, "The army needed cannon fodder".

NKVD career
In October 1941, Khokhlov, then 19 years old, was a member of an NKVD quartet who were trained to commit a spectacular attack against Nazi officers during their victory celebration in the occupied Moscow. The mastermind behind the plan was Mikhail Maklyarskiy, a senior NKVD official. The four young agents would have played a vaudeville group on the celebration. Khokhlov was chosen for his role on his whistling abilities. During the training, he had his first great romance with fellow agent, singer Tasya Ignatova. After the German retreat from the outskirts of Moscow, the deadly show was cancelled.

Nikolai Khokhlov was a member of a successful military unit that fought behind the enemy lines during World War II. He was disguised as a Nazi officer after parachuting into German-occupied Belarus. He played a part in the assassination of Wilhelm Kube, the Nazi Gauleiter of Belarus. After the war, Khokhlov became the prototype for the main character in a 1947 Soviet film, Feat of a Scout ("Подвиг разведчика").

Assassination mission
In 1954, Khokhlov was sent by the KGB to Frankfurt to supervise two men whose task was to kill Georgiy Okolovich, a chairman of the National Alliance of Russian Solidarists. He discussed the situation with his wife, Yana, who said, "If this man is killed, you will be a murderer. I cannot be the wife of a murderer and decided not to follow the order." Khokhlov went to Okolovich's flat and told him: "Georgiy Sergeyevich, I have come to you from Moscow. The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has ordered your assassination. The murder is entrusted to my group... I can’t let this murder happen." Khokhlov defected to the United States following his failure to carry out the assassination order. In retaliation, his wife in the Soviet Union was arrested and sentenced to five years of involuntary settlement.

Poisoning by thallium
Khokhlov was treated for thallium poisoning in Frankfurt in 1957, as a result of a failed assassination attempt by the Thirteenth Department of the KGB. This case is often claimed to be the first radiological attack by the KGB, especially when comparison with the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko is drawn, although it remains unclear what isotope was used, if any. Former KGB officer Stanislav Lekarev claimed, however, that Khokhlov was poisoned by radioactive polonium (not thallium), exactly as Litvinenko was. Litvinenko's poisoning was also initially mistaken for thallium.

Life in the United States
After graduating with a PhD from Duke University, Khokhlov taught undergraduate and graduate psychology classes at California State University, San Bernardino from 1968 to 1992. He retired as a professor emeritus in 1993.

In the United States, Khokhlov married again. With his second wife Tanya, he had two daughters and a son, Misha, who died several years later due to a kidney failure.

In 1992, Russian President Boris Yeltsin pardoned Khokhlov. The same year he returned to Moscow for a short stay, for the first time since the 1950s. He later made an e-mail contact with, then eventually met, his son in Russia of whom he had not been previously aware.

Nikolai Khokhlov died of a heart attack in San Bernardino, California, in September 2007. He was buried next to the grave of his son.

Books

 * Nikolai Evgenievich Khokhlov. In the name of conscience . Translated by Emily Kingsbery. New York : David McKay, 1959. In the name of conscience (Russian)
 * Boris Volodarsky. Nikolai Khokhlov ("Whistler"), Self-Esteem with a Halo . Vienna-London : Borwall Verlag, 2005. (English)

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

title: Nikolai Khokhlov


text:
Let there be light

"Let there be light" is an English translation of the Hebrew (yehi 'or) found in Genesis 1:3 of the Torah, the first part of the Hebrew Bible. In Old Testament translations of the phrase, translations include the Greek phrase γενηθήτω φῶς (genēthḗtō phôs) and the Latin phrases fiat lux and lux sit.

Genesis 1:3
The phrase comes from the third verse of the Book of Genesis. In the King James Bible, it reads, in context:

Origin and etymology
In biblical Hebrew, the phrase (yəhî ’ôr) is made of two words. (yəhî) is the third-person masculine singular jussive form of "to exist" and (’ôr) means "light."

In the Koine Greek Septuagint the phrase is translated "καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεός γενηθήτω φῶς καὶ ἐγένετο φῶς" — kaì eîpen ho Theós genēthḗtō phôs kaì egéneto phôs. Γενηθήτω is the imperative form of γίγνομαι, "to come into being."

The original Latinization of the Greek translation used in the Vetus Latina was lux sit ("light – let it exist" or "let light exist"), which has been used occasionally, although there is debate as to its accuracy.

In the Latin Vulgate Bible, the Hebrew phrase is translated in Latin as fiat lux. In context, the translation is "dixitque Deus fiat lux et facta est lux" ("And said God let there be light, and there was light"). Literally, fiat lux would be translated as "let light be made" (fiat is the third person singular present passive subjunctive form of the verb facio, meaning "to do" or "to make"). The Douay–Rheims Bible translates the phrase, from the Vulgate, as "Be light made. And light was made."

title: Let there be light


text:
Borough of Great Yarmouth

The Borough of Great Yarmouth is a local government district with borough status in Norfolk, England. It is named after its main town, Great Yarmouth, and also contains the town of Gorleston-on-Sea and a number of villages and rural areas, including part of The Broads. Other notable settlements include Caister-on-Sea, Hemsby, Hopton-on-Sea and Winterton-on-Sea.

The borough is on the east coast of Norfolk, facing the North Sea. It borders North Norfolk to the north, Broadland to the west, South Norfolk to the south-west, and East Suffolk to the south.

History
The town of Great Yarmouth was an ancient borough, having been granted a charter in 1208. The borough was enlarged in 1668 to take in the Southtown area (also known as Little Yarmouth) on the south side of the River Yare in the parish of Gorleston. In 1703 the borough was given the right to appoint a mayor. The borough was reformed to become a municipal borough in 1836, when it was also enlarged to include the rest of the parish of Gorleston. When elected county councils were created in 1889, Great Yarmouth was considered large enough to provide its own county-level services and so it became a county borough, independent from the new Norfolk County Council.

The modern district was formed on 1 April 1974 under the Local Government Act 1972, covering the whole area of the former county borough and parts of another two districts, which were all abolished at the same time: The Lothingland parishes had been in East Suffolk prior to the 1974 reforms; their inclusion in the Great Yarmouth district was brought about as an amendment to the draft legislation at committee stage proposed by Anthony Fell, Member of Parliament for the Great Yarmouth constituency.
 * Blofield and Flegg Rural District (parishes lying generally north-east of the River Bure, rest went to Broadland)
 * Great Yarmouth County Borough
 * Lothingland Rural District (parishes of Belton, Bradwell, Burgh Castle, Fritton and St Olaves and Hopton-on-Sea only, rest went to Waveney)

The new district was named Great Yarmouth after its main settlement. The new district was granted borough status from its creation, allowing the chair of the council to take the title of mayor, continuing Great Yarmouth's series of mayors dating back to 1703.

Governance
Great Yarmouth Borough Council provides district-level services. County-level services are provided by Norfolk County Council. Parts of the borough are also covered by civil parishes, which form a third tier of local government.

In the parts of the district within The Broads, town planning is the responsibility of the Broads Authority. The borough council appoints one of its councillors to sit on that authority.

Political control
The council has been under no overall control since the 2023 election, being run by a Conservative minority administration.

The first election to the borough council as reformed under the Local Government Act 1972 was held in 1973, initially operating as a shadow authority alongside the outgoing authorities until the new arrangements came into effect on 1 April 1974. Political control of the council since 1974 has been as follows:

Leadership
The role of mayor is largely ceremonial in Great Yarmouth. Political leadership is instead provided by the leader of the council. The leaders since 1999 have been:

Composition
Following the 2023 election the composition of the council was:

The next election is due in 2027.

Elections
Since the last boundary changes in 2004 the council has comprised 39 councillors representing 17 wards, with each ward election one, two or three councillors. Elections are held every four years.

In the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 71.5% of Great Yarmouth voted to leave the European Union, the 5th highest such leave vote in the country.

Although the UK Youth Parliament is an apolitical organisation, the elections are run in a way similar to that of the Local Elections. The votes come from 11 to 18-year olds and are combined to make the decision of the next, 2-year Member of Youth Parliament. The elections are run at different times across the country with Great Yarmouth's typically being in early Spring and bi-annually.
 * UK Youth Parliament

Premises
The council is based at Great Yarmouth Town Hall on Hall Plain, which was completed in 1882 for the old borough council.

Geography
The borough comprises the urban area of Great Yarmouth itself, together with 21 surrounding parishes. At the time of the 2001 census, the borough had an area of 182 km², of which 26 km² was in the urban area and 156 km² in the surrounding parishes. The borough had a population of 90,810 in 39,380 households, with 47,288 people in 21,007 households living in the urban area, whilst 43,522 people in 18,373 households lived in the surrounding parishes.

Places
Besides Great Yarmouth itself, other significant settlements in the borough include:

 * Bastwick, Belton, Bradwell, Browston Green, Burgh Castle, Burgh St Margaret
 * Caister-on-Sea, California
 * East Somerton
 * Filby, Fleggburgh, Fritton
 * Gorleston-on-Sea
 * Hemsby, Hopton-on-Sea
 * Martham, Mautby
 * Runham
 * Ormesby St. Margaret, Ormesby St. Michael
 * Repps, Rollesby
 * St. Olaves, Scratby, Stokesby
 * Thrigby
 * West Somerton, Winterton-on-Sea
 * Cobholm Island

Parishes
The main part of Great Yarmouth itself, roughly corresponding to the pre-1974 borough (and so including Gorleston) is an unparished area. The remainder of the district comprises the following civil parishes:

 * Ashby with Oby
 * Belton with Browston †, Bradwell †, Burgh Castle †
 * Caister-on-Sea
 * Filby, Fleggburgh with Billockby & Clippesby, Fritton and St. Olaves †
 * Hemsby, Hopton-on-Sea †
 * Martham, Mautby
 * Ormesby St. Margaret with Scratby, Ormesby St. Michael
 * Repps with Bastwick, Rollesby
 * Somerton, Stokesby with Herringby
 * Thurne
 * West Caister, Winterton-on-Sea

† formerly part of Lothingland Rural District

Freedom of the Borough
The following people, military units and organisations and groups have received the Freedom of the Borough of Great Yarmouth.

Individuals

 * Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson: 1800.
 * Cora Batley: 1997.
 * [Michael Thomas Jeal: 14 April 2022.

Military Units

 * The 1st East Anglian Regiment: 1963.
 * The Royal Anglian Regiment: 1964.
 * HMS Yarmouth, RN: 1984.
 * The Great Yarmouth and Gorleston Lifeboat Station, RNLI: 1984.
 * The Caister Volunteer Lifeboat Service: 1984.

 * 901 Troop Royal Marines Cadets: 28 September 2012.
 * The Royal British Legion (Great Yarmouth Branch): 2 November 2012.
 * HMS Dauntless (D33), RN: 11 June 2013.

Organisations and Groups

 * Great Yarmouth Lions Club: 18 April 2024.

title: Borough of Great Yarmouth


text:
Boris Podolsky

Boris Yakovlevich Podolsky (Бори́с Я́ковлевич Подо́льский; June 29, 1896 – November 28, 1966) was a Russian-American physicist of Jewish descent, noted for his work with Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen on entangled wave functions and the EPR paradox.

Education
In 1896, Boris Podolsky was born into a poor Jewish family in Taganrog, in the Don Host Oblast of the Russian Empire and attended the Taganrog Gymnasium. He moved to the United States in 1913. After receiving a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering from the University of Southern California in 1918, he served in the US Army and then worked at the Los Angeles Bureau of Power and Light. In 1926, he obtained an MS in mathematics from the University of Southern California. In 1928, he received a PhD in Theoretical Physics (under Paul Sophus Epstein) from Caltech.

Career
Under a National Research Council Fellowship, Podolsky spent a year at the University of California, Berkeley, followed by a year at Leipzig University. In 1930, he returned to Caltech, working with Richard C. Tolman for one year. He then went to the Ukrainian Institute of Physics and Technology (Kharkiv, USSR), collaborating with Vladimir Fock, Paul Dirac (who was there on a visit), and Lev Landau. In 1932 he published a seminal early paper on Quantum Electrodynamics with Dirac and Fock, In 1933, he returned to the US with a fellowship from the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton.

In a letter dated November 10, 1933, to Abraham Flexner, founding director of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, Einstein described Podolsky as "one of the most brilliant of the younger men who has worked and published with [Paul] Dirac." In 1935 Einstein and others at the Institute wrote letters of recommendation for Podolsky, addressed to Louis T. More, Dean of the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati, in which Einstein wrote, "I am happy to be able to tell you that I estimate Podolsky's abilities very highly.. he is an independent investigator of unquestionable talent." In 1935, Podolsky took a post as professor of mathematical physics at the University of Cincinnati. At the University of Cincinnati he was MS adviser to Chihiro Kikuchi, and PhD adviser to Herman Branson and Alex Green. In 1961, he moved to Xavier University, Cincinnati, where he worked until his death in 1966.

Work
Working with Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen, Podolsky conceived the EPR paradox. This famous paper stimulated debate as to the interpretation of quantum mechanics, culminating with Bell's theorem and the advent of quantum information theory.

In 1933, Podolsky and Lev Landau had the idea to write a textbook on electromagnetism beginning with special relativity and emphasizing theoretical postulates rather than experimental laws. This project did not come to fruition due to Podolsky's return to the United States, where he had immigrated in 1913. However, in the hands of Lev Landau and E. Lifshitz, the outline they produced became The Classical Theory of Fields (1951). On the same basis, Podolsky and K. Kunz produced Fundamentals of Electrodynamics, Marcel Dekker Press (1969), to which Podolsky's son, Robert, contributed most of the questions at the end of each chapter.

Possible contact with Soviet spies during World War II
A 2009 book by John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr and Alexander Vassiliev, Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, identifies Podolsky as a contact (QUANTUM) who met twice with Soviet secret services in 1942 and 1943. The evidence for these contacts is somewhat indirect. Early during World War II, several VENONA cables identify a contact named QUANTUM who sought out Soviet intelligence in 1942 and asked for a position in the USSR to work on processing Uranium 235. A 1943 VENONA cable shows QUANTUM provided relatively simple equations known as Graham's law of gaseous diffusion (known since 1848) which can be used to separate fissile U-235 from unwanted U-238. QUANTUM was paid $300 for this information according to a VENONA cable. The Soviets never contacted him again because they felt QUANTUM was unreliable. A former KGB officer named Alexander Vassiliev took notes from the KGB archive after the fall of the USSR which suggested that QUANTUM was Podolsky.

In popular culture
Podolsky is played by the actor Gene Saks in the 1994 Hollywood film I.Q.

Primary source materials

 * Conference on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 1962. University Archives, Xavier University.
 * Niels Bohr Scientific Correspondence, Supplement, 1910–1962. Niels Bohr Archive.

title: Boris Podolsky


text:
Forest of Dean District

Forest of Dean is a local government district in west Gloucestershire, England, named after the Forest of Dean. Its council is based in Coleford. Other towns and villages in the district include Blakeney, Cinderford, Drybrook, English Bicknor, Huntley, Littledean, Longhope, Lydbrook, Lydney, Mitcheldean, Newnham and Newent.

History
The district was formed on 1 April 1974 under the Local Government Act 1972. The new district covered the whole area of four former districts and part of a fifth, which were all abolished at the same time: The new district was named Forest of Dean after the ancient woodland which covers much of the district.
 * East Dean Rural District
 * Gloucester Rural District (parishes of Newnham and Westbury-on-Severn only)
 * Lydney Rural District
 * Newent Rural District
 * West Dean Rural District

Governance
Forest of Dean District Council provides district-level services. County-level services are provided by Gloucestershire County Council. The whole district is also covered by civil parishes, which form a third tier of local government.

Political control
Since the 2023 election the council has been run by a Green minority administration with support from Labour on a confidence and supply basis.

The first election to the council was held in 1973, initially operating as a shadow authority alongside the outgoing authorities until the new arrangements came into effect on 1 April 1974. Political control of the council since 1974 has been as follows:

Leadership
The leaders of the council since 2007 have been:

Composition
Following the 2023 election, the composition of the council was:

The next election is due in 2027.

Premises
The council is based at the Council Offices on High Street in Coleford.

Elections
Since the last boundary changes in 2019, the council has comprised 38 councillors elected from 21 wards, with each ward electing one, two or three councillors. Elections are held every four years.

Parishes and settlements
The whole district is divided into civil parishes. The parish councils of Cinderford, Coleford, Lydney and Newent take the style "town council".

Settlements include:
 * Alvington, Awre, Aylburton
 * Blaisdon, Birdwood, Bream, Brockweir, Bromsberrow, Blakeney
 * Churcham, Cinderford, Coleford
 * Drybrook, Dymock
 * Ellwood, English Bicknor
 * Gorsley and Kilcot
 * Hartpury, Hewelsfield, Highleadon, Huntley
 * Kempley
 * Littledean, Little London, Longhope, Lydbrook, Lydney
 * Malswick, Mitcheldean
 * Newent, Newland, Newnham
 * Oxenhall
 * Pauntley, Parkend
 * Redmarley D'Abitot, Ruardean, Rudford, Ruspidge
 * Soudley, St. Briavels, Staunton (near Coleford), Symonds Yat
 * Taynton, Tibberton, Tidenham
 * Upleadon
 * Westbury-on-Severn, West Dean, Woolaston

title: Forest of Dean District


text:
Talk:History of computing hardware (1960s–present)

General
I'm no designer, but would it be possible to clean up the table for the "History of Computing" series. It is a bit of an eye sore. --Small business 18:21, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Should something be said in this article about the rudimentary quantum computers being built today? Just a thought. Lupin 22:16, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"15-inch printed circuit board": Is inches a standard measurment of circut board sizes? A link to a page that explains how to convert from this archaic measurment system would be helpfull. Rakshasa 10:36, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Reworked the Apple II section. It sounded great but was wildly inaccurate. Alatari 11:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mainframes

 * With the development of storage area networks and server farms of thousands of servers, by the year 2000 the minicomputer had all but disappeared, and mainframes were largely restricted to specialised uses. The Google server farm is thought to be the largest, with a total calculation rate three times that of Earth Simulator or Blue Gene, as of 2004.

This is bull-shit. Mainframe is still IBM's most profitable branch (literally billions of dollars earned), because banks and governments would never accept the inherent unreliability of PC-farms. Also, PC based clusters simply cannot have the vast I/O performance, traditional to mainframes, which these big brothers require. Without tremendous I/O bandwidht (e.g. serve 15,000 interactive users and six fully loaded ATM circuits at the same time) the CPU power is of little real-world use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.48.242 (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2005 Amen. Definition of mainframe: an obsolete device still used by thousands of obsolete companies serving billions of obsolete customers and making huge obsolete profits for their obsolete shareholders. And this year's run twice as fast as last year's. Signed, an enterprise architect for one of the US's largest banks.

65.25.216.35 03:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Tandy's Dominance
I worked in a software store in Saint Louis Missouri from 1979 to 1981 and the TRS-80 was the dominant business machine. Small businesses were paying $300-$500 1979 dollars for database and accounting packages plus $50 per hour for custom programming for their TRS-80. TRS-80's success in the custom business accounting and database markets got IBM's attention. Review the article on TRS-80 and it's contiuation even into emulators being written for Windows. The number of clones also testifies to it's success making it the foreshadow of what was to come in the IBM market. We need national sales figures for Apple and TRS-80 cited and figures for total sales of software products for both machines. Working on a separate section for TRS-80 Alatari 13:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cloning
Clipped the details of the cloning legal challenge and reverse engineering... interesting stuff, but in essence a digression:

"Because they expected a well-funded legal counter-attack, Compaq engineers developed a special reverse-engineering method called "clean-room" development, in which all reverse-engineered code was provably written from an English specification, and therefore could not possibly be an illegal copy of the copyrighted IBM code.

Legal battles established the legitimacy of the machines, and the lower prices made them popular. Some introduced new features that the popular brands didn't have — the Franklin, for example, had lowercase display that the Apple II lacked, and Compaq's first machines were portable (or "luggable" in the terminology later developed to distinguish their quite heavy suitcase-sized machines from laptops)."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkedel (talk • contribs) 20:41, 7 June 2005 (UTC)

Timeline
This is something you may find useful for summarising the article (see source to see how it works):

Regards, Samsara contrib talk 15:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

An invitation/plea
To contributing authors of this article, I'm currently working on rewriting personal computer to make it something respectable. My hope is that it can be a featured article in the near future. This article has a pretty good history of the home computer and personal computer, and any editors who worked on it that would like to help on personal computer would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance! -- uberpenguin 19:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Working on that article Alatari 11:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

VDUs
Which was the first computer to utilise a cathode-ray tube to display information? (I discount the Williams tube used by the Manchester 'Baby' (SSEM) because in that machine the CRT was actually the random-access memory device.) When I first started using computers in the late 60s, results were always output either on punched tape, punched card or paper printout. The idea of hooking up a TV screen, now so obvious, was very rare. --82.138.200.126 16:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In the early sixties we in the Marconi Radar Division designed a generator system for use in air defence systems that displayed alphanumeric characters at the writing rate of 50000 per sec on both PPIs as target tags and a separate tabular display as rows and columns of data. There was also a scan conversion system for output to TV projection units.

Marconibod 16:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Grammar?
The line - "Throughout the mid 1970s to late 1980s, hundreds of computer hardware companies were founded, most out of business." Wouldn't that line make more sense if it were 'Throughout the mid 1970s to late 1980s, hundreds of computer hardware companies were founded, of which most went out of business.' or something to that affect?

not complete
The article is not complete. Some computer are still missing e.g. FM Towns
 * Then be bold and add them yourself. :-) — Wackymacs 08:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Triumph of the Nerds
What does triumph of the Nerds have to do with this article. Who knows maybe it does have something do with this article but Im just not quite sure. -- This unsigned comment was added on 03:25, 2006 September 5 (UTC) by Aceofspades1217 (Talk)
 * Triumph of the Nerds is a 1996 documentary about the history of the personal computer revolution, it covers quite a bit of old hardware including the Altair, IBM PC, Xerox Alto and Macintosh. — Wackymacs 08:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Aceofspades1217 has obviously never seen the documentary. C'mon man it's a classic 2600:1700:5F81:22C0:4931:DA09:967B:B762 (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

More than bitty boxes
We jump right into the Apple II and IBM PC? C'mon, let's make this a litlle more deep - there's a lot of interesting stuff happening in the gradual transition between vacuum tube computers, and discrete transistors to the slow progression in SSI and LSI integrated circuits, and *then* Intel takes over the Earth. That's the trouble with an encyclopedia written by teenagers...no perspective. --Wtshymanski 22:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You referring to the intro paragraph or the entire article? Don't assume everyone watching this page is under 40.  Alatari 15:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole article needs a tune-up. We have perfectly good articles on home computers and personal computers, we don't need to re-cap them here. We need more about the revolution that solid-state, ICs, and LSI made in big iron. Is there *anyone* over 40 watching the article, or at least someone under 40 who can crack open a book or two? --Wtshymanski 05:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the assesment. However:

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 18:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am one of those "just under 40" who has a lot of information but just a tad bit short on that part of the history - while I know what happened, I can't quote or provide verifiable references.
 * In fact, I happen to know a lot about "before" and "after" the "middle ages", but not much about the transition from tubes to transistors.
 * I (slight!) defense of the article, this article is "after" 1960s. There is another article for "before 1960s" that, interestingly enough, includes 60s as well... So some restructuring may be required as well.
 * If the pre-1960 article has 1960 info then it does need cleaning.Alatari (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Article clean-up
I'm organizing by date wherever possible. Especially the pictures. And adding pictures to make the article interesting. Alatari (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC) The Commodore section was a tough choice. Put in their first machine or the best seller of all-time. I went with the most notable. Alatari (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC) If we put in the truly most notable or popular pieces of computer hardware from 1960 till 2000 this article will get very large. We probably should split it into decades. Definitely we should split the 1990's and later off into a new article. Alatari (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC) The Amiga and it's design of a CPU for each audio, video CPU is another milestone that needs adding. Alatari (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Histories of individual brands of home computers belong in their respective articles - this article should be more of an overview and should NOT get bogged down describing how the Binford 64 shown at the June CES was replaced by the Binford 128 at the fall Comdex, until the company went bankrupt the following spring. Overview! Important historical developments! Encyclopedia, remember, not trivia manual.  This article should acknowledge personal computers as becoming important especially after the mid 1990's but there's a whole lifetime in the period where most people never saw anything closer to a computer than a punch card for thier electric bills. More about big iron, less on gameboxes. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture call
Need a 1977 original Apple ][ pic whcich had a tape deck for I/O. The current pic is from 1978. Alatari (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This article
Is now nearly empty. No mention of landmark machines during the 70's and beyond, no mention of the usage of Cartridges, CD-ROM, DVD, SD cards, etc. There are so many milestones in computing history through the last 2 decades this article should be 100kb in size. The personal computer article is not the History of personal computers article and doesn't have the space for all those landmark machines. I stronlgly disagree with User:Wtshymanski's edits and will have to build some consensus in the WikiProjects discussion page on how to handle this. Alatari (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is hardly empty. As I said above, a trivial roll call of microcomputers is not really in keeping with what an article with the grand title of "History of computing hardware" should have in its contents. The IEEE Encyclopedia of Computer Science devotes 6 pages to the period 1965-1993, and less than 1/4 of that is a recounting of personal computers - one page. We shouldn't be focussing on brand names in this article, but on the fundamental technologies that have been introduced. Introduction of the microprocessor and its impact on making home computers possible is a milestone and deserves discussion; a list of all the 6502 and Z80 and 6809 machines is trivial ( the evolution of word processing from Electric Pencil on a TRS 80 to Word 2008 running on a Windows box is of some interest but not a milestone for inclusion in *this* article). How you get the program into the box (Blu-ray, DVD ROM or cartridge or punched paper tape) is are trivial changes on the theme of the user interacting with the computer.
 * There were no landmark machines or at least not as many as were in this article - once you've noticed that you can build a $1000 box that conceivably could be sold to a consumer under the pretense it would be useful, the rest of the personal computer development is just different flavors of Coke - marketing, not engineering. The landmark idea was getting the box into the home in the first place.
 * The article should be about hardware and how the massive decreases in cost have affected the application of computers. This article doesn't even mention Moore's Law! Introduction of a GUI over the character-mode interface is a significant topic, but what flavor of GUI runs on your brand of hardware is not significant for this article. Massively parallel multiple-instruction multiple-data supercomputers are fundamental; a new gadget for a Windows box is not a milestone. Speech recognition may be a milestone though it's still fairly limited. Wide-area networking might be a topic worth a paragraph. Has the desktop personal computer actually improved white-collar productivity? I don't know, anyone have a good scholarly article they'd care to paraphrase for the Wikipedia? The *massive* effect of embedded systems on everyday life is a milestone - you can scarcely flush a toilet today without involving computer power that would have stunned Alan Turing. Cellular telephony was conceived in the '70's but completely impractical until you could run a whole computer on a few hundred microamps at 3 volts - and cell phones have a social impact far greater than ROM cartridge video games.    SETI at home. Cryptography as a feature of everyday life. ATMs!  Desktop publishing. The Intenet itself, for goodness' sake! Web 2.0 and tis very encyclopedia of which we are all part! C'mon, the *real* milestones are much bigger than the introduction of the Binford 64! --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not in complete disagreement. That's why I proposed the History of personal computers article because placing all the machines into the Personal computer article (like you have done) is extremely objectionable.  What constitutes a landmark is of some debate it seems and I'm not comfortable with us being the only two taking part in a major rewrite of this article.  Breaking the article into the time period 1965 to 1993 along the IEEE lines is a possibility.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alatari (talk • contribs) 16:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why putting the history of various personal computers into the personal cmputer history section is objectionable, as opposed to sticking them in *this* article. Personal computers are a branch off the history of computing hardware - yes, an important segment, but not the whole of the computing hardware field. The 1993 end date of the IEEE encyclopedia is meaningless since it happens to be the date the book was printed - I wouldn't suggest that as a demarcation point at all. 1960 has some significance because at that point you coud buy transistorized computers from more than one vendor; 1965 has less significance (early ICs) and I'm not sure what the next significant year would be. The personal computers article doesn't need to have the history of every bitty box brand ever sold, since most of them were unimportant - a few representatives would be sufficient.  --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea of establishing a History of personal computers article is the best approach. This article is better with all that pc history detail removed; it needs some more summary material about PCs, but not all that had been here. That detail is also relevant to PC, but really shouldn't overstuff that article either, whose focus should be a light touch over all aspects of PCs, not concentrating on their history. Hence, History of personal computers is very appropriate now that WP has a considerable amount of info on that area. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Go for it. I prefer history in-line with an article and the trivia booted out to a "List of XXXX" format, but a stand alone history article could work. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mobile phones
This article has no section on cellphones. This is a huge omission!--greenrd (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

 * You are so right, how can there be an omission this big? Who is running this page? 2600:1700:5F81:22C0:4931:DA09:967B:B762 (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Rename
I propose renaming this article from History of computing hardware (1960s–present) → History of computing hardware since 1960 as more concise czar ♔  16:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

what about the amiga computer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.92.223.52 (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Bias on the Computer Systems and Important Hardware Timeline section
Hi all, In my opinion the section Computer Systems and Important Hardware Timeline is quite biased towards Apple Inc. It is not true that the main advances on computer systems from 1998 on are only the Apple Inc products. This is section is not neutral. Samsung, LG, Motorola have great products that could be considered as the annual hardware reference as well --Xbosch (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Fair point. Feel free to add other processors/hardware to the tables.  nagual  design   19:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Apparently the only advances in computing between 2000 and now are from Apple - how anyone could write that and consider it in the spirit of neutrality is baffling. iPhone releases past the first do not need to be included. New laptop models from Apple do not need to be included. The first release of Android should be. The release of the Raspberry Pi should be. It's not a section for every 'computing' release, it's for significant events. 92.0.104.159 (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's probably best to try and add other hardware to the list for now, and leave the trimming for later.  nagual  design   02:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of computing hardware (1960s–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020209154232/http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/gernelle.htm to http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/gernelle.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303210719/http://febcm.club.fr/english/chronoa10.htm to http://febcm.club.fr/english/chronoa10.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010605232405/http://www.ox.compsoc.net/~swhite/history.html to http://ox.compsoc.net/~swhite/history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090705015058/http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/History/ to http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/History/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041115011247/http://davidguy.brinkster.net/computer/ to http://davidguy.brinkster.net/computer/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Title is wrong/misleading
We shouldn't have to read into the article to find out it's about 1966 onwards. I propose that the title be changed to "...(mid-1960s - present)" (although I'd also argue that "present" is never a good term to use in an encyclopedia, but don't want to detract from my main point).72.16.99.93 (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually the earliest date is 1963 so I personalyly don't have a problem with the title. There probably should be links to articles on 1st and 2nd generation computers. Tom94022 (talk) 06:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

How long were 3rd Gen Computers Built?
I think the article can note that 3rd generation computers were offered well into the 1990s. For example the biplolar IBM ES9000 9X2 announced April 1994 used 5,960 chips to make a 10 way processor - clearly not a "microprocessor" even though microprogrammed. Even the 1997 CMOS 9672-RX5 used 31 chips to make a 10 way processor. So when did the 3rd generation end, if ever? Tom94022 (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Unless you consider a mainframe using multi-core single-chip microprocessors as CPUs to be "3rd generation", it appears to have ended, at least in IBM mainframe land. If you consider the existence of support chips, such as the SMP Hub Chip for the z10, to be sufficient to render a machine "3rd generation", then the laptop on which I'm typing this is 3rd generation, even though the CPU is a 4-core single-chip microprocessor.  Maybe my smartphone finally achieves 4th generation status by that criterion, as its CPU is part of a system-on-chip. Guy Harris (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect a multi-core single-chip microprocessors qualifies as at least a 4th generation, maybe 5th, but what generation is a IBM ES9000 9X2 announced April 1994 used 5,960 chips to make a 10 way processor? Tom94022 (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Generally 3rd gen ends when 4th gen starts :) (1971-1980 range, WP:OR).
 * It may require to define on what technology 3rd gen "end" (if it end), and then what "end" mean (last computer, market share below 50%, general knowledge, ...). --MarMi wiki (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Any gen ends when they stop producing computers whose logic is primarily of the type required. 1st did not end when the first transistor computer shipped.  Thus 3rd gen ends when they stop producing computers whose logic is primarily LSI and not microprocesors.  BTW the idea is not to declare an end (which might be WP:OR) but instead to note the fact that "3rd generation computers were offered well into the 1990s," citing perhaps IBM mainframes as above. Tom94022 (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

 * OK, so clearly "if ever" was just a rhetorical gesture, as nobody's building non-microprocessor-based CPUs any more (evidence required for any claims to the contrary).

 * Machines with multi-chip CPUs, such as the VAX 9000, were being built in the early 1990's. Somewhere between then and 2008, when the IBM z10 came out, the 3rd generation ended. The IBM mainframes may have been the last major line of computers to go all-microprocessor. Guy Harris (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Sorry for the rhetorical gesture, I would add CRAY ECL computers to the list of 3rd gen computers built into the 1990s. And I agree that it needs an existance proof  to claim any such computers being built this century.  Tom94022 (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

 * I have, in front of me, "A high-frequency custom CMOS S/390 microprocessor", from the IBM Journal of Research and Development, Volume 41, Issue 4/5, July/September 1997. It says

 * "The S/390® Parallel Enterprise Server Generation 4 processor is an implementation of the IBM ESA/390TM architecture on a single custom CMOS chip."

 * so it appears that the 3rd generation ended at IBM in 1996-1997, or perhaps after that if they continued to make and ship the older machines.

 * It appears that Unisys also were making single-chip A-series and 2200 machines.

 * DEC Alpha came out in 1992, so the writing was on the wall for VAXes at that point; I don't know when the last non-MicroVAX-based VAX came out, but I doubt it survived the 1990s.

 * The Cray J90, first out in 1994, had two-chip CMOS processors - one scalar chip, one vector chip; that sounds pretty 4th-generation to me, just as an 80386+80387 does.

 * So I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the 3rd generation was completely dead by 2000, if not sooner. It may have died when the last ECL machine of any sort shipped (although the MIPS R6000 was an ECL microprocessor). Guy Harris (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

 * FWIW the IBM ES9000 9X2 announced April 1994 used 5,960 ECL chips to make a 10 way processor and its lease, rental, and maintenance agreements were withdrawn effective June 30, 2003.
 * At this point I think it is appropriate to add a sentance to the section that 3rd gen computers were built well into the 1990s or words to that effect. Tom94022 (talk) 06:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

(Yes, we know, it had 5,960 ECL chips....)

The existence of maintenance services in 2003 doesn't necessarily mean they were still manufacturing them. Lease and rental services might mean that, but were they still manufacturing and leasing/renting new machines at that point, or just leasing/renting "used" models returned by people who were previously leasing or renting them?

They were obviously making that particular in the mid-1990s, given it came out in the mid-1990s; the question is how long did they continue to make it - or how long did they continue to make the last bipolar S/390, which was probably not microprocessor-based, whatever that model might be.

The G3 model that came out in 1996, however, had a single-chip processing unit (PU), according to "S/390 Parallel Enterprise Server Generation 3: A balanced system and cache structure" in the same IBM Journal of Research and Development issue that the JRD paper you cited and the JRD paper I cited were in, so they were going with microprocessors at least that far back. I couldn't find anything obvious indicating whether the 1994 G1 or the 1995 G2 had a single-chip processing unit or not.

"Into the 1990s" probably suffices. Guy Harris (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

 * FWIW Exploring IBM's New Age Mainframes - Tech Insider suggests the G1 and G2 also had single chip PUs. I suppose if the article used the work "offerred" instead of "built" it could say offered (or available) into this century :-). Regardless, we agree that the April 1994 announcement of the IBM ES9000 9X2 amounts to "mid-1990s" so I would prefer either "well into the 1990s" or "as late as the mid-1990s".  We don't know its production life, but its highly unlikey it was announced and stopped in the same year.  I'm going to edit the article at this point mainly based upon IBM but will probably include pointers to Cray and DEC.  My thanks to Guy Harris for all his research Tom94022 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

 * IMHO it's not an important variable. Each time IBM introduced a new processor complex it revisited technological tradeoffs. Using the definition in wiki, IBM switched back and forth between "3rd generation" and "fourth generation". Since they marketed the systems as black boxes, there was no marketing advantage in any particular division of labor, so their designs were driven strictly by engineering considerations. IAC, the FRU hasw been much larger than a single chip for decades. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 * The FRU on my laptop isn't a single chip, either; the chips are mostly, if not completely, pretty solidly attached to the motherboard.

 * IBM had multiple independent implementations of various flavors of the S/3x0 ISA; they may have, at one point, offered, at the same time, lower-end machines with single-chip processors and higher-end machines with multi-chip processors, just as DEC did with the PDP-11 and VAX. It probably took the final victory of CMOS over bipolar to finish off the third generation (although MIPS had the R6000, which was a 3-chip ECL microprocessor - one chip was the non-floating-point part of the CPU, one was the FPU, and one was the bus interface, so that was a fourth-generation ECL processor). Guy Harris (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Missing all of the players in the 1960s
The 1960's were dominated by IBM and the Seven Dwarfs, yet I can find no mention, outside the timeline, of major product lines from  Burroughs, Control Data Corporation (CDC), General Electric,  Honeywell, IBM, NCR, RCA or UNIVAC, to say nothing of, e.g., Digital Equipment Corporation PDP-6 and PDP-10, Philco TRANSAC S-2000, Scientific Data Systems (SDS) 9 and Sigma series.

The 1960s was an era of radical innovation, in which, e.g., I/O channels, interrupts, changed from rarities to standard features, and in which concepts such as digital communications, display terminals, interactive computing, operating systems, paging, segmentation, time sharing and virtual machines either originated or came into their own. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 * It's not entirely surprising that a single article covering a 60-year span in a field that has advanced as quickly as computing might give short shrift to some topics. Perhaps this article should be split into multiple articles. Guy Harris (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Given the focus on generations and components making up the hardware it is not surprising that most of the companies listed in this talk didn't make the article as for the most part they were followers. They all do have separate articles as do most of the radical innovations also listed, BTW, including Channel I/O.  It does seem like the business aspects of the computing industry is not in any one Wikipedia article but that would be a huge article.  Tom94022 (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * After further thought it's probably a good idea to both rationalize two articles, this one and its precursor History of computing hardware and to include for each generation brief statements about the business aspects and key technological innovations beyond components. Rationalization should include moving much of the 3rd and 4th generation material from the precursor article into  this one.  's lists above are interesting but it might be difficult to find reliable sources to support inclusion of any one company or technology in any one generation (IBM and the BUNCH a notable exception as to available RS's).  Tom94022 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 * There's a lot of information in conference proceedings, house organs, e.g., Bell System Technical Journal, IBM Systems Journal, IBM Journal of Research and Development, and professional society publications, e.g., IEEE Annals of the History of Computing; unfortunately not all are publicly available. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Need dates for timeline
Does anybody have dates for Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * GE
 * 605
 * 625
 * 635
 * Honeywell
 * DDP-516
 * RCA
 * 301
 * 501
 * 601
 * Sylvania
 * S 9400

Misleading sentence: "By 1959 (...)"
@User:Tom94022: So, you made this revert. The original version was:

But "by 1959" means "not later than 1959", see here, and I don't think it was the intended meaning. So I proposed the following version:

You rejected my version, and wrote a very unclear explanation. What do you mean by "the overlap btw 2nd and 3rd gen"? Could you, please, be more specific? Is the Oxford Dictionary wrong? 85.193.228.103 (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my summary was unclear. I was referring to the overlapping years when new models of both new vacuum tube (2nd gen) and new transistor (3rd gen) computers were being introduced:
 * List of vacuum tube computers for 2nd generation computers showing 6 models in 1958, 6 models in 1959 and 6 models in 1960.
 * List of transistorized computers for 3rd generation computers showing early production 1953-56 (6 units total) and then 6, 9 and 11 (1959) models in the years thereafter
 * There is no evidence about anything happening in 1959 that supports an "in 1959" characterization; given that 1959 was the first year there were more new models of 3rd gen than 2nd gen supports the original "by" (e.g. not later than) language since shipments and announcements in 1959 likely began prior to 1959. Tom94022 (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @User:Tom94022:: Wow, fantastic explanation! Finally I understood. Thank you :)
 * But (in my opinion) the original sentence is misleading because it can be understood that either transistor were considered reliable before 1959 or in the course of the year 1959. So it says nothing about what happened after 1959. Were transistors still considered reliable a year later? Just because we know what really happened does not mean that the sentence is correct. The intended meaning was completely different - transistors started being considered reliable in the course of the years 1953 - 1959. So, how about:
 * "" 85.193.228.103 (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "I was referring to the overlapping years when new models of both new vacuum tube (2nd gen) and new transistor (3rd gen) computers were being introduced" Presumably meaning "...when new models of both vacuum tube (1st gen) and new transistor (2nd gen) computers were being introduced". Guy Harris (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * AFAIK the 1st generation were electro-mechanical. It sounds like Guy and I agree that "by", meaning not later than 1959, accurately describes

"being considered reliable in the course of the years 1953 - 1959." Tom94022 (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "AFAIK the 1st generation were electro-mechanical." That's... not what the article says. It speaks of the 2nd generation as being computers built from discrete transistors.
 * And, yes, I'm not sure what's wrong with "not later than 1959". Guy Harris (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All of the computer literature, at least in the US, lumped relay and vacuum computers together as first generation and referred to transistorized computers as second generation; I know of no published source that referred to vacuum tube computers as second generation. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for misuse of the term generation, but that doesn't change the the validity of the use of "by" in this context. Tom94022 (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Decimal or binary?
The article says "The second-generation computers were mostly character-based decimal computers, ". Weren't just about all second-generation computers binary (or octal or hexadecimal)? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, they were all the different types stated but you do have a good point, perhaps the word mostly should be dropped? Tom94022 (talk) 06:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

 * From decimal computer, it seems like the IBM 7000 series were about the last of the decimal computers. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Maybe, but there was a lot of second-generation computers so absent an RS we have to be careful. I wordsmithed the sentence to remove the ambiguous "mostly."  Tom94022 (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

 * IBM 1401 and 1620 were also decimal, and Univac Solid State, LARC, and Burroughs B2500. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 * The 7070 was the last of the pure decimal machines, but there were also hybrid machine of various types. Typically an address contained 6-bit characters with zone bits extending a decimal address. Decimal computers after the 7070/7972/7074 include
 * Burroughs B2x00/B3x00/B4x00
 * IBM 1400 series
 * IBM 1620
 * IBM 1710
 * IBM 7010
 * UNIVAC II
 * UNIVAC LARC
 * The UNIVAC Solid State 80/90 may have been earlier than the 7070; they were both 1958, and I don't know the exact dates. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Decimal machines were most popular on the small end and binary machines were most popular on the large end, but there was a log of overlap. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

History outside of US and USSR
The article is very much US-centric. I believe that it should mention companies and computers in, e.g., England, France, Israel, Japan. Although some European companies sold re-branded computers from US companies, Europe had a robust computer industry of its own, as did Japan.

As a secondary issue, the article is missing the history of university computers, e.g., Golem at the Weizmann Institute, ILLIAC at multiple universities. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


text:
City of Durham (district)

The City of Durham was, from 1974 to 2009, a non-metropolitan district of County Durham in North East England, with the status of borough and city.

Formation
The district was formed on 1 April 1974 by the merger of the existing City of Durham and Framwelgate with Brandon and Byshottles Urban District and Durham Rural District. The district was abolished as part of the 2009 structural changes to local government in England.

Durham City Council
The Council was made up of 50 councillors elected in all-out elections every four years (last elections 2007). The last political composition was Liberal Democrat 27, Labour 15, Independent 8. The 2003 elections saw the Liberal Democrats gain overall political control of the council from Labour, benefiting from boundary changes and substantial gains in Durham's eastern suburbs. Labour had held overall control of the City Council continually since the early 1980s.

Durham City Council was abolished when the district of Durham was abolished in 2009. In 2018 a new parish council was formed, initially known as the City of Durham Parish Council, to represent the core urban area of Durham.

Mayors
Mayors of the City of Durham are styled "The Right Worshipful, The Mayor of Durham". The Mayoralty is taken as a continuation of the mayoralty of the pre-1974 Durham and Framwelgate. The Mayor of Durham is entitled to an armed ceremonial bodyguard and claims to be equal fifth in civic precedence behind the Lord Mayors of London, York, Cardiff and Belfast Since the merger of the City Council into the Durham County Council unitary authority in 2009, mayoral appointments have been made by the Charter Trustees of the City of Durham (composing the Durham County Councillors with divisions within the former City of Durham district area).

Other civic appointments
Other civic appointments in the City of Durham at its merger with Durham County Council included:
 * Deputy Mayor – currently Councillor Robert Wynn.
 * Town Clerk – the Council's chief executive.
 * Recorder – the Council's Director of Legal Services.
 * Chaplain – the Dean of Durham Cathedral.
 * Judicial Recorder (since 2005) – currently Judge Richard Lowden
 * Billet Master – to be held by a senior Durham City police officer
 * Pant Master – the Council's Director of Environmental Services
 * Posts within the Mayoral Bodyguard
 * Honorary Aldermen

Civil parishes
The central area of the City of Durham (the area covered by the pre-1974 City of Durham and Framwelgate) was not parished at the time the district existed, however a civil parish called City of Durham was formed in 2018. Those parts of the district formerly part of Durham Rural District or Brandon and Byshottles Urban District are all parished. The current Brandon and Byshottles Parish Council is co-terminous with the pre-1974 UDC and has inherited some of its responsibilities (e.g. allotments).

Civil parishes in the former City of Durham district were:
 * Bearpark
 * Belmont
 * Brancepeth
 * Brandon and Byshottles
 * Cassop-cum-Quarrington
 * Coxhoe
 * Croxdale and Hett
 * Framwellgate Moor
 * Kelloe
 * Pittington
 * Shadforth
 * Sherburn
 * Shincliffe
 * West Rainton
 * Witton Gilbert

Abolition
The district was abolished as part of the 2009 structural changes to local government in England although Durham will retain its city charter through the appointment of charter trustees. All functions of principal authority local government are now administered by a unitary Durham County Council, including the appointment of the Mayor of Durham.

Proposals to create a Durham Town Council, covering the city centre and Newton Hall, were put forward in 2008. While supported by the Liberal Democrat controlled City Council, the Labour controlled County Council opposed it. Following a local consultation in 2017 a new council known as the City of Durham Parish Council came into being in 2018, with a Liberal Democrat majority.

title: City of Durham (district)


text:
Hudsonville

Hudsonville may refer to the following places:

 * Hudsonville, Indiana, an unincorporated community
 * Hudsonville, Michigan, a city
 * Hudsonville, Mississippi, an unincorporated community

title: Hudsonville


text:
Mill town

A mill town, also known as factory town or mill village, is typically a settlement that developed around one or more mills or factories, often cotton mills or factories producing textiles.

Italy

 * Crespi d'Adda, UNESCO World Heritage Site
 * Nuovo quartiere operaio in Schio
 * Villaggio Leumann a Collegno
 * Villaggio Frua in Saronno
 * Villaggio operaio della Filatura in Tollegno

Żyrardów
The town grew out of a textile factory founded in 1833 by the sons of Feliks Lubienski, who owned the land where it was built. They brought in a specialist from France and his newly designed machines. He was French inventor, Philippe de Girard from Lourmarin. He became a director of the firm. The factory town developed during the 19th century into a significant textile mill town in Poland. In honour of Girard, 'Ruda Guzowska' as the original estate was called, was renamed Żyrardów, a toponym derived of the polonised spelling of Girard's name.

Most of Żyrardów's monuments are located in the manufacturing area which dates from the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is widely believed that Żyrardów's textile settlement is the only entire urban industrial complex from the 19th-century to be preserved in Europe.

Russian Empire

 * Bogorodsk-Glukhovo factory
 * Nikolskoye, Vladimir Governorate

United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, the term "mill town" usually refers to the 19th-century textile manufacturing towns of northern England and the Scottish Lowlands, particularly those in Lancashire (cotton) and Yorkshire (wool).

Some former mill towns have a symbol of the textile industry in their town badge. Some towns may have statues dedicated to textile workers (e.g. Colne ) or have a symbol in the badge of local schools (e.g. Ossett School).

The list above includes some towns where textiles was not the predominant industry. For example, mining was a key industry in Wigan and Leigh in Greater Manchester, and in Ossett in Yorkshire.

In thousands of spindles.

On his tour of northern England in 1849, Scottish publisher Angus Reach said:

"In general, these towns wear a monotonous sameness of aspect, physical and moral ... In fact, the social condition of the different town populations is almost as much alike as the material appearance of the tall chimneys under which they live. Here and there the height of the latter may differ by a few rounds of brick, but in all essential respects, a description of one is a description of all."

New England and Northeast

Beginning with Samuel Slater and technological information smuggled out of England by Francis Cabot Lowell, large mills were established in New England in the early to mid-19th century. Mill towns, sometimes planned, built and owned as a company town, grew in the shadow of the industries. The region became a manufacturing powerhouse along rivers like the Housatonic, Quinebaug, Shetucket, Blackstone, Merrimack, Nashua, Cocheco, Saco, Androscoggin, Kennebec or Winooski.

In the 20th century, alternatives to water power were developed, and it became more profitable for companies to manufacture textiles in southern states where cotton was grown and winters did not require significant heating costs. Finally, the Great Depression acted as a catalyst that sent several struggling New England firms into bankruptcy.

Colombia

 * San José de Suaita

title: Mill town


text:
Common garter snake

The common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) is a species of snake in the subfamily Natricinae of the family Colubridae. The species is indigenous to North America and found widely across the continent. There are several recognized subspecies. Most common garter snakes have a pattern of yellow stripes on a black, brown or green background, and their average total length (including tail) is about 55 cm, with a maximum total length of about 137 cm. The average body mass is 150 g. The common garter snake is the state reptile of Massachusetts.

Taxonomy and etymology
The subspecific name fitchi is in honor of the American herpetologist Henry Sheldon Fitch.

The subspecific name pickeringii is in honor of the American naturalist Charles E. Pickering.

Subspecies
Current scientific classification recognizes 12 subspecies (ordered by date):

A trinomial authority in parentheses indicates that the subspecies was originally described in a genus other than Thamnophis.

Anatomy and description
Common garter snakes are thin snakes. Few grow over about 4 ft long, and most stay smaller. Most have longitudinal stripes in many different colors. Common garter snakes come in a wide range of colors, including green, blue, yellow, gold, red, orange, brown, and black.

Venom
Garter snakes have a mild venom in their saliva, which may be toxic to the amphibians and other small animals that they prey upon. For humans, a bite is not dangerous, and many handlers can attest to garter snakes gently biting in protest when held or restrained; these bites do not often break the skin, given the garter snake's smaller size, but may cause slight itching, burning, and/or swelling at the location of the bite. However, it is more likely that, prior to expending their energy through biting, garter snakes will secrete a foul-smelling fluid ("musk", "musking", "skunking") from postanal glands.

Common garter snakes are resistant to naturally-occurring poisons in their prey, such as that of the American toad and rough-skinned newt, the latter of which can kill a human if ingested. Garter snakes (in addition to their own mildly venomous saliva) have the ability to retain poisons from their consumed amphibian prey, thus making them poisonous and deterring any would-be predators.

The common garter snake uses toxicity for both offense and defense. On the offensive side, the snake's venom can be toxic to some of its smaller prey, such as mice and other rodents. On the defensive side, the snake uses its resistance to toxicity to provide an important antipredator capability. A study on the evolutionary development of resistance of tetrodotoxin compared two populations of Thamnophis and then tested inside a population of T. sirtalis. Those that were exposed to and lived in the same environment as the newts (Taricha granulosa) or rough-skinned newt, that produce tetrodotoxin when eaten were more immune to the toxin (see figure). It seems that the two species were in an evolutionary arms race.

While resistance to tetrodotoxin is beneficial in acquiring newt prey, costs are associated with it as well. Consuming the toxin can lead to reduced speed and sometimes no movement for extended periods of time, along with impaired thermoregulation. The antipredator display that this species uses demonstrates the idea of an "arms race" between different species and their antipredator displays. Along the entire geographical interaction of T. granulosa and T. sirtalis, patches occur that correspond to strong coevolution, as well as weak or absent coevolution. Populations of T. sirtalis that do not live in areas that contain T. granulosa contain the lowest levels of tetrodotoxin resistance, while those that do live in the same area have the highest levels of tetrodotoxin resistance. In populations where tetrodotoxin is absent in T. granulosa, resistance in T. sirtalis is selected against because the mutation causes lower average population fitness. This helps maintain polymorphism within garter snake populations.

Habitat
The habitat of the common garter snake ranges from forests, fields, and prairies to streams, wetlands, meadows, marshes, and ponds, and it is often found near water. Depending on the subspecies, the common garter snake can be found as far south the southernmost tip of Florida in the United States and as far north as the southernmost tip of the Northwest Territories in Canada. It is found at altitudes from sea level to mountains.

Behavior and life history
The common garter snake is a diurnal snake. In summer, it is most active in the morning and late afternoon; in cooler seasons or climates, it restricts its activity to the warm afternoons.

In warmer southern areas, the snake is active year-round; otherwise, it sleeps in common dens, sometimes in great numbers. On warm winter afternoons, some snakes have been observed emerging from their hibernacula to bask in the sun.

Antipredatory displays
Garter snakes exhibit many different behaviors to ward off predators. Garter snakes exhibit a greater variety of body postures than other snakes. Under selection by predation, these snakes have developed postural responses that are highly variable and heritable. These are highly variable even within a single population. Different postures indicate whether the snake is preparing to flee, fight, or protect itself. Different biological factors such as body temperature and sex also influence whether the snake exhibits certain antipredatory behaviors.

The warmer the temperature of a garter snake, the more likely the snake is to flee a predator; a snake with a cooler body temperature is more likely to remain stationary or attack. Male garter snakes are also more likely to flee. Garter snakes that exhibit more aggressive antipredatory displays tend to also be fast and have high stamina. However, the reason for this correlation is unknown.

The first response of the snake to a predator is often a bluff. When the snake was teased with a finger under laboratory conditions, the snake reacted aggressively, but once touched, it became passive. This may be because the snake is disinclined to attack an organism it sees as larger than itself. Garter snakes do not exhibit mimicry or aposematic coloration; relying on cryptic coloration for protection, they will freeze until they know they are spotted, then attempt a stealthy departure.

The decision of a juvenile garter snake to attack a predator can be affected by whether the snake has just eaten or not. Snakes that have just eaten are more likely to strike a predator or stimulus than snakes that do not have a full stomach. Snakes that have just eaten a large animal are less mobile.

Another factor that controls the antipredatory response of the garter snake is where on its body the snake is attacked. Many birds and mammals prefer to attack the head of the snake. Garter snakes are more likely to hide their heads and move their tails back and forth when being attacked close to the head. Snakes that are attacked in the middles of their bodies are more likely to flee or exhibit open-mouthed warning reactions.

Age may be another factor that contributes to antipredatory responses. As garter snakes mature, the length of time for which they can engage in physical activity at 25 °C increases. Juvenile snakes can only be physically active for 3–5 minutes. Adult snakes can be physically active for up to 25 minutes. This is mostly due to aerobic energy production; pulmonary aeration increases up to three times in adult garter snakes when compared to juveniles. The quick fatigue of the juveniles limits the habitats they can live in, as well as their food sources. It also affects the antipredator response of both juvenile and adult garter snakes; without sufficient energy production, the snake cannot effect an antipredatory response.

Reproduction
Generally, populations include far more males than females, so during mating season, they form "mating balls", in which one or two females are completely swamped by ten or more males. Sometimes a male snake mates with a female before hibernation, and the female stores the sperm internally until spring, when she allows her eggs to be fertilized. If she mates again in the spring, the fall sperm degenerate and the spring sperm fertilize her eggs. The females may give birth ovoviviparously to 12 to 40 young from July through October.

In the early part of sex, when snakes are coming out of hibernation, the males generally emerge first to be ready when the females wake up. Some males assume the role of a female and lead other males away from the burrow, luring them with a fake female pheromone. After such a male has led rivals away, he "turns" back into a male and races back to the den, just as the females emerge. He is then the first to mate with all the females he can catch. This method also serves to help warm males by tricking other males into surrounding and heating up the male, and is particularly useful to subspecies in colder climates (such as those inhabited by T. s. parietalis); this type of mimicry is primarily found in that subspecies. These deceptive males have been found to mate with females significantly more often than males that do not exhibit this mimicry.

Hunting and diet
The diet of T. sirtalis consists mainly of amphibians and earthworms, but also leeches, slugs, snails, insects, crayfish, fish, lizards, other snakes, small birds, and rodents. Common garter snakes are effective at catching fast-moving creatures such as fish and tadpoles.

Natural predators
Animals that prey on the common garter snake include large fish (such as bass and catfish), American bullfrogs, common snapping turtles, larger snakes, hawks, raccoons, foxes, wild turkeys, and domestic cats and dogs.

Conservation status
The common garter snake is considered to be a least-concern species by the IUCN Red List due to its wide distribution and high population size. Water contamination, urban expansion, and residential and industrial development are all threats to the common garter snake. The San Francisco garter snake (T. s. tetrataenia), which is extremely scarce and occurs only in the vicinity of ponds and reservoirs in San Mateo County, California, has been listed as an endangered species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service since 1967.

title: Common garter snake


text:
2003 Malaysian Grand Prix

The 2003 Malaysian Grand Prix (officially the 2003 Petronas Malaysian Grand Prix) was a Formula One motor race held on 23 March 2003 at the Sepang International Circuit. It was the second race of the 2003 Formula One season, and it was won by Kimi Räikkönen driving the MP4-17 for McLaren-Mercedes. This was Räikkönen's first Formula One Grand Prix victory. As well, Fernando Alonso scored his first pole position and podium finish.

Before the race, McLaren's David Coulthard was leading the championship however the Scot retired on lap three, handing the championship lead to his teammate, Kimi Räikkönen who finished third in the previous race.

Background
David Coulthard was leading the championship after winning the first race of the season. Montoya was second. Kimi Räikkönen, Michael Schumacher and Jarno Trulli were in Third, Fourth and Fifth respectively.

Before the race rain was predicted with the likelihood of heavy showers at 60 per cent. High humidity was also predicted by some people however, causing the teams to be split in terms of tactics.

Practice
The first Friday practice session saw Fernando Alonso fastest with a time of 1:37.693 and his teammate, Jarno Trulli, two tenths of a second slower putting him in third. Giancarlo Fisichella separated the Renault's with second fastest in the Jordan EJ13.

The second session saw Ferrari take over with Michael Schumacher completely eclipsing the efforts of Alonso in the previous session. He went fastest with a 1:34.980. His teammate, Rubens Barrichello, managed second with a 1:35.681 lap at the end of the session.

Race
Both the BAR of Jacques Villeneuve and the Toyota of Cristiano da Matta failed on the grid, causing them to start from the pit lane; however, this caused confusion after the warm-up lap, forcing Giancarlo Fisichella to reverse into his grid spot, the second-time the Italian took up the wrong position at this circuit. Alonso led the all-Renault front row and led the cars into the first corner, but Michael Schumacher, who started from third position, tangled whilst attempting to pass Jarno Trulli, knocking Trulli into a spin and dropping him to last. Schumacher was forced to pit for a new nosecone and after serving a drive-through penalty for the incident, dropped to the rear of the field. He later accepted blame for the incident.

A chain reaction further back in the field caused Jaguar driver Antônio Pizzonia to rear-end Juan Pablo Montoya, removing the latter's rear wing. Montoya was forced to pit, losing two laps during a rear-wing replacement. As a result, David Coulthard of McLaren-Mercedes was left in second position, but his prospects were ended on the second lap with an electronics failure. He later criticised the team. His team-mate Räikkönen had moved into second place by passing the Sauber of Nick Heidfeld. On the tenth lap, Ferrari's Rubens Barrichello passed Heidfeld for third place.

The podium positions stayed that way with Räikkönen cutting into the lead when Alonso pitted first out of the front three on lap 14, a sign that he was carrying a lighter fuel load during qualifying. Alonso did break the record for youngest driver to lead a race (the previous record having remained since 1951). Räikkönen circulated until lap 19, using the lighter fuel load to post faster lap times, and after his pit stop emerged ahead of Alonso.

Barrichello also made up time before pitting on the 21st lap, but did not clear Alonso upon his return to the track, with a deficit of over three seconds. By this stage, Trulli had recovered to 6th place, challenging the BAR of Jenson Button for fifth position. Räikkönen gradually extended his lead, which reached 17.8 s by the 33rd lap. Button pitted on the 34th lap, allowing Trulli clean air to post faster lap times.

Alonso then pitted on the 35th lap, freeing Barrichello, who did not pit until the 38th lap and re-entered the race ahead of Alonso. Räikkönen was the last of the contenders to pit, doing so on lap 40 and further extending his lead. Meanwhile, a delay with a fuel nozzle had denied Trulli the opportunity to jump Button in the pits. Michael Schumacher, with a light car at the end of his stint, passed Trulli and Button in quick succession before conceding his gains with a final pit stop.

On lap 41 Justin Wilson pulled into the Minardi garage to retire, as the straps on his HANS device worked loose and pinched his shoulders, resulting in temporary paralysis of both his arms. It took the team nearly 10 minutes to ease Wilson out of the car before he was taken to hospital. He recovered before the next race.

On the 51st lap, Trulli spun attempting to pass Button. He and Schumacher eventually passed Button on the final corner after the Briton made a mistake. Räikkönen eventually earned his maiden Grand Prix victory with a large margin of 39s.

Championship standings after the race

 * Drivers' Championship standings

 * Constructors' Championship standings

 * Note: Only the top five positions are included for both sets of standings.

title: 2003 Malaysian Grand Prix


text:
Interstate 515

Interstate 515 (I-515) was a 20.54 mi spur route of I-15 in the US state of Nevada that ran from the junction of I-15, US 93 and US 95 (the Las Vegas Spaghetti Bowl Interchange) in Downtown approximately 20 mi southeast to just north of Railroad Pass in southeastern Henderson. The freeway connected traffic headed from Boulder City and Henderson to Downtown Las Vegas via a direct, high-speed route, and it ran concurrently with, US 93, and US 95 along its entire length.

The I-515 designation was first approved in 1976, but construction did not begin until 1982, and was constructed in stages until it reached its former terminus north of Railroad Pass in 1994, when signs of the designation finally were put up. I-515 was built to bypass Fremont Street and Boulder Highway, both of which were former alignments of US 93, US 95, and US 466, and provide a direct freeway connection with Henderson.

In August 2017, the segment of I-515 between the I-215 interchange and the southern city limits of Henderson was redesignated as I-11. The Nevada Department of Transportation announced in 2022 that part of the preferred alternative for the future northward extension of I-11 would follow the remainder of the I-515 alignment. Signs for I-11 along I-515 and US 95 north of I-15 began to go up in 2024, and the I-515 designation was decommissioned in May 2024.

Route description
The southern terminus of I-515 is at an interchange with I-11, I-215, US 93, US 95, and SR 564 in Henderson, a suburb of Las Vegas. The freeway continues south as I-11 towards Boulder City and the Hoover Dam on the former alignment of I-515. The six-lane freeway travels northwest from the interchange and carries the concurrent designations of I-515, US 93, and US 95 through Henderson as it passes the Sunset Station casino and Galleria at Sunset shopping mall. I-515 then turns north and intersects Tropicana Avenue (SR 593), Flamingo Road (SR 592), and the Boulder Highway (SR 582) as it approaches Las Vegas. After entering the city of Las Vegas, the highway turns west and intersects Las Vegas Boulevard on the north side of Downtown Las Vegas. I-515 ends at the Spaghetti Bowl, an interchange with I-15, while the roadway continues west as Oran K. Gragson Freeway (carrying US 95).

History
Prior to the completion of the freeway, US 93 and US 95 originally followed Fremont Street/Boulder Highway from Downtown Las Vegas southeast through Henderson to Boulder City. Boulder Highway was signed as a business route of US 93/US 95 after the freeway was completed, but that designation has since been removed; it is now just SR 582.

The I-515 freeway, which began construction in 1982, is a continuation of the Oran K. Gragson Freeway (named for the former Las Vegas mayor who advocated for the construction of the then Las Vegas Expressway) which ran primarily along the former West Fremont Street alignment between Las Vegas Boulevard and Rainbow Boulevard. The spur was completed southeast to Charleston Boulevard (SR 159) in 1984, to Tropicana Avenue (SR 593) in 1986, to Russell Road in 1988, to Lake Mead Parkway (SR 564) (then known as Lake Mead Drive, SR 146 west and SR 147 east), in 1990, and finally to Railroad Pass just south of Boulder Highway in 1994 at an at-grade intersection with Paradise Hills Drive (which was eventually removed). With this extension of highway complete, the length of I-515 was 20.010 mi.

The I-515 designation was first approved by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) on July 12, 1976, from the I-15 interchange to the junction of US 93 and US 95 (at Boulder Highway, current exit 70). On December 7, 1984, AASHTO approved the southeasterly extension of the route to its former terminus near Boulder City. Even though the route number was approved prior to the highway's construction, I-515 was not consistently signed until after the freeway was completed down to its former southern terminus north of Railroad Pass in 1994.

With the pending construction of the Boulder City Bypass introducing the I-11 designation to Nevada, the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) sought to connect the new route to other Interstate Highways. NDOT submitted an application to AASHTO at their spring 2014 meeting to request the designation of "Future Interstate 11", which included routing I-11 along existing I-515 between Railroad Pass and the I-215 Henderson Spaghetti Bowl interchange—AASHTO approved this request on May 29, 2014, with condition that it also be approved by the Federal Highway Administration. The Boulder City Bypass was completed in August 2018. As a result, I-515 was shortened by 5.566 mi to its current length of 14.444 mi. NDOT began replacing I-515 signs along the southern stretch with I-11 signs on March 17, 2019. The signing continued through April 26, 2019.

The designation of future I-11 is planned to connect the Phoenix, Arizona, and Las Vegas metropolitan areas, with potential for future expansion northwest of Las Vegas to Reno in the northwestern part of the state. The current I-515 alignment, with a continuation northwest along US 95, was one of three corridors under consideration to carry the I-11 designation through the Las Vegas Valley. On July 27, 2022, it was announced that the Nevada Department of Transportation had chosen the central corridor, following the current path of I-515 and US 95, as the preferred alternative for the alignment of I-11 through Las Vegas, and signage was put up in May 2024; the I-515 designation was decommissioned at that time.

Beginning in 2022, several construction projects have been started or planned to improve the I-515 corridor as a whole. The projects include soundwall and retaining wall reconstruction, bridge rehabilitation, and interchange improvements. All the projects are expected to be started by 2027.

Exit list
Exits on I-515 were numbered according to US 95 mileposts.

title: Interstate 515


text:
Mochras

Mochras is a peninsula lying west of Llanbedr in Gwynedd, Wales. It is home to the campsite Shell Island, Britain’s largest campsite. The peninsula was formed after the River Artro was diverted by the Earl of Winchilsea in 1819 from its previous course where it entered the sea to the south of Mochras. Prior to this, access to the ancient settlement on the 'island' would have been through the village of Llandanwg, which is now across the estuary.

Mochras is known for the wide variety of seashells that wash up on the beach, and for its wild flowers. It is said to have been connected to the mythical Cantre'r Gwaelod.

Public vehicular access to the peninsula is only possible via a causeway across the estuary of the River Artro when the tide is out. Access on foot is always possible from the adjacent Morfa Dyffryn beach, which extends for several kilometres south of Mochras. Access to emergency vehicles is available at any time through the neighbouring airfield.

Mochras has a popular camp site which offers the opportunity to practise "wild camping" in pitches which are far from the nearest neighbour (and from toilet and other facilities). Camp fires are allowed on the beach; with only raised, contained fires and barbecues allowed on the campsite.

The peninsula lies within the Snowdonia National Park, as a result of which the campsite closes from the end of October to the following March. During this period, local farmers bring their sheep from the lowlands to graze on the 'island'.

Geology
Mochras is significant for the UK earth sciences. The area consists of a low lying raised beach (which encompasses the nearby Llanbedr Airport) and it caused a sensation (in the geological community, at least), when the Institute of Geological Sciences (now known as the British Geological Survey) drilled a 1,938 m deep stratigraphic proving borehole at Mochras Farm between late 1967 and late 1969. Beneath the obscuring recent beach cover, the Mochras Borehole found relatively young Tertiary and Mesozoic rocks (including a well-developed Upper, Middle and Lower Lias section towards the base of the Jurassic), faulted against the ancient Cambrian rocks of the Harlech dome. In 1971, the vertical throw of the fault was judged to be at least 4,500 metres (2¾ miles).

title: Mochras