text:
Standing in the Shadows of Motown

Standing in the Shadows of Motown is a 2002 American documentary film directed by Paul Justman that recounts the story of the Funk Brothers, the uncredited and largely unheralded studio musicians who were the house band that Berry Gordy hand-picked in 1959.

Background
The Funk Brothers recorded and performed on Motown's recordings from 1959 to 1972. The film was inspired by the 1989 book Standing in the Shadows of Motown: The Life and Music of Legendary Bassist James Jamerson, a bass guitar instruction book by Allan Slutsky, which features a biography of James Jamerson along with his bass lines.

The film covers the Funk Brothers' career via interviews with surviving band members, archival footage and still photos, dramatized re-enactments, and narration by actor Andre Braugher. The film also features new live performances of several Motown hit songs, with the Funk Brothers backing up Gerald Levert, Me'shell Ndegeocello, Joan Osborne, Ben Harper, Bootsy Collins, Chaka Khan, and Montell Jordan.

The impetus behind making the film was to bring these influential players out of anonymity. In addition to bassist James Jamerson, the Funk Brothers consisted of the following musicians: Jack Ashford (percussion); Bob Babbitt (bass); Joe Hunter (keyboards); Uriel Jones (drums); Joe Messina (guitar); Eddie Willis (guitar); Richard "Pistol" Allen (drums); Benny "Papa Zita" Benjamin (drums); Eddie "Bongo" Brown (percussion); Johnny Griffith (keyboards); Earl Van Dyke (keyboards); and Robert White (guitar).

The Funk Brothers produced more hits than the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Beach Boys and Elvis Presley combined. It was their sound, according to Mary Wilson (of the Supremes), that backed the Temptations, the Supremes, the Miracles, the Four Tops, Gladys Knight & the Pips, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, and Mary Wells, among other noteworthy bands during their tenure from 1959 to 1972.

Soundtrack album
Released by Hip-O Records.
 * 1) "(Love Is Like a) Heat Wave" – Joan Osborne
 * 2) "You've Really Got a Hold on Me" – Meshell Ndegeocello
 * 3) "Do You Love Me" – Bootsy Collins
 * 4) "Bernadette" – The Funk Brothers
 * 5) "Reach Out I'll Be There" – Gerald Levert
 * 6) "Ain't Too Proud to Beg" - Ben Harper
 * 7) "Shotgun" – Gerald Levert featuring Tom Scott
 * 8) "What Becomes of the Brokenhearted" – Joan Osborne
 * 9) "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" – Ben Harper
 * 10) "You Keep Me Hangin' On" – The Funk Brothers
 * 11) "Cool Jerk" – Bootsy Collins
 * 12) "Cloud Nine" – Meshell Ndegeocello
 * 13) "What's Going On" – Chaka Khan
 * 14) Band Introduction/"Ain't No Mountain High Enough" – Chaka Khan & Montell Jordan
 * 15) "The Flick" – Earl Van Dyke
 * 16) "Boom Boom" – John Lee Hooker [Deluxe Edition bonus track]
 * 17) "(Your Love Keeps Lifting Me) Higher and Higher" – Jackie Wilson [Deluxe Edition bonus track]
 * 18) "Scorpio" – Dennis Coffey & The Detroit Guitar Band [Deluxe Edition bonus track]

In The Snakepit: Naked Instrumental Remixes Of The Original Hits

Deluxe Edition bonus CD, 2004
 * 1) "Funk Brothers in the House" – Bootsy Collins
 * 2) "Standing in the Shadows of Love" – The Funk Brothers
 * 3) Dialogue: Joe Hunter, in the beginning – Joe Hunter
 * 4) "The One Who Really Loves You" – The Funk Brothers
 * 5) "Pride and Joy" – The Funk Brothers
 * 6) Dialogue: Robert White invents a classic – Robert White
 * 7) "My Girl" – The Funk Brothers
 * 8) "Love Is Like an Itching in My Heart" – The Funk Brothers
 * 9) "Don't Mess with Bill" (Live) – The Funk Brothers
 * 10) "The Hunter Gets Captured by the Game" – The Funk Brothers
 * 11) Dialogue: Eddie, Uriel and Jack speaking the "language" – Eddie Willis, Uriel Jones & Jack Ashford
 * 12) "I Second That Emotion" – The Funk Brothers
 * 13) "I Was Made to Love Her" – The Funk Brothers
 * 14) Dialogue: "Pistol" picks up the beat – Richard "Pistol" Allen
 * 15) "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" (Gladys Knight & the Pips version) – The Funk Brothers
 * 16) "Home Cookin'" – The Funk Brothers
 * 17) "For Once in My Life" – The Funk Brothers
 * 18) Dialogue: Jack in the club groove – Jack Ashford
 * 19) "I Can't Get Next to You" – The Funk Brothers
 * 20) "It's a Shame" – The Funk Brothers
 * 21) "Ain't No Mountain High Enough" (Diana Ross version) – The Funk Brothers
 * 22) Dialogue: Eddie takes it to the bridge – Eddie Willis
 * 23) "Mercy Mercy Me (The Ecology)" – The Funk Brothers
 * 24) Dialogue: Feeling the Funk, Brother – Lamont Dozier
 * 25) "You're My Everything" – James Jamerson & The Temptations (Bonus Track)

Awards

 * 2002 National Society of Film Critics: Best Non-Fiction Film
 * 2002 New York Film Critics Circle: Best Non-Fiction Film
 * 2002 Austin Film Festival: Audience Award, Best Documentary Showcase Film
 * 2003 Maryland Film Festival: Closing Night Selection
 * 2003 Grammy Award: Best Compilation Soundtrack Album for a Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media
 * 2003 Grammy Award: Best Traditional R&B Vocal Performance, "What's Going On", Chaka Khan & the Funk Brothers

Home media
The film was released on DVD and VHS on April 22, 2003.

title: Standing in the Shadows of Motown


text: User talk:T-Dot Souljer

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

title: User talk:T-Dot Souljer


text:
Talk:Nodosaurus

I'm against calling the Linnean categorization by 'scientific classification'. This implies it is the accepted scientific norm. In fact, cladistics is becoming more and more prevalent, and that is what I would expect to see in a category of 'scientific classification'.

 * Hear, hear.--MWAK 10:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

New page for Hierosaurus
With respect to Hierosaurus, this genus should be redirected to its own page because it was once considered a synonym of Nodosaurus but is now considered a nomen dubium as per Carpenter et al. (1995). In any case, Hierosaurus was found in deposits younger than the only specimen of Nodosaurus, and is clearly not Nodosaurus. As a matter of fact, the interrelationships of Middle and Late Cretaceous nodosaurids have yet to be addressed in future papers.

Carpenter, K., D. Dilkes, and D. B. Weishampel. 1995. The dinosaurs of the Niobrara Chalk Formation (upper Cretaceous, Kansas), Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 15(2): 275-297.Extrapolaris (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

New fossil
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/dinosaur-nodosaur-fossil-discovery or: http://nos.nl/artikel/2173338-alsof-hij-slaapt-uitzonderlijk-goed-bewaarde-dino-gevonden.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is the Suncor nodosaur, another, unnamed nodosaurid. Info about it belongs on either that page, or the broader Nodosauridae page, but not here. Nodosaurus is simply the genus which the family is named after, and not particularly relevant to the new specimen. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nodosaurus


text:
Mercury Mariner

The Mercury Mariner is a compact crossover SUV that was introduced in 2005. It is a sibling of the Mazda Tribute and Ford Escape, although it is more upmarket than the other two. The Mariner is Mercury's first car-based SUV, and is slotted below the Mountaineer in the lineup. When Ford eliminated the Mercury brand, the Mariner ended production in October 2010.

The Mariner was officially offered in the U.S., Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the U.A.E.

First generation
Introduced during the 2005 refresh of the Ford Escape, the Mercury Mariner was positioned above both it and the Mazda Tribute in the compact sport utility vehicle group. It also includes stylistic differences, such as a two-tone interior, turn signal repeaters borrowed from the European-market Ford Maverick, monotone cladding, and the signature Mercury "waterfall" front grille. Unlike its counterparts, a manual transmission was not part of the powertrain lineup. The Mariner was the first Mercury with a four-cylinder since the Mercury Cougar was dropped in 2002. For 2006, the lineup was expanded with the introduction of the Mariner Hybrid.

Second generation
For the second generation for the Mariner, the 2008 model year boasted a thorough redesign, despite remaining on the Ford CD2 platform used by the outgoing generation.

The exterior changes included new seats, headlights, taillights, a new liftgate, a higher beltline, new doors, and new wheels. The interior was also significantly updated with higher quality materials and included more features. The engines remained the same but the 3.0 L Duratec V6 has been modified to reduce fuel consumption by 10%.

Mariner and its Ford Escape sibling were the first vehicles to feature Ford's pull-drift steering compensation, an enhancement made possible by applying software control to the Electric Power Steering (EPS) system.

The first 2008 Mercury Mariner was unveiled at the South Florida International Auto Show on October 6, 2006, and was touted as a new direction for the Mercury brand.

2009 changes
The 2009 Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner were unveiled at the 2008 Washington Auto Show. Sporting a 2.5-liter engine and 6-speed automatic transmission that replaced the four-speed automatic transmission, the new powertrain improved the EPA fuel economy by 1 mile per gallon and increased power by 11% to 170 hp. The existing 3.0-liter Duratec V6 was bumped from 200 hp to 240 hp.

The new 4-cylinder engine was also used in Ford's Escape Hybrid and Mercury Mariner Hybrid. “For every eight Escape and Mariner vehicles we sell, one of them is a hybrid, and the appeal is growing,” says Sue Ciscke, Ford senior vice president, Sustainability, Environment and Safety Engineering.

2010 changes
For the 2010 model year, the Mariner added Ford's MyKey and trailer sway controls as standard on all trim levels. The Mariner also saw the addition of Flex-Fuel, the ability to run using E85 fuel or regular unleaded gasoline with the V6 engine. Mercury removed the Euro-style turn signal repeaters for this model year.

2011 changes
For the 2011 model year, the Mariner featured HD Radio as a standard, but continued with the same features as the 2010 models. This version of the Mariner was its last, as Ford discontinued the Mercury brand due to declining sales. Ford ended production of the Mariner in October 2010.

The last Mariner was assembled on October 5, 2010.

Hybrid
The Mariner Hybrid powertrain was identical to its sibling, the Ford Escape Hybrid. It was launched to the U.S. market in 2006 and was discontinued in 2010 with the rest of the brand. The Mariner hybrid sold a total of 12,300 units.

Like the Ford Escape Hybrid, the Mariner Hybrid is a "full" hybrid electric system, meaning the system can switch automatically between pure electric power, pure gasoline engine power, or a combination of electric battery and gasoline engine operating together, for maximum performance and efficiency at all speeds and loads. When braking or decelerating, the Mariner's hybrid system uses regenerative braking, where the electric drive motor becomes a generator, converting the vehicle's momentum back to electricity for storage in the batteries. With 155 hp, the Mariner Hybrid has nearly the same acceleration performance as the conventional 200 hp V6 Mariner. Again, just like the Escape Hybrid, it gets a respectable average of 34 mpgUS and is sometimes said to be the most fuel efficient sport utility vehicle on the road.

Presidential Edition
On September 7, 2006, Ford delivered a special "Presidential Edition" Mercury Mariner Hybrid to former President Bill Clinton. Its custom features include:

 * LED lighting
 * A 120V outlet
 * Rear bucket seats
 * Center console & rear seat fold-out writing desks
 * Personal DVD players for each seat
 * Refrigerator
 * Increased rear seat legroom

There have also been several undisclosed security modifications made to the vehicle.

Awards

 * Consumers Digest best buy for 2005, 2006, 2007.
 * Mercury Mariner Hybrid was awarded 2006 Green Car of the Year.

title: Mercury Mariner


text:
User talk:Gj~enwiki

Welcome
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in editing pages or creating new ones: How to edit a page, Tutorial, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should probably read our policies at some point too.

But don't feel you have to read every policy document before you do anything. Dive in, be bold in editing, and if you do anything wrong, someone will be quick to correct it and let you know (hopefully, politely!)

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

You may have already noticed that you can sign your name using three tildes, like this:. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too, as I've done below. This is mostly useful, and is considered good wikiquette, on talk pages. But be aware that the actual wikipedia articles should never be signed - they belong to the community, rather than the individual who created them.

You might also want to add yourself to Wikipedians/Scotland (but it's not compulsory, naturally).

Again, welcome! -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:39, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Gj. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Gj~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gj~enwiki


text:
Talk:Latitude

Latitude above and below the Earth's surface
I started a question on Stack Exchange about how Geodetic Latitude behaves above and below the surface of the reference ellipsoid. I'm not sure whether this article answers this question fully, and would appreciate some input. (Maybe we can then expand the article a little bit with the new information afterward.) Thanks. ➧ datumizer   ☎  20:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

 * The standard definition of the (geographic) latitude for an arbitary point is to drop a perpendicular onto the ellipsoid and to take the latitude of the point of intersection. The resulting triplet, (latitude, longitude, and normal height), defines "geodetic coordinates". cffk (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

 * So geographic latitude does not describe points above and below the surface at all? Or, what does "normal height" mean? ➧ datumizer   ☎  23:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Normal height means the perpendicular height above the ellipsoid. cffk (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Okay thanks. ➧ datumizer   ☎  02:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 * I am thinking of adding this somewhere on Wikipedia. Does anyone object to its contents? ➧ datumizer   ☎  22:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Latitude and longitude are used to label coordinates on the surface of the ellipsoid. In most geodetic applications the third coordinate is the normal height, so a surface of constant latitude is a cone (your figure c).
 * However I don't see that your animation (cool though it is) is any more helpful than the similar 2-d figure in the "geodetic coordinates" section of this article. In fact, I find the 3d rendering to be less clear and the motion to be distracting.
 * Similar remarks apply to your figure d with a hyperbolic surface.
 * However the caption to figure d "Within the confines of the reference ellipsoid the field lines very nearly form a truncated hyperboloid" is true but misleading. The field lines equally well form a truncated cone.  The reason is that for the earth (and other bodies under approximate hydrostatic equilibrium) the rotational and ellipsoidal effects are of the same order (because the flattening of the earth is due to rotation).  Thus the extent to which the field lines deviate from the hyperboloid (due to rotation) is of the same order as the extent to which they deviate from a cone (due to ellipsoidal + rotational effects).
 * cffk (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The cone is only a measure of the plumb line at the body's surface. Deviation from the cone is to be expected. The graphs you showed me on Stack Exchange looked a lot more like hyperbolas than cones, too. And, the animations are meant for people who may not be able to understand the more formal looking diagrams. I.e. for people with less literacy in mathematics and mathematical figures. (Since the way mathematics is taught is using its own language that you have to use day in, day out to remain fluent in.) If there's something specific about the animations you don't like, maybe I can address it. ➧ datumizer   ☎  03:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

There are two issues:

 * whether it's useful to define a "surface of latitude" as a hyperboloid.
 * whether animated renderings of the ellipsoid help illustrate this concept.

Let me address just the first point here. The criterion "looked a lot more like hyperbolas than cones" is a rather weak one. My contention is that the actual normal gravity for the earth is "as close" to straight lines as to hyperbolas. By "as close" I mean that the deviation from true gravity is comparable. In this case, the simpler solution (straight lines) is to be prefered.

However, there's a more important problem. The gravity internal to the earth is unknown (to the accuracy required to resolve this issue). My first figure on Stack Exchange shows the field for the unrealistic case with all the mass of the earth concentrated on an equatorial disc.

A more realistic (but still not great) model of the earth is the Maclaurin spheroid which has a uniform density. I now give a figure showing the internal field lines in this case too. The field lines are curved in the opposite direction (relative to a straight lines) compared with hyperbolas. This reinforces the idea that it's best to stick with cones.

Let me finish by saying that the concept of "surface of latitude" is not standard in this field. People are thoroughly used to working with "geodetic coordinates" (latitude, longitude, and normal height). And, of course, it is possible to define a surface on which the latitude is constant (a cone in this case) or, indeed, a "surface of longitude" (a meridian plane). However, I've never seen this idea adopted in the literature and Wikipedia shouldn't be used to promote it. (Indeed the most usual surface associated with latitude is the plane parallel to the equator.)

cffk (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

LATER Turning to the issue of animated renderings and, for the sake of this argument, let's say we want to compare various definitions of the "surface of latitude". I recommend Tufte, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information (1983), for useful advice (including keeping your graphics as simple as possible).
 * The concept being illustrated is essentially a 2d one. Using a 4d image (3d + time) disguises the key points.  I realize that there's some modest skill involved understanding that the 2d image represents a rotationally symmetric concept.  But the reader is brought on board by some of the early figures in this article.
 * Thus if you wanted to compare two different definitions, these could be shown on a single 2d figure with the differences readily apparent. With the 4d images, you have to show two distinct animations making the comparison less easy.
 * If necessary, it's easy to take a measurement from a 2d figure (print it out and measure with a ruler). This is much less simple with a rendered 3d image and nigh impossible with an animation.
 * Why the "rabbit out of a hat" aspect for your animations. They start off all (more or less) the same and the user has to wait for the "reveal".  Perhaps using a cut-away would help but would not overcome my other objections.  See Jahnke + Emde, Tables of Functions, for some nice examples of cut-aways.
 * Animations are distracting when trying to read the text. Multiple this by 4 for 4 synchronized animations.
 * I fear that the major impression of the animations is that there are 4 plugs popping out of a ball with little understanding of the main point (i.e., the small differences in the shapes of the plugs).

cffk (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Quote, "My contention is that the actual normal gravity for the earth is "as close" to straight lines as to hyperbolas. By "as close" I mean that the deviation from true gravity is comparable. In this case, the simpler solution (straight lines) is to be prefered." I can see how this would be the case when the flatting of the Earth is only 1/300. But you can see in File:Surface of latitude ellipsoid cone.gif and File:Surface of latitude ellipsoid hyperboloid.gif (both highly exaggerated cases) that the difference as you approach the equatorial plane is considerable. The thickness of the latter near the center is much greater for the same degree of latitude.
 * Anyway, I think the article threw me when it said, "These coordinates are the natural choice in models of the gravity field for a uniform distribution of mass bounded by the reference ellipsoid." I assumed that by calling them a "natural choice" it implied they are somehow important and relevant. I mean, if there is no causal relationship or link at some fundamental level, why use ellipsoidal coordinates in the first place? ➧ datumizer   ☎  02:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 * You're reading altogether too much in the choice of coordinate system in this case. It's not a question of "importance" or "relevance" but the more utilitarian issue of making the partial differential equation for the potential easy to solve.  In this instance the choice of ellipsoidal coordinates satisfies too conditions (1) it's an orthogonal system so that laplacian operator is sane and (2) the boundary condition, that the potential is constant on the reference ellipsoid, is aligned with the coordinate system.  Nevertheless, the article is somewhat misleading here because solving for the potential inside a uniform ellipsoid is relatively easy without using ellipsoidal coordinates.  I'll look into editing this sentence. cffk (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 * (Much later.) It's "important" in the sense that property lines/borders will (eventually) need to be determined beneath the Earth's surface at some point in the future. Though if the depth is less than a few kilometers it might not make much of a difference. ➧ datumizer   ☎  05:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomenclature for geocentric latitude
Currently, the article uses $ψ$ for the geocentric latitude. This is, I beliveve, a non-standard usage and it conflicts with the use of $ψ$ for isometric latitude. I propose to use $θ$ instead. There is now a conflict with the use of $θ$ as the colatitude for spherical coordinates; so I further propose using $θ′$ for that quantity (with the prime used to connote the co-quantity). Comments?

By the way, I've updated the section on numerical comparisons to use the parameters for the WGS84 ellipsoid and to plot the signed difference. It seems that my change to the figure will take a while to percolate through to the article page. (It was too easy for people to look at the old figure and assume that the auxiliary latitude were bigger can the geodetic latitude -- although the text did try to address this issue.)

cffk (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes, please. Strebe (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Done.  your figures needs updating; perhaps you can take care of this?  Let me know if there are any issues. cffk (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Geodetic and astronomic latitude
The section "Geodetic and geocentric latitudes" says:

Geographic latitude must be used with care. Some authors use it as a synonym for geodetic latitude whilst others use it as an alternative to the astronomical latitude.

The geodetic latitude is defined with respect to the ellipsoid surface normal. The astronomical latitude is said to be defined with respect to a plumb line. However, on an ellipsoid in gravitational-rotational equilibrium the surface normal and the plumb line should be the same, shouldn't they? I assume that corrections for atmospheric correction, height of observer etc need to be made for precision measurements and thus should not affect the relation between the two latitude types. 150.227.15.253 (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 * See the section “Astronomical latitude”. Strebe (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

 * The plumb line may also be affected by the thickness of the Earth's crust at a particular point. Mountains versus oceans for instance. The difference may be inconsequential however. ➧ datumizer   ☎  05:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Is θ(φ) correct?
A formula derived using Differential Geometry indicates

$$\theta(\phi) = \tan^{-1}\left(\frac{b}{a}\tan\phi\right)$$

Given the vector

$$\vec{\textbf{r}}=\begin{pmatrix}a\cos\theta\cos\lambda\\a\cos\theta\sin\lambda\\b\sin\theta\end{pmatrix}$$

which defines a point on the surface of the ellipsoid

$$ d\vec{\textbf{r}} = \frac{\partial\vec{\textbf{r}}} {\partial\lambda}d\lambda = \vec{\textbf{g}}_\theta d\theta + \vec{\textbf{g}}_\lambda d\lambda$$

and consequently the vectors g_θ and g_φ will determine the tangent plane at the chosen point. A normal to the plane at this point is given by

$$\vec{\textbf{v}}\equiv \vec{\textbf{g}}_\lambda \times \vec{\textbf{g}}_\theta=a\cos\theta\begin{pmatrix}b\cos\theta\cos\lambda\\b\cos\theta\sin\lambda\\a\sin\theta\end{pmatrix}$$

If $$\hat{\textbf{e}}_w\equiv\hat{\textbf{e}}_x\cos\lambda + \hat{\textbf{e}}_y\sin\lambda$$

Then, ignoring the common factor, the normal vector is $$\vec{\textbf{v}}=\hat{\textbf{e}}_w b\cos\theta + \hat{\textbf{e}}_z a\sin\theta$$.

Since φ is the angle of $$\vec{\textbf{v}}$$ relative to the equatorial plane

$$\tan\phi=\frac{a\sin\theta}{b\cos\theta}=\frac{a}{b}\tan\theta$$

And therefore,

$$\theta=\tan^{-1}\left(\frac{b}{a}\tan\phi\right)$$

I checked this formula numerically using small angular separations to approximate the normal vectors and determine their angles and it appears

$$\frac{\tan\theta}{\tan\phi} = \frac{b}{a}$$

is consistently true to the desired accuracy. Jbergquist (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

 * In A R Clarke, Geodesy on p. 103 it is stated that a tan(u) = b tan(φ). Jbergquist (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Without getting into the interpretation of your math, it looks to me like you’ve computed the parametric latitude. My official texts are packed away for awhile, so I’m just going to suggest searching on geocentric latitude for credible references on the Web, such as this one or this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strebe (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that geodesists use 2 definitions of eccentricity. See Torge & Müller, Geodesy, p. 91. Jbergquist (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Torge (1980) is here, https://archive.org/details/geodesyintroduct0000torg/page/48/.
 * I'm still not quite sure what you are aiming for in this discussion though. Are you proposing a change to this article, or just asking for someone to look at your algebra? –jacobolus (t) 03:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There may be some confusion among alternative definitions of eccentricity. The article needs clarification. See Eccentricity (mathematics), Alternative names. Jbergquist (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

 * In the absence of specifying, “eccentricity” means “first eccentricity” in all of the literature I have ever read. We can clarify that in the article, of course, though that is clear from its relationship to flattening as given in the article. Strebe (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A R Clarke uses the first eccentricity which is
 * e=√(1-b²/a²). So his b/a=√(1-e²). Jbergquist (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The angle β for the parametric latitude appears to be related to Kepler's eccentric anomaly. Jbergquist (talk) 05:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are curious you can read the Wikipedia pages about true anomaly, eccentric anomaly, mean anomaly, flattening, eccentricity § ellipses, etc.
 * But if you have changes you want to see to this article, can you be a little more specific about what they are? –jacobolus (t) 14:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Check the article Ellipsoid, Parameterization for the equation a point, P, on the surface of an ellipsoid using spherical coordinates and angles measured from the equator. The radial distance, r, from the center, C, to the point, P, is $$\overline{CP}$$. For the eccentric anomaly the radial distance is measured from a focus of the ellipse. Jbergquist (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've come to the conclusion that my θ above is the parametric latitude. The formula for $$\vec{\textbf{r}}$$ satisfies the equation for an ellipsoid, x²/a²+y²/a²+z²/b²=1, but my θ is not the θ used for spherical coordinates as I had initially assumed. Jbergquist (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * For a point (x,y,z) on the surface of the ellipsoid one can compute the angles for spherical coordinates. One can also use (x,y,z) to compute the the parametric latitude so given one latitude one can find the other. My use of θ was presumptuous and let to some confusion. The transformation between coordinates helps clarify the situation. Jbergquist (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My recommendation would be to use θ' or $$\theta_p$$ in the parametric expression for a point on the surface of an ellipsoid to avoid confusion. Could we do a RFC on this? Jbergquist (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We could change the symbol for the geocentric latitude to something other than $$\theta$$. Snyder uses $$\phi_g$$ and comments that Adams uses $$\psi$$, while the Osborne reference uses $$\phi_c$$. Not sure why we use $$\theta$$ here. The user who introduced it hasn't been active in two years, so good luck asking him. Apocheir (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To specify a point on an ellipsoid of revolution, typically people use the geodetic latitude $$\phi$$ and longitude $$\lambda.$$ In this article the parametric latitude is called $$\beta$$ which I believe is a somewhat standard symbol for it in geodesy. This article uses $$\theta$$ to mean the geocentric latitude, which again is, I believe, a somewhat standard symbol. For example Karney adopts these symbols, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.05818.pdf –jacobolus (t) 20:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was wrong about where theta was introduced: it was in special:diff/857259930, made in 2018 by user:cffk, who is (according to his user page) Charles Karney, author of the paper you linked. (He's also not very active on Wikipedia any more.) Before that edit the page used psi. I do feel that this is a confusing use for theta, and I'd prefer we go back to psi, but I don't have that strong of an opinion. Apocheir (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't really find any particular choice of symbols to be especially confusing as long as they are clearly defined and consistently used (at least within each article). I looked around at a few more sources and there doesn’t seem to be any kind of strong convention. If anyone wants to change this I would recommend doing a more serious literature survey, especially focusing on the most popular recent textbooks. –jacobolus (t) 23:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Previous to that edit $$\psi$$ was used for both isometric latitude and geocentric latitude, which is incredibly confusing. Note that Karney (user:cffk) is one of the world's foremost experts on this topic. Here at Wikipedia he e.g. wrote and illustrated the excellent page Geodesics on an ellipsoid. –jacobolus (t) 23:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We can use a unit vector to indicate a point on a sphere but there is no unit vector for a point on an ellipsoid. The best we could do in to include a term involving the eccentricity in the z component. So in the parametric representation of a point on an ellipsoid the θ above is not an angle between the equator and the pole and is just a parameter associated with the point. It appears to be related to Kepler's eccentric anomaly, E. θ_p is more descriptive but we need to be concerned with the ease of typesetting. θ' might be better if one wants to use the angle as a subscript as one would for a derivative. Jbergquist (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We must think in terms of the greater good. Jbergquist (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What does this mean? ––jacobolus (t) 23:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I was thinking in terms of simplifying the math required to understand Geodesy, Wikipedia article and others and improving overall coherence. More specifically, how do we improve this article for those who are unfamiliar with the various definitions of latitude. Can we provide more context on what they are used for and how they are related? The tan equations here are used to relate the geocentric latitude, θ, and the parametric latitude, β, to the geodetic latitude,φ. We could define a scale factor σ=b/a=√(1-e²) for the ellipsoid. I found that tanθ=σtanβ so that checks with tanθ=σ²tanφ. My interest was spurred by a desire check the accuracy of the GPS location provided by my cell phone and converting the spread of observations into a distance measure. The primary question is how do we determine vertical? The astronomical definition is it the direction provided by the plumb line. For geographic purposes it's the normal to the ellipsoid at a given point. Jbergquist (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)sure.

Usage of geodetic vs geocentric
The article currently states: "[Geodetic latitude] is the definition assumed when the word latitude is used without qualification." This statement is repeated (nearly verbatim) elsewhere across related Wikipedia articles. I believe it could use some clarification and possibly sourcing.

My guess is that most (lay) people, if asked to try to define latitude themselves, would come up with the geocentric latitude, or at least I know I would have before I learned that there are (at least) two definitions in use. When we use the passive voice here—"is assumed," "is used"—it begs the question, by whom?

So two thoughts:

Can we specify some examples of specific contexts in which each one is most commonly used? When is geocentric latitude used? E.g. Google Maps uses geodetic latitude.

Can we source this statement of geodetic as the norm, and/or these specific contexts in which it is or is not the norm? E.g. Google Maps documentation or the World Geodetic System article and the section on WGS84. RileyJohnGibbs (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

 * It’s all about the official locations of things. Surveying measures geodetic latitudes; traditional techniques have no way of measuring geocentric latitude. Every national system of mapping uses geodetic latitudes for that reason. Hence all official documentation, worldwide, is in geodetic coordinates, which means the latitude is geodetic. However, the datum varies from locale to locale, which means that two different surveys do not assign the same geodetic latitude to the same point. Nevertheless, each would be a geodetic latitude. My library in storage for awhile, so I can’t just pull up the usual texts. Poking around online should confirm what I’m saying here, though. Strebe (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's an explanation, although it's not one we can cite. Everyone just seems to take geodetic latitude for granted, but it's hard to find a reference that says that. Apocheir (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Latitude


text:
Samiel

Samiel may refer to:
 * Simoom, a strong, dry, dust-laden wind
 * Samael, an archangel in Talmudic and post-Talmudic lore
 * Samiel, a fictional character in the opera Der Freischütz

title: Samiel


text:
User talk:Panzi

 * Much better--thank you very much. Just for the future, when you release an image under the GFDL, you can type, which expands to this:

gfdl

best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:55, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

Orc
image

Just a note of thanks for the Orc image. I think it's typical enough, although his expression seems rather genial. Smerdis of Tlön 14:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

SVG examples
I saw the examples you added to the SVG page, they improve the page. It would be great if you could upload those images as SVG files (now that Wikipedia supports SVG images) so that the SVG article could contain some actual examples of SVG files, not just the images produced from SVG files. Qutezuce 19:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Help: SVG image not visible
Hi panzi, could you please advice why this svg image - Image:600px WikiIndia 1.svg is not visible after I uploaded it on wiki server? It is working fine on my local machine. Thanks in advance. --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 12:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Fixed it and its working now. Thanks. --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 06:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Orc.png
Regarding your question, you could try to request a speedy deletion of the image under CSD:I1, redundant with Image:Orc.svg. — The KMan talk 15:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Image

 * I have replaced the image on your user page, which was fair use, to Image:User browser firefox.png due to the guidelines at WP:UP. ~Linuxerist L / T 04:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP
Dear Dr. Panzi,

I have been trying to upload a SVG sketch from my files to Wikipedia page. My sketch is contained within a square of side 200 px. When I upload, my entire screen is being uploaded which is probably 800px x 600px with a lot of redundant white space. I could not find any reference in the SVG manual to get rid of the white space. Your picture on the "SVG" page is a "static image" (without any white space), of a larger picture with some white space. Hope you will kindly respond. I am using Microsoft Internet explorer. Thank ypu.

User:Subhash15

SVG
Do you know how I can convert a PNG image to SVG with Inkscape? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Anthony5429 19:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Panzi


text:
User talk:Mvtssf

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Your vote to keep Tssf will not be counted. Registering as a user for the sole purpose of casting a vote is not legitimate. - UtherSRG 20:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mvtssf


text:
User:Joanjoc~enwiki

I'm living in Catalonia (a beautiful country), and I'm working in the catalan version.

ca:Usuari:Joanjoc es:Usuario:Joanjoc

title: User:Joanjoc~enwiki


text:
USS Patoka

USS Patoka (AO–9/AV–6/AG–125) was a replenishment oiler made famous as a tender for the airships USS Shenandoah (ZR-1), USS Los Angeles (ZR-3) and USS Akron (ZRS-4). It was also notable in that its height (177 ft) figured prominently in the design of the Rainbow Bridge in Texas (the bridge design required that the Patoka, then the tallest ship in the U.S. Navy, could sail under it; however, it never did).

Construction and commissioning
Named for the Patoka River, Patoka was laid down on 17 December 1918 by the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company of Newport News, Virginia and launched on 26 July 1919. Acquired by the Navy from the United States Shipping Board on 3 September 1919, and commissioned on 13 October 1919.

1920s and 1930s
Assigned to the Naval Overseas Transportation Service, Patoka departed Norfolk on 4 November 1919 for Port Arthur, Texas, where she loaded fuel oil and sailed for Scotland, arriving on the Clyde on 6 December. She returned to Port Arthur for more oil and got under way on 9 January 1920 for the Adriatic Sea, arriving at Split on 12 February. Returning to the United States in April Patoka went back to the Near East, arriving at Istanbul in June. After duty in the Adriatic and Mediterranean she returned to the United States, and served on both the east and west coasts until 1924 when she was selected as a tender for the rigid airship USS Shenandoah (ZR-1).

A mooring mast some 125 feet above the water was constructed; additional accommodations both for the crew of Shenandoah and for the men who handled and supplied the airship were added; facilities for the helium, gasoline, and other supplies necessary for Shenandoah were built; as well as handling and stowage facilities for three seaplanes. This work by the Norfolk Navy Yard was completed shortly after 1 July 1924. Patoka retained her classification of AO–9.

Patoka engaged in a short series of mooring experiments with the Shenandoah, which had reported to the Commander, Scouting Fleet, for duty on 1 August 1924. The first successful mooring was made on 8 August 1924.

In October, Patoka, along with the cruisers USS Milwaukee (CL-5) and USS Detroit (CL-8), were assigned stations in the mid-Atlantic to furnish the US Navy's second operational airship, USS Los Angeles (ZR-3), with the weather reports and forecasts during her flight, 12 to 15 October 1924, from Germany, where she had been built, to Lakehurst Naval Air Station, New Jersey.

During 1925 Patoka operated with both Shenandoah and Los Angeles in demonstrating the mobility of airships, and in reducing the number of ground personnel required to handle them. A projected polar flight by Shenandoah, using Patoka as her base of operations, was cancelled when the airship was lost in a storm on 3 September 1925.

Between 1925 and 1932 Patoka operated with Los Angeles and served as her base of supply and operations on her long-range flights to Puerto Rico (1925), Panama (1928), Florida (1929), and during the fleet concentration off Panama (1931). During 1932 she also operated with the newly acquired airship USS Akron (ZRS-4), but the decommissioning of Los Angeles on 30 June 1932, and the loss of Akron on 4 April 1933 saw a reduced need for an airship tender, with Patoka decommissioned on 31 August 1933.

On 10 November 1939 Patoka recommissioned at the Puget Sound Navy Yard, Comdr. C.A.F. Sprague in command, and reported to Patrol Wing 5, Aircraft, Scouting Force. Her classification had been changed to AV–6, seaplane tender, on 11 October 1939.

On 18 January 1940 she departed Puget Sound and, after taking on fuel and cargo at San Pedro, arrived at San Diego on the 31st. She steamed for the east coast on 5 February and reached Norfolk on 25 March. Next Patoka was assigned to the Naval Transportation Service in June and was reclassified AO–9 on 19 June 1940.

On 13 August she departed Norfolk and sailed to Houston. Between August and December 1940, she operated out of Houston and Baytown, Texas, delivering fuel oil to Boston, Melville, Norfolk, Charleston, and Key West.

From March 1941 to September Patoka delivered fuel oil and general cargo to various units of the Fleet in the Atlantic, Gulf, and Caribbean areas. On 28 September she departed Norfolk and proceeded, via Aruba, to Recife, Brazil. Patoka made one more round trip to Recife before the United States entered World War II.

World War II, 1941–1943
On 7 December 1941, Patoka was moored at Recife, acting as tanker, cargo, store ship, and repair ship. Here she supplied the units of Task Force 3 (later 23) with fuel, diesel, lubricating oil; gasoline stores; provisions; and repairs.

Shortly after the turn of the new year 1942, she got under way for Bahia, Brazil, anchoring there on 8 January. There, she received word that ships bearing rubber and other vital war goods had left French Indochina bound for the Axis controlled ports in Europe. Patoka requested and received permission to patrol the shipping lanes off Bahia. When she had completed her patrol duties she put into port and returned to Recife on 22 January. Six days later she was bound for San Juan, Puerto Rico, but en route she was diverted to Trinidad, BWI. Taking on fuel and stores she returned to Recife. Standing out of the harbor on 21 February, she again set course, changed several times to avoid reported submarines, and reached San Juan, Puerto Rico, on 4 March. Her return trip to Recife was made without incident.

On 25 May 1942, while again returning to Recife from Trinidad escorted by USS Jouett (DD-396), Patoka sighted an enemy submarine on the surface. Jouett attacked, forcing the U-boat to dive and continued the attack until Patoka had escaped. Patoka remained at Recife, continuing to supply the ships of Task Force 23 with provisions, supplies and tender services until April 1943, with occasional trips to Puerto Rico and Trinidad for replenishment. Patoka then got underway for home, reaching Norfolk on 22 May for overhaul. She sailed for New York on 6 August to join a convoy bound for Aruba, N.W.I. and resumed operations along the coast of South America.

1944–1945
In April 1944, she carried 62 prisoners of war (German naval and merchant marine personnel) from Rio de Janeiro to Recife where they were turned over to the U.S. Army. Patoka departed on 24 March and arrived Norfolk on 6 April for an overhaul period, to prepare for duty in the Pacific.

On 15 June, Patoka departed from Norfolk for the Panama Canal and Pearl Harbor. There she was outfitted for duty as a minecraft tender and was reclassified AG–125 on 15 August 1945. Shortly thereafter she sailed via Guam for Okinawa, reaching Buckner Bay on 5 September. Patoka provided the minecraft with tender services until 21 September at which time she got underway for Wakayama, Japan. Anchoring there on 23 September, she continued to provide logistic support to units of the 5th Fleet, servicing mine vessels of Task Group 52.6. She remained with the occupation forces until the spring of 1946, returning to the United States on 10 March 1946.

Fate
Patoka was decommissioned on 1 July 1946, transferred to the War Shipping Administration, and was struck from the Navy List on 31 July 1946. She was sold to Dulien Steel Products Co. for scrap on 15 March 1948.

title: USS Patoka


text:
Mashgiach

A mashgiach (משגיח, lit. "supervisor"; pl., mashgichim) or mashgicha (pl. mashgichot) is a Jew who supervises the kashrut status of a kosher establishment. Mashgichim may supervise any type of food service establishment, including slaughterhouses, food manufacturers, hotels, caterers, nursing homes, restaurants, butchers, groceries, or cooperatives. Mashgichim usually work as on-site supervisors and inspectors, representing a kosher certification agency or a local rabbi, who actually makes the policy decisions for what is or is not acceptably kosher. Sometimes certifying rabbis (רב המכשיר, Rav Hamachshir; pl., Rav Hamachshirim) act as their own mashgichim; such is the case in many small communities.

Requirements
The requirements for becoming a mashgiach/mashgicha are being Jewish, being Sabbath-observant (shomer Shabbat), being Torah-observant (shomer mitzvot), and personally fulfilling the laws of kashrut (shomer kashrut). According to Rabbi Matisyahu Salomon, a senior Orthodox rabbi in the United States, the most important criterion is yirat Shamayim (fear of Heaven).

Many AKO (Association of Kashrus Organizations) member organizations worldwide require mashgichim to complete the AKO Mashgiach Course, created by the Kosher Institute of America, and obtain a Mashgiach ID Card as a prerequisite to working as a mashgiach or mashgicha.

Most mashgichim are Orthodox. However, there are also Conservative and Reform mashgichim. In 2003, the Kosher Law Enforcement Division of the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets issued fines to two Long Island butchers, Jeff and Brian Yarmeisch, because they had employed a Conservative mashgiach. The United States Supreme Court upheld a ruling by lower courts that New York's 88 year old law regulating kashrut was unconstitutional because it favored an Orthodox interpretation of Jewish religious law. When New York state legislators and New York Governor George Pataki convened to consider new legislation, Conservative leaders complained that Orthodox Jews were being favored once again and that Conservative Jews were being excluded from the panel.

Rabbi Mary L. Zamore became the "first Reform mashgiach" when she supervised a kosher bakery in New Jersey from 1997 to 2001.

Gender
Although the vast majority of mashgichim are men, most supervising agencies employ women as mashgichot as well. While the profession has historically been very male dominated, an increasing number of women are becoming mashgichot. Shira Feder writing for The Forward has stated that in most kosher homes "you'll find a female mashgiach bustling about the kitchen — it is often women, after all, who are tasked with the job of maintaining a kosher kitchen... Yet this role rarely translates into the professional food industry." The greatest number of mashgichot work in the food services industry in the New York City and Los Angeles metropolitan regions. Women working as mashgichot sometimes report lower pay than male mashgichim, discriminatory hiring practices, and lack of respect from employers, coworkers, and customers.

The first training course for mashgichot was held in Baltimore in the fall of 2009, organized by Star-K.

In 2012, the Orthodox Jewish women's advocacy group Emunah petitioned the Supreme Court of Israel concerning the rights of women to serve as mashgichot. In 2013, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel voted to allow women to serve as mashgichot. In 2014, nine women took the Chief Rabbinate's kosher certification exam in Jerusalem. The liberal Orthodox Tzohar organization, which offers kosher certification independent of the Chief Rabbinate, employed 5 mashgichot as of 2019.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein has permitted women to serve as mashgichot. Rabbi Meir Amsel issued a rebuttal to Rabbi Feinstein, arguing that women serving as mashgichot could lead to women rabbis.

Responsibilities
Depending on the assignment, mashgichim must be familiar with the halakhas of slaughtering meat, cooking meat and fish, and separating meat and dairy. They must be knowledgeable about the way boilers and shipping vessels work, since high temperatures and long storage times can affect the status of kosher foods. It has been said that in addition to knowledge of Jewish law, mashgichim must be familiar with "engineering, entomology, metallurgy, boiler treatment, food chemistry, and world market trends".

Mashgichim are required whenever meat or fish is prepared or cooked. They check fresh eggs for blood spots before they are used in cooking, and must inspect all vegetables for forbidden insects before use. They are responsible for performing the dough offering, the tithe of dough set aside for consumption by a kohen. Some perform this in the diaspora, whereas in Israel it is always burnt.

Mashgichim must also light pilot lights and turn on cooking and heating equipment to satisfy minimum requirements of bishul Yisrael (food cooked by a Jew) and pas Yisroel (bread baked by a Jew), in a way that a Jew must be involved in the cooking of any kosher food "fit for a king's table." To satisfy requirements for Sephardic Jews, the mashgiah may be required to play an even more active role in the cooking process.

Often, the primary responsibility of mashgichim is washing and inspecting produce to ensure there is no infestation. The skill of inspecting produce properly requires much training and expertise. One of the most pressing jobs of mashgichim, however, is the checking in and verification of shipments. Mashgichim must ensure that every food product that arrives at the facility has a reliable hekhsher (certification) before it is used. Suppliers often substitute products that are out of stock with non-kosher products. Non-kosher establishments would generally not mind these substitutions. For a kosher establishment, however, these substitutions can cause major problems. If a product arrives without a hekhsher, mashgichim must make sure the product is clearly marked as non-kosher and is not used, but returned to the supplier. Sometimes a product arrives that is purportedly kosher, but no hekhsher can be found. In this case, the mashgiach/mashgicha obtains a valid letter of certification from the certifying rabbi or kashrut agency, usually by contacting the manufacturer. In addition to checking hekhsherim, mashgichim must also check that all meat products that arrive are double sealed, usually by inner and outer plastic bags or an inner plastic bag and a sealed box, and that all wine is kosher wine.

Great strides, in the last several years, have been made towards ensuring that kosher products are transported only in kosher approved tanker trucks.

In many settings, mashgichim are merely responsible for making sure that the above tasks are performed by responsible, knowledgeable, and well-trained persons.

Mashgichim play social as well as technical roles in explaining kosher rules to the Jewish and non-Jewish community and forging close relationships with employees and customers.

title: Mashgiach


text:
Daidala

The daidala (δαίδαλα) is a type of sculpture attributed to the legendary Greek artist Daedalus, who is connected in legend both to Bronze Age Crete and to the earliest period of Archaic sculpture in Bronze Age Greece. The legends about Daedalus recognize him both as a man and as a mythical embodiment. He was the reputed inventor of agalmata, statues of the gods which had open eyes and moveable limbs. These statues were so lifelike that Plato remarked upon their amazing and disconcerting mobility, which was accomplished with techniques that are clearly those of the "daidala". The writer Pausanias thought that wooden images were referred to as "daidala" even before Daedalus’s time. The name "Daedalus", more specifically, has been suggested by Alberto Pérez-Gómez to be a play on the Greek word "daidala" which appears in archaic literature as a complement of the verb "to make", "to manufacture", "to forge", "to weave", "to place on", or "to see". Daidala were the implements of early society: defensive works, arms, furniture, and so forth.

Daedalic sculpture is representative of the Orientalizing period in Greek art. Eastern influences are particularly noticeable in the head seen from the front; it resembles an Eastern head, with wiglike hair, but is more angular, having a triangular face, large eyes, and a prominent nose. Furthermore, the hair usually forms two upward-facing triangles on either side of the face. The female body is rather flatly geometric, with high waist and formless drapery. Early sculpture exhibiting these attributes is known as "Daedalic"; it was used for figurines, on clay plaques, and in relief decorations on vases. It seems to have had a marked influence in the Peloponnese, Dorian Crete, and Rhodes. Its style is based on a simple formula which remained dominant, though with evolutionary modifications, for about two generations, before evolving into the Archaic style.

title: Daidala


text:
Municipalities of Lithuania

Lithuania is divided into three levels of administrative divisions. The first-level division consists of 10 counties (Lithuanian: singular – apskritis, plural – apskritys). These are sub-divided into 60 municipalities (Lithuanian: plural – savivaldybės, singular – savivaldybė), which in turn are further sub-divided into over 500 smaller groups, known as elderships (Lithuanian: plural – seniūnijos, singular – seniūnija).

At the end of its tenure as a Soviet Socialist Republic, Lithuania's administrative divisions consisted of 44 regions, 12 cities, 80 towns, 19 settlements, and 426 rural districts. The reform of this system was an immediate concern for the new government. The Constitution of Lithuania, ratified in 1992, delegated the power of establishing future administrative units to the Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas). Accordingly, the Seimas passed two fundamental laws: a 1993 law on government representation and a 1994 law specifying the territorial-administrative units and their boundaries. The current system of a set of municipalities under 10 counties was codified by 1995. Several changes were made in 2000, resulting in 60 municipalities.

Ordinary municipal councilors are elected every four years from electoral lists using proportional representation. The mayor, who used to be a member of the council until 2023, is elected directly by the residents using the two-round system since 2015 reforms. Before then, the mayors were elected by the municipal councils.

The largest municipality by population in Lithuania is Vilnius City Municipality with 593,436 residents, home to one fifth (20.7%) of the country's population. The smallest municipality by population is Neringa Municipality with 4,173 (0.1%) residents.

The largest municipality by land area is Varėna District Municipality, which spans 2216 km2, while the smallest is Alytus City Municipality at 40 km2.

Powers and functions
Municipalities are established to perform certain functions provided by law. According to the abovementioned Republic of Lithuania Law on Local Self-Government, the functions of municipalities are "functions related to local government, public administration and provision of public services defined by the Constitution and attributed to municipalities by this and other laws". The processes of integration into international organizations - like the EU and NATO - are considered to be important external factors influencing the development of municipal powers in the country. Lithuania, which has become a member of these organizations, has been assigned completely new responsibilities, some of which, naturally, also belonged to municipalities. In the case of EU integration, municipalities have been assigned the necessary information supply to the European Commission, and in the case of integration into NATO, municipalities have had new functions related to security issues.

Municipalities
As of January 1, 2024.

Notes and references

 * Notes

 * References

title: Municipalities of Lithuania