text:
Shampoo (film)

Shampoo is a 1975 American comedy film directed by Hal Ashby, and starring Warren Beatty, Julie Christie, Goldie Hawn, Lee Grant, Jack Warden, Tony Bill, and Carrie Fisher in her film debut. Co-written by Beatty and Robert Towne, the film follows a promiscuous Los Angeles hairdresser on Election Day 1968, as he juggles his relationships with several women. The film is a satire focusing on the theme of sexual politics and late-1960s sexual and social mores.

Plot
On the eve of the 1968 United States presidential election, successful Beverly Hills hairdresser George Roundy meets with Felicia, one of his several clients/sexual partners, at his apartment. During sex, he receives a phone call from Jill, his naive, younger, up-and-coming actress girlfriend, who is suffering a panic attack, paranoid that an intruder is in her home. George rushes from his house to calm Jill, which frustrates Felicia.

George's occupation and charisma have provided him the perfect platform from which to meet and have sex with beautiful women, including his current girlfriend. Despite this, 34-year-old George is dissatisfied with his professional life; he is the creative star of the salon in which he works, but has to play second fiddle to Norman, the "nickel-and-diming" mediocre hairdresser who owns the business.

George dreams of setting up his own salon business, but cannot convince any bank to lend him the capital he needs. He seeks out Felicia and her unsuspecting husband Lester to bankroll him. George's meeting with Lester supplies a second secret for him to keep from his would-be benefactor; Lester's current mistress, Jackie, is George's former girlfriend, perhaps the most serious relationship he has ever had. Jackie is also best friends with Jill, making the situation even more complicated.

Jackie arranges for George to style her hair, which he fashions nearly identically to Felicia's. Sexual tension arises between the two, and George attempts to kiss Jackie. At first, Jackie rebuffs George, but then kisses him back. They are about to have sex in the bathroom when they hear Lester announce his arrival. As Lester comes into the room, they pretend for his benefit that George is finishing styling Jackie's hair.

Lester, who assumes George is gay because of his profession, asks George to escort Jackie to a Republican Party election-night soiree. Upon arriving, George finds himself in the same room as a number of present and former sexual partners, including Jill (who came with Johnny Pope, a film director considering her for a role in his next film) and Felicia. Jackie becomes upset, drinks too much, and behaves outrageously, so Lester asks George to take her home, but she refuses to go.

All the principals except Felicia adjourn to a posh counterculture party at a Beverly Hills mansion, where guests indulge in alcohol, other drugs, and sexual pursuits. Lester, followed moments later by Jill and Johnny, happen upon a couple having vigorous sex in the dark on the kitchen floor. Lester comments admiringly on this tryst to Jill and Johnny, who look on through the window in stunned silence. Suddenly, the refrigerator door George had failed to properly close comes open, illuminating Jackie and him. Lester, shocked, abruptly leaves. An enraged Jill throws a chair, breaking the window, and swears at George. Jackie flees as George tries to placate Jill with an obvious lie, but Jill, unmollified, runs off to spend the night with Johnny.

The following morning Jill confronts George at her home with one of Felicia's earrings, which she found in his bed. When she asks about his dalliances, George admits he sought a career in the beauty industry as a means to pursue beautiful women, and that his promiscuity, while making him feel like he will live forever, may mean he does not love her. Upon returning to his home, George is met by Lester and some intimidating men. George and Lester soon find mutual understanding. Lester calls Jackie a whore and mentions he is fed up with her. Lester promises George a business deal and he and the men leave.

George subsequently goes to Jackie's house, but she worriedly flees in her car, claiming she does not want Lester to find them together. George pursues her on his motorcycle, and the two arrive on a hilltop overlook above her house. George proposes to Jackie, but she tells him it is too late; she has arranged to go to Acapulco with Lester, who has said he will divorce Felicia and marry her. Jackie leaves George alone on the overlook, from where he sadly watches her depart with Lester.

Analysis
Film scholar Emanuel Levy describes Shampoo as a critique of suburbia, comparing its self-contained Beverly Hills setting to the small towns depicted in films such as Jaws and The Stepford Wives (both also released in 1975). He elaborates on the film's political themes: "Made in 1975, less than a year after [Richard] Nixon’s resignation (August 1974) over the Watergate scandal, the film suggests parallels between Nixon’s hypocrisy and cheating and similar devices among the average Americans... The TV set is on most of the time, but no one has time to really watch, reducing the screen to a constant blur of images and sounds... The film suggests that Americans have become slaves to their private and sexual lives at the expense of getting involved emotionally or politically. No character talks about or understands politics. Shampoo is about whoring in sex and in politics, and the price of doing it."

Soundtrack
The soundtrack includes songs from its setting of the late 1960s. Included in the party sequence are the Beatles ("Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" and "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"), Buffalo Springfield ("Mr. Soul"), Jefferson Airplane ("Plastic Fantastic Lover" and "Good Shepherd"), and Jimi Hendrix ("Manic Depression"). Also included on the soundtrack album is "Wouldn't It Be Nice" by the Beach Boys, which plays over the opening and closing credits of the film.

Release
Shampoo premiered in New York City on February 11, 1975.

Reception
Upon its release, the film generally received positive reviews from critics who lauded its talented cast and sharp, satirical writing. Praise was not universal; some critics, including Roger Ebert, pronounced it a disappointment.

Critic Pauline Kael of The New Yorker gave the film an overall positive review claiming the film is "a bigger picture in retrospect," while Walter Goodman of The New York Times said that "Ashby shows that he has a good memory for a couple of decades of cinematic clichés."

Commercially, Shampoo was a great success. Produced on a budget of $4 million, the film grossed $49,407,734 domestically and $60 million at the worldwide box office. It earned an estimated $23.9 million in North American rentals, making it the third-highest-grossing film of 1975, beaten only by Jaws and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Legacy
From reviews compiled retrospectively, review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a score of 68% based on 40 reviews, with an average score of 6.6/10. The site's consensus reads: "Shampoo trains a darkly comic lens on post-Nixon America, aiming at—and often hitting—an array of timely targets". The film is recognized by American Film Institute in these lists:
 * 2000: AFI's 100 Years...100 Laughs – #47

Sony Pictures Home Entertainment released Shampoo on DVD in January 2003. On October 16, 2018, The Criterion Collection re-released the film on Blu-ray and DVD in a special edition, featuring a new 4K scan of the original film elements.

Shampoo also served as the inspiration for the 1976 exploitation film Black Shampoo, directed by Greydon Clark, which is an example of the common blaxploitation filmmaking technique of intentionally piggybacking on the titles of hit films starring predominantly white casts to provide predominantly African American "alternatives" to the earlier films; Clark explained in an interview that his reason for making a blaxploitation film about a black male hairdresser's sexual trysts patterned after Ashby's film was that Clark did not want to make a film about a pimp, private detective or drug dealer, who were often the protagonists of blaxploitation films.

title: Shampoo (film)


text:
Keypunch

A keypunch is a device for precisely punching holes into stiff paper cards at specific locations as determined by keys struck by a human operator. Other devices included here for that same function include the gang punch, the pantograph punch, and the stamp. The term was also used for similar machines used by humans to transcribe data onto punched tape media.

For Jacquard looms, the resulting punched cards were joined together to form a paper tape, called a "chain", containing a program that, when read by a loom, directed its operation.

For Hollerith machines and other unit record machines the resulting punched cards contained data to be processed by those machines. For computers equipped with a punched card input/output device the resulting punched cards were either data or programs directing the computer's operation.

Early Hollerith keypunches were manual devices. Later keypunches were electromechanical devices which combined several functions in one unit. These often resembled small desks with keyboards similar to those on typewriters and were equipped with hoppers for blank cards and stackers for punched cards. Some keypunch models could print, at the top of a column, the character represented by the hole(s) punched in that column. The small pieces punched out by a keypunch fell into a chad box, or (at IBM) chip box, or bit bucket.

In many data processing applications, the punched cards were verified by keying exactly the same data a second time, checking to see if the second keying and the punched data were the same (known as two pass verification). There was a great demand for keypunch operators, usually women, who worked full-time on keypunch and verifier machines, often in large keypunch departments with dozens or hundreds of other operators, all performing data input. In the 1950s, Remington Rand introduced the UNITYPER, which enabled data entry directly to magnetic tape for UNIVAC systems. Mohawk Data Sciences subsequently produced an improved magnetic tape encoder in 1965, which was somewhat successfully marketed as a keypunch replacement. The rise of microprocessors and inexpensive computer terminals led to the development of additional key-to-tape and key-to-disk systems from smaller companies such as Inforex and Pertec.

Keypunches and punched cards were still commonly used for both data and program entry through the 1970s but were rapidly made obsolete by changes in the entry paradigm and by the availability of inexpensive CRT computer terminals. Eliminating the step of transferring punched cards to tape or disk (with the added benefit of saving the cost of the cards themselves) allowed for improved checking and correction during the entry process. The development of video display terminals, interactive timeshared systems and, later, personal computers allowed those who originated the data or program to enter it directly instead of writing it on forms to be entered by keypunch operators.

Stamping Jacquard cards, 1801 through 1890
Jacquard cards were said to be stamped or cut (not punched). The first Jacquard cards were stamped by hand, sometimes using a guide plate. An improvement was to place the card between two perforated metal plates (hinged together), insert punches according to the desired pattern, then pass the assembly through a press to cut the card. These essentially manual processes were replaced by machines; piano machines (the name taken from the keys), operated by keyboards and comparable in function to unit record keypunches, becoming the most common.

Hollerith and IBM keypunches, 1890 through 1930s
Herman Hollerith's first device for punching cards from the 1890s was ...any ordinary ticket punch, cutting a round hole 3/16 of an inch in diameter. Use of such a punch was facilitated by placing the holes to be used near the edges of the card. Hollerith soon developed a more accurate and simpler to use Keyboard Punch, using a pantograph to link a punch mechanism to a guide pointer that an operator would place over the appropriate mark in a 12 by 20 matrix to line up a manual punch over the correct hole in one of 20 columns.

In 1901 Hollerith patented a mechanism where an operator pressed one of 12 keys to punch a hole, with the card automatically advancing to the next column. This first-generation Type 001 keypunch used 45 columns and round holes. In 1923 The Tabulating Machine Company introduced the first electric keypunch, the Type 011 Electric Keypunch, a similar looking device where each key closed an electrical contact that activated a solenoid which punched the hole. The 80 column punched card format was introduced in 1928. Later Hollerith keypunches included the Type 016 Motor-Driven Electric Duplicating Keypunch (1929), the Type 31 Alphabetical Duplicating Punch (1933), and the Type 32 Alphabetical Printing Punch (1933).

"'Alphabetical duplicating keypunches recorded alphabetic information in tabulating cards so that complete words and names, together with numerical data, could be later printed by an alphabetical accounting machine. The Type 31 Alphabetical Duplicating Punch was introduced by IBM in 1933, and it automatically ejected one card and fed another in 0.65 second. These machines were equipped with separate alphabetical and numerical keyboards. The alphabetical keyboard was similar to a conventional manual typewriter except that the shift, tab, backspace and character keys were eliminated, and a skip, release, stacker and '1' key were provided.' – IBM Archives"

Post-WW II IBM keypunches and verifiers for 80-column cards

Most IBM keypunch and verifiers used a common electrical/mechanical design in their keyboards to encode the mechanical keystrokes. As a key was depressed, a link on the keystem tripped a corresponding set of bails at the top of the keyboard assembly. The bails in turn made (closed) contacts to encode the characters electrically. As each key stroke was detected by the machine, a feed-back circuit energized a pair of magnets with a bail which restored the keystem mechanically, reset the bails performing the electrical encoding, and gave the "feel" and sound to the operator of a completed action. Each machine had a tendency to develop a "feel" of its own based on several variables such as the amount of wear, dirt, and clearance of the bail contacts within the keyboard, as well as factors in the base machine. The keyboards, however, had no provision for adjusting the "feel" other than the correct adjustment of the contacts on the restore bail contacts and the encoding bail contacts. Special function keys such as shift, release, duplication and others, had only electrical contacts under their stems, with no mechanical linkage to the bail assembly for encoding.

IBM keypunches such as the 024, 026, and 029 provided for the mounting of a program card that controlled various functions, such as tabbing and automatic duplication of fields from the previous card. The later 129 used electronic circuit cards to store simple programs written by the keypunch operator.

IBM 024, 026 Card Punches
The IBM 024 Card Punch and IBM 026 Printing Card Punch were announced in 1949. They were almost identical, with the exception of the printing mechanism. The heart of the 024 and 026 keypunches was a set of twelve precision punches, one per card row, each with an actuator of relatively high power. Punch cards were stepped across the punch one column at a time, and the appropriate punches were activated to create the holes, resulting in a distinctive "chunk, chunk" sound as columns were punched. Both machines could process 51-, 60-, 66-, and 80-column cards.

The 026 could print the punched character above each column. By 1964 there were ten versions with slightly different character sets. The scientific versions printed parentheses, equal sign and plus sign in place of four less frequently used characters in the commercial character sets.

Logic consisted of diodes, 25L6 vacuum tubes and relays. The tube circuits used 150VDC, but this voltage was only used to operate the punch-clutch magnet. Most other circuits used 48VDC.

Characters were printed using a 5 × 7 dot matrix array of wires; the device from which it derived the shape of the character was a metal plate, called the "code plate," with space for 1960 pins (35 pins times 56 printable characters). If the dot was not to be printed in a given character, the pin was machined off. By correctly positioning the plate and pressing it against one end of the array of printing wires, only the correct wires were pressed against the ribbon and then the punched card. (This printer mechanism was generally considered by IBM Customer Engineers to be difficult to repair. One of the most common problems was wires breaking in the tightly curved narrow tube between the code plate and the ribbon—extracting the fragments and replacing the bundle of 35 wires was very tedious). The printing mechanism was prone to be damaged if a user attempted to duplicate "binary" cards with non-standard punch patterns. These could cause the code-plate positioning mechanism to try to shift the plate beyond its intended range of motion, sometimes causing damage. Turning off printing did not actually prevent the damage, as many people assumed, because the code-plate mechanism remained engaged with the punch unit and shifted the code plate. Turning off printing only suppressed pressing the printing pins into the ribbon and card.

Raymond Loewy, industrial designer of "streamlined" motifs who also designed railway passenger cars of the 1930s and 1940s, did the award-winning external design of the 026/024 Card Punches for IBM. Their heavy steel construction and rounded corners indeed echo the industrial Art Deco style.

IBM 056 Card Verifier
The IBM 056 was the verifier companion to the 024 Card Punch and 026 Printing Card Punch. The verifier was similar to the 026 keypunch except for a red error lens in the machine cover lower center. The verifier operator entered exactly the same data as the keypunch operator and the verifier machine then checked to see if the punched data matched. Successfully verified cards had a small notch punched on the right hand edge.

The IBM 056 verifier used most of the same mechanical and electrical components as the 024/026 keypunches with the exception of the punch unit and print head. The punch unit had sensing pins in place of the punches. The holes sensed or not sensed would trip a contact bail when the configuration was other than that entered by the verifier operator. This stopped the forward motion of the card, and presented a red error light on the machine cover. The notching mechanism was located in the area occupied by the print mechanism on a 026 printing keypunch. It had a solenoid which drove the notching mechanism, and another that selected the top notch punch or end of card punch.

When an operator keying data to be verified encountered an error, the operator was given a second and third try to re-enter the data that was supposed to be in the field. If the third try was incorrect an error notch was put on the top of the card over the column with the error and the "OK" punch at the end of the card was not enabled. The data on the card could actually be correct, since the verifier operator was just as likely to make an error as the keypunch operator. However, with three tries, the operator was less likely to repeatedly make the same error. Some verifier operators were able to guess the error on the card created by the previous keypunch operator, defeating the purpose of the verify procedure, and thus some machines were altered to allow only one entry and error notched on the second try.

Cards with error notches were re-punched (using an 024 or 026) usually by "duplicating" up to the column in error, then entering the correct data. The duplicating function was accomplished by feeding the card through the punch station without punching it. At the next station sensing pins read the holes present in the original card and transferred the data to the punching station and onto a blank card. Columns with errors were corrected instead of being duplicated. The corrected card was then verified to check the data again and be "OK notched".

Typewriter Card Punches
The first combination of card punch and typewriter, permitting selected text to be typed and punched, was developed by the Powers company in 1925. The IBM 824 Typewriter Card Punch was an IBM 024 where the 024 keyboard was replaced by an IBM electric typewriter. Similarly, the IBM 826 used an IBM 026 Keypunch.

IBM 029 Card Punch
Introduced with System/360 in 1964, the 029 had new character codes for parentheses, equal  and plus as well as other new symbols used in the EBCDIC code. The IBM 029 was mechanically similar to the IBM 026 and printed the punched character on the top of the card using the same kind of mechanism as the 026, although it used a larger code plate with 2240 printing-pin sites due to the larger set of characters in EBCDIC.

The 029's logic consisted of wire contact relays on later models and reed relays and diodes on SMS cards for early ones. The more "advanced" reed relays used at first proved to be less reliable than expected, causing IBM to revert to the older-style wire-contact relay-based design. All ran on 48 volts DC, and did not require the vacuum tubes that were used in the 024/026. A common additional feature made available (at additional cost) was the leading zeros feature (termed "Left-Zero"). This was delivered by an additional set of four SMS cards. The field was programmed for leading zeros using the program card. If it was (say) a six digit field, the operator only had to key in the actual value (for example 73). The feature would then fill the field by punching the leading four zeros, followed by the 73, in effect right justifying the field, thus: 000073.

IBM 5924 Key Punch
The IBM 5924 Key Punch was the 029 model T01 attached with a special keyboard in IBM's 1971 announcement of the IBM Kanji System, the keypunch operator's left hand selecting one of 15 shift keys and the right hand selecting one of 240 Kanji characters for that shift. It introduced the computer processing of Chinese, Japanese and Korean languages that typically used large character sets over 10,000 characters.

IBM 059 Card Verifier
The IBM 059 was the Verifier companion to the IBM 029 Card Punch. In design, it differed radically from the earlier 056 verifier, in that it used optical sensing of card holes instead of mechanical sensing pins. This made the 059 much quieter than the 056 (which was often louder than the 024 keypunch). The optical sensors used a single light source, which was distributed to various sites within the machine via fiber-optic lightpipes. Despite the technology, the basic mode of operation remained essentially the same as with the 056.

Ironically, not all verifier operators appreciated the noise reduction. When used in a room also containing 029 keypunch machines, the verifier operators sometimes missed the auditory feedback provided by the loud "thunk" noise emitted by the older 056. Some were known to compensate by hitting the keys harder, sometimes actually wearing out keyboard parts.

IBM 129 Card Data Recorder
Introduced with the System/370 in 1971, the IBM 129 was capable of punching, verifying, and use as an auxiliary, on line, 80 column card reader/punch for some computers. A switch on the keyboard console provided the ability to toggle between the punch and verify modes.

The transistorized IBM 129 Card Data Recorder's primary advantage over other IBM keypunches was that it featured an electronic 80-column buffer to hold the card image. When using earlier IBM keypunches, a keystroke error required the card to be ejected by pressing the Release and Register keys, the error corrected by pressing the Duplicate key until the error column was reached, typing the correct data for the rest of that card, then pressing the Release key and manually removing the bad card from the output card stacker before it was placed in the deck (this required some practice, but quickly became an automatic action that you no longer had to think about). With the 129, a keystroke error could be erased by pressing the Backspace key and re-keyed. The entire 80-column card was punched automatically, as fast as the mechanism could go, when the Release key was pressed.

Logic was in SLT modules on a swing out, wire-wrapped backplane.

A secondary advantage of the 129 was that the speed of the keying operation was not limited by punching each column at the time of the keystroke.

The 129 could store six programs in its memory, selectable by a rotary switch. Unlike earlier keypunch machines, the program cards were read into memory via the regular card-feed path, and were not wrapped around a "program drum".

Thanks to its use of electronic memory, the 129 did not have a separate "read station" with a pin-sense unit to enable duplication of data from one card to the next. Instead, duplication was based on the stored image of the previous card. Cards could also be "read-in" through an optical read unit integrated into the punch station.

Program card
IBM 024, 026, and 029 keypunches and their companion verifiers, the 056 and 059, could be programmed to a limited extent using a Program Card, also known as a drum card. The keypunch or verifier could be programmed to automatically advance to the beginning of each field, default to certain character types within the field, duplicate a field from the previous card, and so on. Program cards were an improvement over the Skip Bar used in some earlier keypunches.

The program was encoded on a punched card and could be prepared on any keypunch (a keypunch would operate even if no program card was in place). The program card was wrapped around the program drum, and clamped in place. The drum rotated as the card being punched moved through the punching mechanism. The holes in the program card were sensed by an array of starwheels that would cause levers to rise and fall as the holes in the program card passed beneath the starwheels, activating electrical contacts. The program was encoded in the top six rows [12,11,0,1,2,3]. If the optional Second Program feature was installed, another program could be encoded in the bottom six rows [4,5,6,7,8,9]. A switch let the operator select which program to use. The central cover on the keypunch could be tilted open toward the operator and a locking lever released, allowing the program drum to be removed and replaced.

The program card was punched with characters that controlled its function as follows:

Many programming languages, such as FORTRAN, RPG, and the IBM Assembler, coded operations in specific card columns, such as 1, 10, 16, 36, and 72. The program card for such a setup might be coded as:

1.......10........20........30........40........50........60........70........80 1AAAAAAAA1AAAAA1AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA1AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA &&&&&&&&

In this example, if the keypunch operator typed a few characters at the beginning of the card and then pressed the skip key, the keypunch would tab to column 10. When a program code of blank is followed by "Field Definition" (12) (or (4) for program 2), it defines a "Numeric Shift" field. In the example above, columns 72-80 are defined in the program as a Numeric Shift field. In practice, this definition would likely be used for punching a special symbol as a "continuation character" in column 72, and then columns 73-80 could either be punched with a card sequence number or the card could be released at that point, if no further typing was required.

Note: "Field Definition" (12) and "Alphabetic Shift" (1) prints as an A.

If program 2 codes were punched, invalid characters could be generated that the printer did not know how to print, some of which could even damage the printer.

Program cards could automate certain tasks, such as "gang punching", the insertion of a constant field into each card of a deck of cards. For amusement, program cards could even be set up to play music by gang-punching "noisy" characters (characters represented by many holes, usually special characters) and "quiet" numbers and letters in rhythmic patterns.

IBM 5496 Data Recorder for 96 column cards
In 1969, IBM introduced the System/3 family of low-end business computers which featured a new, smaller-sized, 96 column punched card. The IBM 5496 Data Recorder, a keypunch with print and verify functions, and IBM 5486 Card Sorter were made for these 96-column cards.

Powers, Remington Rand (UNIVAC) keypunches
Beginning around 1906, an employee of the United States Census Bureau, James Powers, developed the Powers Keypunch, which was specific to the census application and had 240 keys. In 1911, Powers formed Powers Accounting Machine Company. That company was taken over by Remington Rand in 1927. Remington Rand's UNIVAC division made keypunches for their 90-column cards and similar machines for the IBM 80-column card. Their 90-column keypunches used a mechanical system developed by Remington Rand to avoid IBM patent issues (long before the acquisition of Eckert–Mauchly Computer Corporation). UNIVAC keypunches stored the sequence of characters for an entire card, then punched all its holes in a single pass, which allowed for corrections instead of wasting a card in case of error.

Remington Rand keypunches included: UNIVAC Card Code Punch Type 306-5, 90 Column Alphabetical (Types 306-2, 306-3), 90 Column Numerical (Types 204-2, 204-3), Portable Electric Punch Type 202, Spot Punch Type 301, and the Automatic Verifying Machine Type 313.

The Type 306-2 provided for verification; the cards were passed through the keypunch a second time and keyed again. ''The verify-punching of the same cards in the same sequence ... results in the elongation of perforations for correct information. Round perforations indicate incorrect information. Complete and rapid detection of errors is performed mechanically by the Automatic Verifying Machine''

The UNIVAC 1710 Verifying Interpreting Punch was introduced in 1969.

Keypunch as a verb
Saying that something would be keypunched (to keypunch as a verb), now that the actual device called a keypunch has become obsolete, refers to data entry.

This use of the verb has replaced the former process, described as "When a key is struck on a keypunch, it prints the character on the top of the card but also punches a series of holes that the computer" can interpret."

Transition to direct data entry
In the 1950s, Remington Rand introduced the UNITYPER, which enabled data entry directly to magnetic tape for UNIVAC systems. Mohawk Data Sciences subsequently produced an improved magnetic tape encoder in 1965, which was somewhat successfully marketed as a keypunch replacement. In the mid-1970s, the rise of microprocessors and inexpensive computer terminals led to the development of additional key-to-tape and key-to-disk systems from smaller companies such as Inforex and Pertec.

Punched cards were still commonly used for data entry and programming until the mid-1980s. However, eliminating the step of transferring punched cards to tape or disk (with the added benefit of saving the cost of the cards themselves) allowed for improved checking and correction during the data entry process. The development of video display terminals, interactive timeshared systems and, later, personal computers allowed workers who originated the data to enter it directly instead of writing it on forms to be entered by data entry clerks.

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

title: Keypunch


text:
Tennis at the 2004 Summer Olympics

Tennis at the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens took place on ten separate courts at the Olympic Tennis Centre. The surface was hardcourt.

172 players competed in four events. 2004 saw more of the top ranked players appearing, as this tournament saw world ranking points allocated to the players for the first time. Martina Navratilova made her first appearance at the Olympic Games where she partnered with Lisa Raymond in the ladies doubles.

title: Tennis at the 2004 Summer Olympics


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elitesecurity

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as a recreation of a previously-deleted article. RickK 00:34, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Elitesecurity
This has been deleted before (see below); still can't see what's notable about this (non-English language) forum Ianb 18:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ad for yet another internet forum, in Serbian (?) only. Ianb 16:56, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a web directory. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The site is the number one hit from Google, but Alexa traffic is 23,839. Delete.  SWAdair | Talk  01:30, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Andris 09:57, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * (no vote) The largest and most well-known Serbian IT forum. What are criteria for inclusion of sites? Is being the most significant site about a topic in a language or region not important enough? Nikola 15:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: there is no place in Wikipedia for general web-directory style entries. Any site that is included should have an article about the site, its history, what makes it notable etc.. This article does not, which is why it is listed here, and as this is an English-language site, the vast majority of contributors (including myself) can only judge on the information available. It is of course possible that relevant information is added during the vfd period which can have a positive effect on the outcome. Ianb 16:01, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The above has disappeared from the vfd page but the article Elitesecurity remains with vfd tag and is protected. Not sure what's happened here. --Ianb 08:19, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * No vote: Unjustified protection removed from page. Davodd 16:01, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is a result of my foul up. When I went to delete this page I accidentally hit the protect tab, but still filled in the comment as though I was deleting it, and then removed the page from VfD.  I have now deleted the page, as it should have been long ago. - SimonP 16:30, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * You get the Wonderfully Human award for the day. :-) Davodd 17:03, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Seconded :-). Thanks. --Ianb 17:14, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as a recreation of a previously-deleted article. RickK 00:34, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Elizabeth Seymour, Lady Cromwell

Elizabeth Seymour (c. 1518 – 19 March 1568) was a younger daughter of Sir John Seymour of Wulfhall, Wiltshire and Margery Wentworth. Elizabeth and her sister Jane served in the household of Anne Boleyn, the second wife of Henry VIII. The Seymours rose to prominence after the king's attention turned to Jane. In May 1536, Anne Boleyn was accused of treason and adultery, and subsequently executed. On 30 May 1536, eleven days after Anne's execution, Henry VIII and Jane were married. Elizabeth was not included in her sister's household during her brief reign, although she would serve two of Henry VIII's later wives, Anne of Cleves and Catherine Howard. Jane died 24 October 1537, twelve days after giving birth to a healthy son, Edward VI.

Elizabeth lived under four Tudor monarchs (Lady Jane Grey is not included) and was married three times. By July 1530 she had married Sir Anthony Ughtred, Governor of Jersey, who died in 1534. She then married Gregory Cromwell, 1st Baron Cromwell, the son of Thomas Cromwell, chief minister to Henry VIII in 1537; Gregory died in 1551. She married her third and last husband, Sir John Paulet, later Lord St. John, the son of William Paulet, 1st Marquess of Winchester in 1554.

Seymour family
The Seymour family took its name from St. Maur-sur-Loire in Touraine. William de St. Maur in 1240 held the manors of Penhow and Woundy (now called Undy in Monmouthshire). William's great-grandson, Sir Roger de St. Maur, had two sons: John, whose granddaughter conveyed these manors by marriage into the family of Bowlay of Penhow, who bore the Seymour arms; and Sir Roger (c. 1308 – Bef. 1366), who married Cicely, eldest sister and heir of John de Beauchamp, 3rd Baron Beauchamp. Cicely brought to the Seymours the manor of Hache, Somerset, and her grandson, Roger Seymour, by his marriage with Maud, daughter and heir of Sir William Esturmy, acquired Wolf Hall in Wiltshire. Elizabeth's father, Sir John Seymour, was a great-great-grandson of this Roger Seymour.

Sir John Seymour was born in 1474. He succeeded his father in 1492, was knighted by Henry VII for his services against the Cornish rebels at Blackheath in 1497, and was sheriff of Wiltshire in 1508. He was present at the sieges of Thérouanne and Tournay in 1513, at the two interviews between Henry VIII and Francis I in 1520 and 1532, and died on 21 December 1536.

He married Margery, the daughter of Sir Henry Wentworth of Nettlestead, Suffolk, and his wife Anne Say. Anne was the daughter of Sir John Say and his wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Lawrence Cheney (or Cheyne) (c. 1396 – 1461) and Elizabeth Cokayne. Margery Wentworth's grandfather, Sir Philip Wentworth, had married Mary, daughter of John Clifford, 7th Baron de Clifford, whose mother Elizabeth was daughter of Henry Percy (Hotspur) and great-great-granddaughter of Edward III.

Sir John Seymour (1474 – 21 December 1536), of Wulfhall, Savernake, Wiltshire, and Margery Wentworth (c. 1478 – c. October 1550) were married 22 October 1494. The couple had ten children:

 * John Seymour (died 15 July 1510)
 * Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset, Lord Protector of Edward VI (c. 1500/1506 – 22 January 1552) married firstly Catherine, daughter of Sir William Fillol, and secondly Anne, daughter of Sir Edward Stanhope.
 * Sir Henry Seymour (1503 – 1578) married Barbara, daughter of Morgan Wolfe
 * Thomas Seymour, 1st Baron Seymour of Sudeley (c. 1508 – 20 March 1549) married Catherine Parr, widow of Henry VIII
 * John Seymour (died young)
 * Anthony Seymour (died c. 1528)
 * Jane Seymour, queen Consort of Henry VIII (c. 1509 – 24 October 1537)
 * Margery Seymour (died c. 1528)
 * Elizabeth Seymour (c. 1518 – 19 Mar 1568)
 * Dorothy Seymour (c. 1519 – 4 January 1574) married firstly, Sir Clement Smith (c. 1515 – 26 August 1552) of Little Baddow, Essex and secondly, Thomas Leventhorpe of Shingle Hall, Hertfordshire.

Of the ten children born at Wulfhall, six survived:– three sons: Edward, Henry and Thomas, and three daughters: Jane, Elizabeth and Dorothy. Edward, Thomas, Jane and Elizabeth were courtiers. Edward and Thomas were both executed during the reign of Edward VI. Henry Seymour, who did not share his brothers' ambition, escaped their fate.

Early life
Elizabeth Seymour was born about 1518, probably at Wulfhall. Her letters to Thomas Cromwell and Henry VIII show that she was both intelligent and astute. She was also skilled in needlework. She played a brief but prominent role in the 1530s and 1540s, during the rise to power of her father-in-law, Thomas Cromwell, and her brother, Edward. Elizabeth and her sister, Jane, served in the household of Henry VIII's second wife, Anne Boleyn, their second cousin. She married three times and by her first two marriages had seven children. She is best known as the wife of Gregory Cromwell.

First marriage
By July 1530 Elizabeth had married, as his second wife, Sir Anthony Ughtred, of Kexby, Yorkshire.

The couple had two children:
 * Sir Henry Ughtred, (c. 1533/4 – 1599), born at Mont Orgueil, Jersey, married Elizabeth, daughter to John Paulet, Lord St. John and his first wife Elizabeth Willoughby and the widow of Sir William Courtenay. After his wife's death in 1576 he appears to have taken a second wife.
 * Margery Ughtred, (c. 1535 –?) married William Hungate of Burnby, Yorkshire.

In January 1531, Henry VIII granted the couple the manors of Lepington and Kexby (Yorkshire), previously held by Cardinal Thomas Wolsey. She was well-placed at court, in the service of Anne Boleyn, to support her husband's interests. In August 1532, when the pro-Boleyn Sir Anthony Ughtred was appointed captain and Governor of Jersey, it was almost certainly due to the influence of Anne Boleyn. He served in person, and remained in the post until his death.

On Saturday, 31 May 1533, Lady Ughtred was one of the ladies and gentlewomen attendant on horseback who accompanied Queen Anne Boleyn in a procession from the Tower of London to Westminster Hall.

Sir Anthony Ughtred died 6 October 1534 in Jersey, and was buried in the chapel of St George, in the castle of Mont Orgueil. After her husband's death, the young widow returned to England, to serve her mistress and cousin, the queen. Her daughter, Margery was probably born in Kexby, Yorkshire in the same year. Her one-year-old son, Henry, remained on the island for a time, in the care of Helier de Carteret, Bailiff of Jersey.

The Queen's sister
When Anne Boleyn failed to produce a male heir after almost three years of marriage, the able and ambitious Edward Seymour and his family, gained wealth and power as Jane supplanted Anne in the king's affections. In March 1536, Edward was made a gentleman of the privy chamber, and a few days later, he and his wife Anne together with his sister Jane, were lodged at the palace at Greenwich in apartments which the king could reach through a private passage.

In May 1536, accused of treason, incest and plotting the king's death, Anne was imprisoned in the Tower, awaiting her trial. Jane Seymour resided with members of her family, first at the home of Sir Nicholas Carew in Surrey and then moved closer to the king, to a house at Chelsea, formerly owned by Thomas More. While the king's second wife prepared for her execution, Jane was planning her wedding, "splendidly served by the King's cook and other officers" and "most richly dressed". On 30 May 1536, eleven days after Anne Boleyn's execution, Henry VIII and Jane were married. On 5 June, a week after his sister's marriage to the king, Edward Seymour was created Viscount Beauchamp. Two days later he received a grant of numerous manors in Wiltshire, including Ambresbury, Easton Priory, Chippenham, and Maiden Bradley. On 7 July he was made governor and captain of Jersey, and in August, chancellor of North Wales. He had livery of his father's lands in the following year, was on 30 January granted the manor of Muchelney, Somerset, and on 22 May sworn of the privy council. In the same month he was on the commission appointed to try Lords Darcy and Hussey for their role in the pilgrimage of grace. On 15 October he carried Princess Elizabeth at Edward VI's christening, and 18 October was created Earl of Hertford. Thomas Seymour was also made a gentleman of the privy chamber in 1536, and knighted 18 October of the same year. He was made captain of the Sweepstake in 1537.

When Henry VIII sought to divorce his first wife, Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn, Jane, who had previously served in Catherine's household, had remained loyal to her and her daughter, Mary. Elizabeth and her first husband, Sir Anthony Ughtred had supported Anne Boleyn and benefited from her rise. It is not surprising therefore, that she was not included in the new queen's household. There is no evidence that Elizabeth benefited directly from her sister's royal status, before the news of a royal pregnancy became public knowledge in 1537. The impending birth of an heir to the throne would dramatically increase her value as a potential bride.

On 18 March 1537, then a young widow of reduced means, residing in York, Elizabeth had written to Thomas Cromwell, then Baron Cromwell, who had previously offered to help her, if she was ever in need. She had hoped to "be holpen to obtain of the king's grace to be farmer of one of these abbeys if they fortune to go down ..." Cromwell, probably encouraged by Edward Seymour, proposed instead that she marry his only son and heir, Gregory. By June, it appears that Cromwell's offer had been accepted. Arthur Darcy, the son of Thomas Darcy, 1st Baron Darcy de Darcy, assured her that "I would have been glad to have had you likewise, but sure it is, as I said, that some southern lord shall make you forget the North."

Second marriage
"which doth comfort me most in the world, that I find your lordship is contented with me, and that you will be my good lord and father the which, I trust, never to deserve other, but rather to give cause for the continuance of the same." On 3 August 1537, Elizabeth married Gregory Cromwell at Mortlake. Edward Seymour, then Viscount Beauchamp wrote to Cromwell on 2 September 1537, to know how he has fared since the writer's departure. Wishes Cromwell were with him, when he should have had the best sport with bow, hounds, and hawks and sends commendations to his brother-in-law and sister, adding: "and I pray God to send me by them shortly a nephew."

The couple had five children:
 * Henry Cromwell, 2nd Baron Cromwell, (before 1 March 1538 – 16 December 1592), married Mary, (died 1592), the daughter of John Paulet, Lord St. John and his first wife Elizabeth Willoughby.
 * Edward Cromwell, (1539 – ?) died young
 * Thomas Cromwell, (c. 1540 – died between February 1610 and April 1611), married 18 August 1580, Katherine (died before 1 August 1616), daughter of Thomas Gardner of Coxford.
 * Katherine Cromwell, (c. 1541 – ?), probably named after Queen Catherine Howard, married John Strode of Parnham, Dorset
 * Frances Cromwell, (c. 1544 – 7 February 1562), married Richard Strode of Newnham, Devon.

On 12 November, three months after their wedding, Elizabeth and Gregory took part in the queen's funeral procession. Jane's death on 24 October, after being delivered of the king's longed-for son, naturally came as a blow to the Seymour family. It proved to be a setback to Edward Seymour's influence. He was described in the following year as "young and wise," but "of small power". The death of the queen would have disastrous consequences for Thomas Cromwell.

The couple's first child, Henry was born in 1538, shortly before their arrival at Lewes Priory in Sussex, recently acquired by Thomas Cromwell, where they resided until early 1539. Another son, Edward, followed in 1539, who may have been born, at Leeds Castle in Kent.

Gregory Cromwell appears to have been devoted to his wife and children. In December 1539, while in Calais waiting to welcome Henry VIII's new bride, Anne of Cleves, he wrote to his wife at Leeds Castle, addressing her as his "loving bedfellow", describing the arrival of Anne of Cleves, and requesting news "as well of yourself as also my little boys, of whose increase and towardness be you assured I am not a little desirous to be advertised". In January 1540, Elizabeth was appointed to the household of the new Queen, Anne of Cleves.

Thomas Cromwell was created Earl of Essex on 17 April, and his son, Gregory assumed the courtesy title of Lord Cromwell In May, Lady Cromwell watched her husband compete in the May Day jousts at the Palace of Westminster and afterwards feasted with the queen and her ladies. Anne of Cleves would not remain as queen for long, however, as the mercurial Henry VIII wanted a divorce.

Thomas Cromwell was at the height of his ascendancy, however his political enemies were gaining ground and his time in power would soon come to an end. He was arrested at a council meeting at 3.00 p.m. on the afternoon of 10 June 1540, accused of treason and heresy, taken to the Tower and his possessions seized. He was condemned without a trial and his sentence was later confirmed by an act of attainder. There are no surviving records of Gregory and Elizabeth's whereabouts at this time.

Thomas Cromwell wrote a desperate letter from the tower to the king to plead his innocence and appealed to him to be merciful to his son and the rest of his family. "Sir, upon [my kne]es I most humbly beseech your most gracious Majesty [to be goo]d and gracious lord to my poor son, the good and virtu[ous lady his] wife, and their poor children"

Elizabeth also wrote to Henry VIII, to assure him of her loyalty and that of her husband:"After the bounden duty of my most humble submission unto your excellent majesty, whereas it hath pleased the same, of your mere mercy and infinite goodness, notwithstanding the heinous trespasses and most grievous offences of my father-in-law, yet so graciously to extend your benign pity towards my poor husband and me, as the extreme indigence and poverty wherewith my said father-in-law's most detestable offences hath oppressed us, is thereby right much holpen and relieved, like as I have of long time been right desirous presently as well to render most humble thanks, as also to desire continuance of the same your highness' most benign goodness. So, considering your grace's most high and weighty affairs at this present, fear of molesting or being troublesome unto your highness hath disuaded me as yet otherwise to sue unto your grace than alonely by these my most humble letters, until your grace's said affairs shall be partly overpast. Most humbly beseeching your majesty in the mean season mercifully to accept this my most obedient suit, and to extend your accustomed pity and gracious goodness towards my said poor husband and me, who never hath, nor, God willing, never shall offend your majesty, but continually pray for the prosperous estate of the same long time to remain and continue.'" This undated letter is placed at the end of July 1540 in Letters and Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII. It was probably written while Thomas Cromwell was imprisoned in the Tower, as Elizabeth refers to her father-in-law, and not her late father-in-law. Moreover, it was customary at that time to write "may his soul God pardon" or something similar when referring to someone who had recently died, which she did not do. The letter was almost certainly written on the advice of her brother, Edward.

Thomas Cromwell was beheaded on Tower Hill on 28 July 1540, the same day as the king's marriage to Catherine Howard. He was buried in an unmarked grave in the Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula in the Tower. It is unknown if Gregory and his family were present at his execution or burial.

Gregory and Elizabeth were not implicated, although it would be almost six months before their desperate situation was to be resolved. They had been dependants of Thomas Cromwell, with no home and little income of their own, and would have had to rely on the generosity of family and friends. The king was inclined to be generous and Elizabeth was included in the future queen Catherine Howard's household as one of her attendant ladies.

On 18 December 1540, less than five months after his father's execution, Gregory Cromwell was created Baron Cromwell by letters patent, and summoned to Parliament as a peer of the realm. This title was a new creation, rather than a restoration of his father's forfeited barony. The following February he received a royal grant of lands that had been owned by his late father.

At the coronation of King Edward VI, on 20 February 1547, Elizabeth's husband and her brother, Henry were invested as Knights of the Order of the Bath.– Her brother, Thomas was found guilty of treason and executed 20 March 1549.

Elizabeth became a widow again upon the death of Gregory Cromwell from sweating sickness in 1551. He died at Launde Abbey 4 July 1551 and was buried three days later in the chapel at Launde. In London, Henry Machyn recorded the events in his diary:"And died my Lord Cromwell in Leicestershire and was buried with a standard, a banner of arms, and coat, helmet, sword, target, and escutcheons and herald." Gregory lies buried under a magnificent monument in the chapel at Launde. The initials "E C" can be seen in the intricate entablature beneath the pediment.

Edward, Duke of Somerset, who had always been a constant source of support to his sister Elizabeth, went to the block 22 January 1552 and his wife remained in the Tower. Since he had been found guilty of the lesser charge of felony, and not for treason, his lands and dignities were not thereby affected; however an act of Parliament was passed on 12 April 1552 declaring them forfeited and confirming his attainder. In May, his four younger daughters were placed in Elizabeth's care. She was granted 100 marks for the provision and education of each of her nieces per year, as well as the lease of her minor son's house of Launde Abbey, by way of an inducement. However, by October, the arrangement was placing the widow under a considerable strain. On 25 October 1552, she wrote to her friend, Sir William Cecil, of the Privy Council, requesting to be relieved of her troublesome nieces, who did not take her advice "in such good part as my good meaning was, nor according to my expectation in them". Her husband's family were all dead, her own surviving family did not live nearby, and she no longer had the support of her husband or her brother, Edward. She reminded Cecil that she had no near relations who could give her advice. Her pleas fell on deaf ears and her nieces would remain with her until their mother, Anne, Duchess of Somerset, was released from the Tower by Mary I in August 1553.

Third marriage
Between 10 March and 24 April 1554, Elizabeth married, as his second wife, Sir John Paulet, later Lord St. John, who outlived her. There were no children by this marriage. Elizabeth's two eldest sons married John Paulet's daughters. Henry Ughtred married the widowed Elizabeth after 1557 and Henry Cromwell married Mary sometime before 1560. Details of her later life remain obscure, however she and her husband appear in the records from time to time in matters relating to her son, Henry Cromwell's minority and suits for the continuation of royal grants at the commencement of each new reign.

Death
Elizabeth died 19 March 1568, and was buried 5 April in St. Mary's Church, Basing, Hampshire. John Paulet, Lord St. John married, before 30 September 1568, Winifred, widow of Sir Richard Sackville, and daughter of John Brydges, a former Lord Mayor of London. He succeeded his father as Marquess of Winchester in 1572.

Portraits
In 1909 British art historian, Sir Lionel Cust, then Director of the National Portrait Gallery in London, identified a portrait by Hans Holbein the Younger that had belonged to the Cromwell family for centuries as a likeness of Queen Catherine Howard. Inscribed ETATIS SVÆ 21, indicating that the sitter was depicted at the age of twenty-one, the portrait has long been associated with Henry VIII's young queen, but the lady is now thought to be a member of the Cromwell family.

The portrait shown on this page, dated circa 1535–1540, is exhibited at the Toledo Museum of Art as Portrait of a Lady, probably a Member of the Cromwell Family. A sixteenth-century version of the portrait, at Hever Castle in Kent, is exhibited as Portrait of a Lady, thought to be Catherine Howard. The National Portrait Gallery exhibits a similar painting, Unknown woman, formerly known as Catherine Howard, dating from the late seventeenth century. This would seem to indicate a sitter who was still a connection to be commemorated over a century later.

Historians Antonia Fraser, Diarmaid MacCulloch and Derek Wilson believe that the portrait depicts Elizabeth Seymour. Antonia Fraser has argued that the sitter is Jane Seymour's sister, Elizabeth, the widow of Sir Anthony Ughtred (d. 1534), on the grounds that the lady bears a resemblance to Jane, especially around the nose and chin, and wears widow's black. The lady's sumptuous black clothing, an indication of wealth and status, did not necessarily signify mourning; her jewellery suggests otherwise. Derek Wilson observed that "In August 1537 Cromwell succeeded in marrying his son, Gregory, to Elizabeth Seymour", the queen's younger sister. He was therefore related by marriage to the king, "an event worth recording for posterity, by a portrait of his daughter-in-law". According to Hans Holbein's most recent biographer, Franny Moyle, "One of the most striking portraits of a woman Holbein ever delivered was of Cromwell's daughter-in-law, painted probably in 1539 as she turned twenty-one."

title: Elizabeth Seymour, Lady Cromwell


text:
Cass Sunstein

Cass Robert Sunstein (born September 21, 1954) is an American legal scholar known for his work in constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and behavioral economics. He is also The New York Times best-selling author of The World According to Star Wars (2016) and Nudge (2008). He was the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2012.

As a professor at the University of Chicago Law School for 27 years, he wrote influential works on regulatory and constitutional law, among other topics. Since leaving the White House, Sunstein has been the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School. In 2014, studies of legal publications found Sunstein to be the most frequently cited American legal scholar by a wide margin.

Early life and education
Sunstein was born on September 21, 1954, in Waban, Massachusetts, to Marian (née Goodrich), a teacher, and Cass Richard Sunstein, a builder, both Jewish. He graduated in 1972 from Middlesex School. He has said that as a teenager, he was briefly infatuated with the works of Ayn Rand, "[b]ut after about six weeks of enchantment, her books started to make me sick. Contemptuous toward most of humanity, merciless about human frailty, and constantly hammering on the moral evils of redistribution, they produced a sense of claustrophobia."

Sunstein graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts from Harvard College in 1975. At Harvard, he was a member of the varsity squash team and an editor of the Harvard Lampoon. In 1978, he graduated magna cum laude with a Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School, where he was executive editor of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review and was a member of the winning team of the Ames Moot Court Competition.

Career
After law school, Sunstein first clerked for Justice Benjamin Kaplan of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court from 1978 to 1979, then for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1979 to 1980.

After his clerkships, Sunstein spent one year as an attorney-advisor in the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel. In 1981, he became an assistant professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School (1981–1983), where he also became an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science (1983–1985). In 1985, Sunstein was made a full professor of both political science and law; in 1988, he was named the Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence in the Law School and Department of Political Science. The university honored him in 1993 with its "distinguished service" accolade, permanently changing his title to Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence in the Law School and Department of Political Science. In 2009, Sunstein was described by fellow Chicago professor Douglas G. Baird as a "Chicago person through and through".

Sunstein was the Samuel Rubin Visiting Professor of Law at Columbia Law School in the fall of 1986 and a visiting professor at Harvard Law School in the spring 1987, winter 2005, and spring 2007 terms. He has taught courses in constitutional law, administrative law, and environmental law, as well as the required first-year course "Elements of the Law", which was an introduction to legal reasoning, legal theory, and the interdisciplinary study of law, including law and economics. In the fall of 2008, he joined the faculty of Harvard Law School and began serving as the director of its Program on Risk Regulation:

"The Program on Risk Regulation will focus on how law and policy deal with the central hazards of the 21st century. Anticipated areas of study include terrorism, climate change, occupational safety, infectious diseases, natural disasters, and other low-probability, high-consequence events. Sunstein plans to rely on significant student involvement in the work of this new program."

On January 7, 2009, The Wall Street Journal reported that Sunstein would be named to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). That news generated controversy among progressive legal scholars and environmentalists. Sunstein's confirmation was long blocked because of controversy over allegations about his political and academic views. On September 9, 2009, the Senate voted for cloture on Sunstein's nomination as Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. The motion passed in a 63–35 vote. The Senate confirmed Sunstein on September 10, 2009, in a 57–40 vote.

In his research on risk regulation, Sunstein is known for developing, together with Timur Kuran, the concept of availability cascades, wherein popular discussion of an idea is self-feeding and causes individuals to over weigh its importance.

Sunstein's books include After the Rights Revolution (1990), The Partial Constitution (1993), Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech (1993), Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict (1996), Free Markets and Social Justice (1997), One Case at a Time (1999), Risk and Reason (2002), Why Societies Need Dissent (2003), Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle (2005), Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America (2005), ''Are Judges Political? An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary (2005), Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge (2006), and, co-authored with Richard Thaler, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness'' (2008).

Sunstein's 2006 book, Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge, explores methods for aggregating information; it contains discussions of prediction markets, open-source software, and wikis. Sunstein's 2004 book, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever, advocates the Second Bill of Rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Among these rights are a right to an education, a right to a home, a right to health care, and a right to protection against monopolies; Sunstein argues that the Second Bill of Rights has had a large international impact and should be revived in the United States. His 2001 book, Republic.com, argued that the Internet may weaken democracy because it allows citizens to isolate themselves within groups that share their own views and experiences, and thus cut themselves off from any information that might challenge their beliefs, a phenomenon known as cyberbalkanization.

Sunstein co-authored Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Yale University Press, 2008) with economist Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago. Nudge discusses how public and private organizations can help people make better choices in their daily lives. Thaler and Sunstein argue that:

"People often make poor choices – and look back at them with bafflement! We do this because as human beings, we all are susceptible to a wide array of routine biases that can lead to an equally wide array of embarrassing blunders in education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, happiness, and even the planet itself."

The ideas in the book proved popular with politicians such as U.S. President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and the British Conservative Party in general. The "Nudge" idea has also been criticized. Dr. Tammy Boyce, from public health foundation The King's Fund, has said: "We need to move away from short-term, politically motivated initiatives such as the 'nudging people' idea, which are not based on any good evidence and don't help people make long-term behavior changes."

Contributing to the anthology Our American Story (2019), Sunstein addressed the possibility of a shared American narrative. He cited the concepts of self-government and equal dignity of human beings, but focused in particular on stories: "an emphasis on what happened before and after the firing shots in Concord and the courageous response of the embattled farmers maintains continuity with the historical facts and offers us something on which we can build."

Sunstein is a contributing editor to The New Republic and The American Prospect and is a frequent witness before congressional committees. He played an active role in opposing the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998.

In recent years, Sunstein has been a guest writer on The Volokh Conspiracy blog as well as the blogs of law professors Lawrence Lessig (Harvard) and Jack Balkin (Yale). He is considered so prolific a writer that in 2007, an article in the legal publication The Green Bag coined the concept of a "Sunstein number" reflecting degrees of separation between various legal authors and Sunstein, paralleling the Erdős numbers sometimes assigned to mathematician authors.

He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (elected 1992), the American Law Institute (since 1990), and the American Philosophical Society (elected 2010). He received an Honorary Doctorate from Copenhagen Business School.

In February 2020, he wrote an article for Bloomberg titled "The Cognitive Bias That Makes Us Panic About Coronavirus". In it he claimed that "A lot more people are more scared than they have any reason to be" and that "Most people in North America and Europe do not need to worry much about the risk of contracting the disease. That's true even for people who are traveling to nations such as Italy that have seen outbreaks of the disease." He attributed the excessive perceived risk to probability neglect. At time of publication, there have been 68 confirmed COVID-19 cases in the U.S., including one death, and approximately 1000 new daily cases worldwide, over 300 of which in Europe.

Sunstein joined the Department of Homeland Security in February 2021 as an advisor to the Biden administration on immigration policy.

Together with Daniel Kahneman and Olivier Sibony, Sunstein co-authored Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment, which was published in May 2021. Drawing not least upon legal examples, it treats of unwanted variability in human judgments of the same problem, for instance when court judges recommend vastly different sentences for the same crimes. The book looks both at what 'noise in human judgment' is, how it can be detected and how it can be reduced.

Since 2021, Sunstein has co-taught a class on the United States Supreme Court at Harvard alongside retired Justice Stephen Breyer.

Legal philosophy
Sunstein is a proponent of judicial minimalism, arguing that judges should focus primarily on deciding the case at hand, and avoid making sweeping changes to the law or decisions that have broad-reaching effects. Some view him as liberal, despite Sunstein's public support for George W. Bush's judicial nominees Michael W. McConnell and John G. Roberts, as well as providing strongly maintained theoretical support for the death penalty. Conservative libertarian legal scholar Richard A. Epstein described Sunstein as "one of the more conservative players in the Obama administration."

Much of his work also brings behavioral economics to bear on law, suggesting that the "rational actor" model will sometimes produce an inadequate understanding of how people will respond to legal intervention.

Sunstein has collaborated with academics who have training in behavioral economics, most notably Daniel Kahneman, Richard Thaler, and Christine M. Jolls, to show how the theoretical assumptions of law and economics should be modified by new empirical findings about how people actually behave.

According to Sunstein, the interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him. "There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him," argued Sunstein.

Sunstein (along with his coauthor Richard Thaler) has elaborated the theory of libertarian paternalism. In arguing for this theory, he counsels thinkers/academics/politicians to embrace the findings of behavioral economics as applied to law, maintaining freedom of choice while also steering peoples' decisions in directions that will make their lives go better. With Thaler, he coined the term "choice architect".

Military commissions
In 2002, at the height of controversy over Bush's creation of military commissions without congressional approval, Sunstein stepped forward to insist, "Under existing law, President George W. Bush has the legal authority to use military commissions" and that "President Bush's choice stands on firm legal ground." Sunstein scorned as "ludicrous" an argument from law professor George P. Fletcher, who believed that the Supreme Court would find Bush's military commissions without any legal basis. In 2006, the Supreme Court found the tribunals illegal in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in a 5–3 vote.

First Amendment
In his book Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech Sunstein says there is a need to reformulate First Amendment law. He thinks that the current formulation, based on Justice Holmes' conception of free speech as a marketplace, "disserves the aspirations of those who wrote America's founding document." The purpose of this reformulation would be to "reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views." He is concerned by the present "situation in which like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another," and thinks that in "light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals." He proposes a "New Deal for speech [that] would draw on Justice Brandeis' insistence on the role of free speech in promoting political deliberation and citizenship."

Animal rights
Some of Sunstein's work has addressed the question of animal rights, as he co-authored a book dealing with the subject, has written papers on it, and was an invited speaker at "Facing Animals", an event at Harvard University described as "a groundbreaking panel on animals in ethics and the law." "Every reasonable person believes in animal rights," he says, continuing that "we might conclude that certain practices cannot be defended and should not be allowed to continue, if, in practice, mere regulation will inevitably be insufficient – and if, in practice, mere regulation will ensure that the level of animal suffering will remain very high."

Sunstein's views on animal rights generated controversy when Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) blocked his appointment to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs by Obama. Chambliss objected to the introduction of Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, a volume edited by Sunstein and his then-companion Martha Nussbaum. On page 11 of the introduction, during a philosophical discussion about whether animals should be thought of as owned by humans, Sunstein notes that personhood need not be conferred upon an animal in order to grant it various legal protections against abuse or cruelty, even including legal standing for suit. For example, under current law, if someone saw their neighbor beating a dog, they cannot sue for animal cruelty because they do not have legal standing to do so. Sunstein suggests that granting standing to animals, actionable by other parties, could decrease animal cruelty by increasing the likelihood that animal abuse will be punished.

Taxation
Sunstein has argued, "We should celebrate tax day." Sunstein argues that since government (in the form of police, fire departments, insured banks, and courts) protects and preserves property and liberty, individuals should happily finance it with their tax dollars:

In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully 'ours'? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live? Without taxes, there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public... There is no liberty without dependency.

Sunstein goes on to say: "If government could not intervene effectively, none of the individual rights to which Americans have become accustomed could be reliably protected.... This is why the overused distinction between 'negative' and 'positive' rights makes little sense. Rights to private property, freedom of speech, immunity from police abuse, contractual liberty, free exercise of religion – just as much as rights to Social Security, Medicare and food stamps – are taxpayer-funded and government-managed social services designed to improve collective and individual well-being."

Marriage
In Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Sunstein proposes that government recognition of marriage be discontinued. "Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government," argues Sunstein. He continues, "the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people." He goes on further, "Governments would not be asked to endorse any particular relationships by conferring on them the term marriage," and refers to state-recognized marriage as an "official license scheme". Sunstein addressed the Senate on July 11, 1996, advising against the Defense of Marriage Act.

"Conspiracy Theories" and government infiltration
Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled "Conspiracy Theories", dealing with the risks and possible government responses to conspiracy theories resulting from "cascades" of faulty information within groups that may ultimately lead to violence. In this article they wrote, "The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government's antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be." They go on to propose that, "the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups", where they suggest, among other tactics, "Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action." They refer, several times, to groups that promote the view that the US Government was responsible or complicit in the September 11 attacks as "extremist groups". The authors declare that there are five hypothetical responses a government can take toward conspiracy theories: "We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help." However, the authors advocate that each "instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5)."

Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of recruiting "nongovernmental officials"; they suggest that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," further warning that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed." Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, "might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts." This position has been criticized by some commentators who argue that it would violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens. Sunstein and Vermeule's proposed infiltrations have also been met by sharply critical scholarly responses.

Personal life
In the 1980s and early 1990s, Sunstein was married to Lisa Ruddick, whom he met when both were undergraduates at Harvard. She is associate professor emerita of English at the University of Chicago, specializing in British modernism. Their marriage ended in divorce. Their daughter Ellyn is a journalist and photographer. Thereafter, Sunstein dated Martha Nussbaum for almost a decade. Nussbaum is a philosopher, classicist, and professor of law at the University of Chicago.

On July 4, 2008, Sunstein married Samantha Power, a diplomat and government official who would serve as United States ambassador to the United Nations, whom he met when they both worked as campaign advisors to Barack Obama. The wedding took place in the Church of Mary Immaculate, in Lohar, Waterville, Ireland. They have two children: a son (born 2009). and a daughter (born 2012).

Sunstein is an avid amateur squash player who has played against professionals in PSA tournaments and in 2017 was ranked 449th in the world by the Professional Squash Association.

Honors
In July 2017, Sunstein was elected a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy (FBA), the United Kingdom's national academy for the humanities and social sciences.

In 2018 he was awarded the Holberg Prize for having "reshaped our understanding of the relationship between the modern regulatory state and constitutional law. He is widely regarded as the leading scholar of administrative law in the U.S., and he is by far the most cited legal scholar in the United States and probably the world."

Books
1990–1999

2000–2009
 * Translation:
 * Translation:
 * Translation:
 * Translation:
 * Translation:
 * Translation:
 * Translation:
 * Translation:
 * Translation:

 * (based on the Seeley Lectures 2004 at Cambridge University)
 * Translation:
 * (based on the Seeley Lectures 2004 at Cambridge University)
 * Translation:

 * Translation:
 * Translation:
 * Translation:
 * Translation:
 * Translation:
 * Translation:
 * Translation:
 * Translation:

2010 onwards

title: Cass Sunstein


text:
Talk:Potential output

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

A chart would be helpful comparing Real vs Potential GDP
It would be very helpful if the page included or linked a chart showing

Log of real GDP vs log of potential GDP (or "Potential output" as the current WP article is disappointingly titled))

with which potential GDP is frequently and most helpfully contrasted.

This article should be renamed Potential GDP.
This article should be renamed Potential GDP, rather than just redirected from "Potential GDP".

The "Real GDP" article should linked here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.142.40 (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Potential output


text: Talk:Camel Spider

title: Talk:Camel Spider


text:
Dog whelk

The dog whelk, dogwhelk, or Atlantic dogwinkle (Nucella lapillus) is a species of predatory sea snail, a carnivorous marine gastropod in the family Muricidae, the rock snails.

Nucella lapillus was originally described by Carl Linnaeus in his landmark 1758 10th edition of Systema Naturae as Buccinum lapillus (the basionym).

"Dog whelk" can also refer to the Nassariidae.

Distribution
This species is found around the coasts of Europe and in the northern west Atlantic coast of North America. It also can be found in estuarine waters along the Atlantic coasts. This species prefers rocky shores, where it eats mussels and acorn barnacles.

Shell description
The dog whelk shell is small and rounded with a pointed spire and a short, straight siphonal canal (a groove on the underside of the shell) and a deep anal canal. The overall shell shape varies quite widely according to the degree of exposure to wave action of the shore on which a particular population lives but the body whorl (the largest section of the shell where the majority of the visceral mass is located) is usually around 3/4 of the total length of the shell. The aperture is usually crenulated in mature dog whelks, less often in juveniles.

The shell surface can be fairly smooth interrupted only with growth lines, or when the snail is living in more sheltered areas the shell surface can be somewhat rough and lamellose. The surface is spirally corded. The outer lip is dentate and ridged within. The columella is smooth.

The external shell colour is usually a whitish grey, but can be a wide variety of orange, yellow, brown, black, or banded with any combination of these colours. They can even, occasionally, be green, blue, or pink.

Habitat
The dog whelk lives on rocky shores, and in estuarine conditions. Climatically it lives between the 0 °C and 20 °C isotherms.

Effects of the habitat
Wave action tends to confine the dog whelk to more sheltered shores, however, this can be counteracted, both by adaptations to tolerate it such as the shell and muscular foot, and by the avoidance of direct exposure to wave action afforded by making use of sheltered microhabitats in rocky crevices. The preferred substrate material of the dog whelk is solid rock and not sand, which adds to its problems at lower levels on the shore where weathering is likely to have reduced the stability of the seabed. Water loss by evaporation has to be tolerated (by means of the operculum which holds water in and prevents its escape as vapour), or avoided (by moving into water or a shaded area).

The peak in dog whelk population density is approximately coincidental with the mid-tidal zone. It lives in the middle shore. In general it can be said that at high vertical heights on the shoreline the dog whelk is most threatened by biotic factors such as predation from birds and interspecific competition for food, but abiotic factors are the primary concern, creating a harsh environment in which it is difficult to survive. At low vertical heights it is biotic factors, such as predation from crabs and intraspecific competition, which cause problems. The upper limit of the range in which the dog whelk is generally found is approximately coincidental with the mean high water neap tide line, and the lower limit of the range is approximately coincidental with the mean low water neap tide line, so that the vast majority of dog whelks are found on the mid-tidal zone.

Tidal pools and comparable microhabitats extend the vertical range of organisms such as the dog whelk as they provide a more constant environment, but they are prone to increased salinity because evaporation concentrates dissolved substances. This can create toxic conditions for many species.

The dog whelk can only survive out of water for a limited period, as it will gradually become desiccated and die if emersed for too long. Metabolic processes within cells take place in solution, and a decrease in water content makes it impossible for the organism to function properly. In experiments it has been shown that 50% of dog whelks die at 40 °C, and it can be assumed that at temperatures lower than this a smaller proportion will be killed off. Furthermore, the dog whelk has to excrete ammonia directly into water, as it does not have the adaptation possessed by many upper shore species which would allow it to produce uric acid for excretion without loss of water. When kept emersed for seven days at a temperature of 18 °C, 100% of dog whelks die, in contrast to many periwinkle species which can lose even more water than the dog whelk (i.e. more than 37% of their total body mass) but survive as a result of their ability to excrete toxic waste products more efficiently.

Feeding habits
Its adaptations include a modified radula (a toothed chitinous structure) to bore holes in the shells of prey, complemented by an organ on the foot which secretes a shell-softening chemical. When a hole has been formed paralysing chemicals and digestive enzymes are secreted inside the shell to break the soft body down into a 'soup' which can be sucked out with the proboscis. The plates of barnacles can be pushed apart with the proboscis, and the entire individual is eaten in about a day, although larger animals such as mussels may take up to a week to digest.

Feeding only occurs when conditions are conducive to such an activity, and during these times the dog whelk consumes large quantities of food so that the gut is always kept as full as possible. This allows shelter until more food is required, when foraging resumes. If waves are large or there is an excessive risk of water loss the dog whelk will remain inactive in sheltered locations for long periods.

Mussels have developed a defensive strategy of tethering and immobilising with byssus threads any dog whelks invading their beds, leading to the whelks' starvation.

Predators
Predators of the dog whelk include various species of crabs and birds. Protection against predation from crabs which attempt to pull the soft body out through the shell aperture can be afforded by growing teeth around the edge of the aperture. Many predators cannot smash the strong shell of an adult dog whelk, but juveniles are vulnerable to attack from many predatory species. Eider ducks and various other birds simply swallow the entire body with its shell, while oystercatchers and various crustaceans are often capable of crushing or breaking the shells. In the winter they endure more predation from purple sandpipers and similar wading birds, but in the summer crabs represent a greater threat. In general, the dog whelk can be thought of as being vulnerable to birds when emersed, and to crabs when immersed.

Human use
The dog-whelk can be used to produce red-purple and violet dyes, like its Mediterranean relations the spiny dye-murex Bolinus brandaris, the banded dye-murex Hexaplex trunculus and the rock-shell Stramonita haemastoma which provided the red-purple and violet colours that the Ancient World valued so highly. Bede mentions that in Britain "whelks are abundant, and a beautiful scarlet dye is extracted from them which remains unfaded by sunshine or rain; indeed, the older the cloth, the more beautiful its colour."

In Ireland, on the island of Inishkea North, Co. Mayo, archaeologists found a whelk-dyeing workshop, dated to the 7th century AD, complete with a small, presumed vat, and a pile of broken-open dog-whelk shells. Unfortunately, no such workshop is known from Britain for the Early Medieval period. However, a double-checked trace of bromine, indicating the presence of whelk-dye, has been found on one page of an Anglo-Saxon book known as the Barberini Gospels. This manuscript dates to the late 8th or early 9th century AD, and the whelk dye occurs as a background panel to white lettering at the beginning of St John's gospel. Efforts have also been made to find whelk dye on surviving fragments of Anglo-Saxon textiles, but the chemical analyses so far carried out have proved negative for bromine.

An Anglo-Saxon account of the accession ceremony of Aldfrith of Northumbria involved whelk-dyed cloth, although this may simply be a poetic echo of Roman ceremonies. Another example involves an account of valuable textiles brought to England by Wilfrid of Ripon.

title: Dog whelk


text:
List of monarchs of Sussex

The list of monarchs of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Sussex (or South Saxons) contains substantial gaps, as the chronological details relating to Sussex during the heptarchy is generally poorly documented. No authentic South Saxon king list or genealogy exists, unlike what can be found for other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Most kings are known only from Anglo-Saxon charters, some of which are forgeries, which makes it difficult to date the reigns of each king. The monarchs were either known as kings or ealdormen.

According to the charters, most kings did not govern alone: Nothhelm reigned with two or three colleagues and Oslac with four. The locations of the lands granted in their charters indicate that they reigned jointly and that there was no division of territory. Such joint reigns can also be demonstrated for the Hwicce, the East Saxons, and the West Saxons. Indeed, “[t]here is nothing remarkable in the existence of two or even more contemporary kings in the same people in the seventh century. The ancient idea that royal dignity was a matter of birth rather than of territorial rule still survived at this date.”

The traditional residence of the South Saxon kings was at Kingsham, once outside the southern walls of Chichester although within its modern boundaries.

title: List of monarchs of Sussex