text:
Brummbär

The Sturmpanzer (also known as Sturmpanzer 43 or Sd.Kfz. 166) is a German armoured infantry support gun based on the Panzer IV chassis used in the Second World War. It was used at the Battles of Kursk, Anzio, Normandy, and was deployed in the Warsaw Uprising. It was known by the nickname Brummbär (German: "Grouch") by Allied intelligence, a name which was not used by the Germans. German soldiers nicknamed it the "Stupa", a contraction of the term Sturmpanzer. Just over 300 vehicles were built and they were assigned to four independent battalions.

Development

The Sturmpanzer was a development of the Panzer IV tank designed to provide a vehicle offering direct infantry fire support, especially in urban areas. It used a Panzer IV chassis with the upper hull and turret replaced by a new casemate-style armoured superstructure housing a new gun, the 15 cm Sturmhaubitze (StuH) 43 L/12 developed by Skoda. It fired the same shells as the 15 cm sIG 33 heavy infantry gun. Thirty-eight rounds, with separate propellant cartridges, could be carried. It used the ''Sfl.Zf. 1a'' sight. The combined weight of the shell and cartridge (38 kg for an HE shell and 8 kg for a propellant cartridge) made the work of the loader arduous, especially if the gun was elevated to a high angle.

An MG 34 machine gun was carried that could be fastened to the open gunner's hatch, much like the arrangement on the Sturmgeschütz III Ausf. G. Early vehicles carried an MP 40 sub-machine gun inside, which could be fired through firing ports in the side of the superstructure.

The driver's station projected forward from the casemate's sloped frontal armour plate and used the Tiger I's Fahrersehklappe 80 driver's sight. The fighting compartment was, albeit poorly, ventilated by natural convection, exiting out the rear of the superstructure through two armoured covers. Sideskirts were fitted on all vehicles.

Early vehicles were too heavy for the chassis, which led to frequent breakdowns of the suspension and transmission. Efforts were made to ameliorate this from the second series onwards, with some success.

In October 1943, it was decided that the StuH 43 gun needed to be redesigned to reduce its weight. A new version, some 800 kg lighter than the StuH 43, was built as the StuH 43/1. Some of the weight was saved by reducing the armour on the gun mount itself. This gun was used from the third production series onwards.

Zimmerit coating was applied to all vehicles until September 1944.

First
Production of the first series of 60 vehicles began in April 1943. Fifty-two of these were built using new Panzer IV Ausf. G chassis and the remaining 8 from rebuilt Ausf. E and F chassis. Survivors, about half, were rebuilt beginning in December 1943; they were mostly rebuilt to 2nd series standards.

Second
Production restarted in December 1943 with another 60 vehicles, using only new Ausf. H chassis, and continued until March 1944. The Sturmpanzer's baptism in combat at the Battle of Kursk proved that the driver's compartment was too lightly armoured and it was reinforced. The gunner's hatch was removed and a ventilator fan was fitted, much to the relief of the crew. Internally sprung, steel-rimmed road wheels replaced the front two rubber-rimmed road wheels in an effort to reduce the stress on the forward suspension that was only partially successful.

Third
Production of the third series ran from March to June 1944 with few changes from the second series. The Fahrersehklappe 80 was replaced by periscopes and the lighter StuH 43/1 was used.

Fourth
The superstructure was redesigned in early 1944 for the fourth series, which used the chassis and HL120 TRM112 engine of the Ausf. J, and was in production between June 1944 and March 1945. It featured a redesigned gun collar, as well as a general reduction in height of the superstructure. This redesign also introduced a ball mount in the front superstructure for a MG 34 machine gun with 600 rounds. The vehicle commander's position was modified to use the cupola of the Sturmgeschütz III Ausf. G, which could mount a machine gun for anti-aircraft defense.

Sturmpanzer-Abteilung 216

The first unit to take the Sturmpanzer into battle was Sturmpanzer-Abteilung 216. It was formed at the end of April 1943 and transferred in early May to Amiens to train on its new assault guns. It was organized into 3 line companies, each with 14 vehicles, and a battalion headquarters with 3 vehicles. It arrived in Central Russia on 10 June 1943 to prepare for Unternehmen Zitadelle (Operation Citadel), the German attack on the Kursk salient. For this action, it was temporarily assigned as the third battalion of schweres Panzerjäger Regiment 656 ("Heavy Anti-tank Regiment 656") under the command of the 9th Army of Army Group Center.

It remained in the Orel-Bryansk area until its transfer to the Dnepropetrovsk-Zaporozhe area at the end of August. Its vehicles were refitted there and it remained there until the Zaporozhe Bridgehead was abandoned on 15 October. The battalion retreated to Nikopol, where it helped defend the German salient there until it was withdrawn back to the Reich at the end of December.

The Allied landing at Anzio on 22 January 1944 caused the battalion, fully independent once more, to be transferred there in early February with 28 vehicles to participate in the planned counterattack against the Allied beachhead, Unternehmen Fischfang. This failed in its objective, but the battalion remained in Italy for the rest of the war. The battalion still had 42 vehicles on hand when the Allies launched their Po Valley offensive in April 1945, but all were blown up to prevent capture, or lost during the retreat, before the war ended in May.

Sturmpanzer-Abteilung 217
Sturmpanzer-Abteilung 217 was formed on 20 April 1944 at the Grafenwöhr Training Area from cadres provided by Panzer-Kompanie 40 and Panzer-Ersatz Abteilung 18, although it did not have any armoured fighting vehicles until 19 Sturmpanzers were delivered at the end of May. It departed 1/2 July for the Normandy Front. It had to detrain in Condé sur Noireau, some 170 km behind the front lines, because the Allies had heavily damaged the French rail network. Many of the battalion's vehicles broke down during the road march to the front lines. The first mention of Sturmpanzers in combat is on 7 August near Caen. On 19 August, the battalion had 17 Sturmpanzers operational and another 14 in maintenance. Most of the battalion was not trapped in the Falaise Pocket and managed to retreat to the northeast. It had only 22 vehicles in October, which were divided between the 1st and 2nd Companies; the surplus crews were sent to Panzer-Ersatz Abteilung 18. It participated in the Battle of the Bulge, only advancing as far as St. Vith. It was continually on the retreat for the rest of the war and was captured in the Ruhr Pocket in April 1945.

Sturmpanzer-Kompanie z.b.V. 218
Sturmpanzer-Kompanie z.b.V. 218 was raised in August 1944. It was sent to Warsaw, where it was attached to Panzer Abteilung (Fkl) 302. It remained on the Eastern Front after the Warsaw Uprising was suppressed and was eventually wiped out in East Prussia in April 1945. It was supposed to have been the cadre for Sturmpanzer-Abteilung 218 in January 1945, but it was never pulled out of the front lines to do so.

Sturmpanzer-Kompanie z.b.V. 2./218 was raised simultaneously with Sturmpanzer-Kompanie z.b.V. 218, but was transferred to the Paris area on 20 August. Nothing is known of its service in France, but company personnel were sent to Panzer-Ersatz Abteilung 18 at the end of the year and were supposed to have been used in the formation of Sturmpanzer-Abteilung 218.

Sturmpanzer-Abteilung 218 was ordered formed on 6 January 1945 with three companies with a total of 45 Sturmpanzers, but it received Sturmgeschütz III assault guns during February instead.

Sturmpanzer-Abteilung 219
Sturmpanzer-Abteilung 219 was originally to be formed from Sturmgeschütz-Brigade 914, but this was changed to Sturmgeschütz-Brigade 237 in September 1944. In mid-September 1944, the brigade transferred to the Döllersheim Training Area to reorganize and re-equip. Only ten Sturmpanzers had been received when the battalion was alerted on 15 October to participate in Unternehmen Panzerfaust, the German coup to forestall Hungary's attempt to surrender to the Allies. All the vehicles were given to the First Company and it departed for Budapest on the following day. Bomb damage to the rails delayed its arrival until 19 October, by which time it was no longer needed as a pro-German government had been installed. It was moved by rail to St. Martin, Slovakia for more training. The battalion was transferred to the vicinity of Stuhlweissenburg to relieve trapped German forces in Budapest. It remained in the vicinity of Budapest until forced to retreat by advancing Soviet forces.

Surviving vehicles
Four Sturmpanzers survive:
 * Musée des Blindés in Saumur, France
 * Deutsches Panzermuseum in Munster, Lower Saxony, Germany
 * Patriot Park near Moscow
 * The Fort Sill Field Artillery Museum in Fort Sill, Oklahoma, USA

title: Brummbär


text:
Maumbury Rings

Maumbury Rings is a Neolithic henge in the south of Dorchester town in Dorset, England. It is a large circular earthwork, 85 metres in diameter, with a single bank and an entrance to the north east. It was modified during the Roman period when it was adapted for use as an amphitheatre, and the site was remodelled again during the English Civil War when it was used as an artillery fort guarding the southern approach to Dorchester. The monument is now a public open space, and used for open-air concerts, festivals and re-enactments.

Description
Maumbury Rings is a roughly circular henge situated close to the centre of Dorchester. It has an internal diameter of around 50 metres. The bank has an average width of 4 metres, and is around 5.6 metres high internally and 4.0 metres high externally. A bulge in the earthworks to the southwest marks the site of a gun emplacement built during the English Civil War, and the inner side of the bank was terraced on the east and west sides at this time. There is no trace of the original internal ditch.

Neolithic
Maumbury Rings were excavated by Harold St George Gray from 1908–1913. The excavations showed that the site originated in the later Neolithic period. The excavations revealed an internal ditch which comprised a series of deep shafts cut into the chalk. These number up to 45, and were up to 11 metres deep. Eight shafts were fully excavated. They contained various deposits including antler, animal and human bone, flints and carved chalk. The latter represent human phalloi and may be evidence of a fertilty cult among the builders. A single Grooved ware pottery sherd was recovered from one pit, and a later Beaker sherd was recovered from the fill of another pit. The henge had a single entrance on the northeast side. It is recorded that a large stone was discovered during cultivation in 1849 to the west of the entrance, but it was reburied and has not been seen since.

Around 2 km due east are the faint traces of a larger henge known as Mount Pleasant henge, and archaeology has revealed the presence of another Neolithic enclosure known as Flagstones near there. In addition, when archaeologists were digging on the site of the Tudor Arcade/Waitrose development in the 1980s (around 800 metres northeast of Maumbury Rings) they discovered large timber postholes. The evidence suggests that they were part of a large Neolithic enclosure with a diameter of around 300 to 400 metres. Red markings, denoting sites of some of the timber posts, can be seen in the car park of Waitrose.

Roman era
Maumbury Rings was remodelled in the Roman period when it was adapted for use as an amphitheatre for the use of the citizens of the nearby Roman town of Durnovaria (Dorchester). The banks were lowered by around 3 metres, with the material produced piled onto the banks. The interior was modified by the excavation of an oval, level arena floor, and the cutting of seating into the scarp and bank which was revetted with either chalk or timber. Chambers were cut into the bank to the south-west and one on each side of the centre. Finds found during the excavations include an uninscribed British coin, Roman pottery, leg bones, coins, and a 2nd-century burial. The amphitheatre may have been out of use by the mid-2nd century, although objects found on the arena floor and elsewhere suggest activity in the 4th century.

Civil war
Between 1642 and 1643 the henge was modified in response to the English Civil War. The site was used as an artillery fort by Parliament supporters in order to guard the southern approach to Dorchester. This involved the placing of a gun platform and a ramp on the southwest side, and the internal terrace was built. An unfinished well near the northwest edge of the arena and finds of 160 lead pistol bullets on the east bank all date to this time, along with a ditch beyond the northern enclosure bank.

Later use
Its amphitheatre role was briefly revived in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, as a place of public execution. In 1685, at the close of the Monmouth Rebellion, Judge Jeffreys ordered eighty of the rebels to be executed here. In 1705 Mary Channing, a nineteen-year-old woman found guilty of poisoning her husband, was executed by strangulation and burning at the Rings. Thomas Hardy used this event in his poem The Mock Wife and mentioned it in his 1886 novel The Mayor of Casterbridge, as well as recording some details of his research into the event in his personal writings.

By the later 18th century, the enclosure was being used as farmland.

In 1846, the proposed alignment of the Southampton and Dorchester Railway was amended in order to protect the Rings.

The site today
The monument is now a public open space, and used for open-air concerts, festivals and re-enactments. Finds from the excavations are in the Dorset Museum.

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

title: Maumbury Rings


text:
Onslow

Onslow may refer to:

Places

 * Onslow, Western Australia, Australia, a town
 * Onslow, Nova Scotia, Canada, an unincorporated community
 * Onslow Speedway
 * Borough of Onslow, New Zealand
 * Onslow (New Zealand electorate), a New Zealand parliamentary electorate
 * Lake Onslow, New Zealand, a man-made lake
 * Onslow Village, an area of Guildford, Surrey, UK
 * Onslow, Iowa, U.S.
 * Onslow County, North Carolina, U.S.
 * Onslow Bay, North Carolina, U.S.

Ships

 * HMS Onslow (1916), an Admiralty M-class destroyer
 * HMS Onslow (G17), an O-class destroyer launched in March 1941
 * HMS Pakeham, a destroyer launched in January 1941 that exchanged named with the O-class destroyer before commissioning
 * HMAS Onslow, a submarine of the Royal Australian Navy
 * USS Onslow (AVP-48), a United States Navy seaplane tender

Titles

 * Earl of Onslow, an extant title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom
 * Onslow baronets, two titles, both extant

People

 * Onslow (surname)
 * Onslow (given name)

Other uses

 * Onslow (Keeping Up Appearances), a character on Keeping Up Appearances
 * Onslow College, a secondary school in Wellington, New Zealand
 * Onslow AFC, a defunct association football club from Wellington, New Zealand

title: Onslow


text:
Doug Howlett

Douglas Charles Howlett (born 21 September 1978) is a retired New Zealand professional rugby union player. He was primarily a wing, but he also sometimes played as a fullback.

He played for Auckland, and the Highlanders, Hurricanes and Blues in Super Rugby. He finished his career with Munster in Ireland.

With 49 tries in 62 tests, Howlett is currently the seventh-highest try scorer in rugby union history and the top try scorer for New Zealand.

Early life
Born in Auckland, New Zealand, Howlett attended May Road School and Mt Roskill Intermediate School. Howlett is of Tongan descent, with roots in the small coastal village of Kolonga. He started playing rugby at Auckland Grammar School, where he was also a star sprinter, captain of athletics and, during his final year in 1996, Head Prefect. He calls upon his speed as a sprinter (he once clocked a personal best 10.94 seconds for the 100 metres in an under 20 athletics championship in 1998) to great effect in his rugby career.

Playing career
Howlett made his first-class debut at the age of 18 for Auckland in the Air New Zealand Cup. He has played with three Super Rugby teams, briefly with the Otago Highlanders and Wellington Hurricanes and, for the majority of his career in his home city, the Auckland Blues. It was with his hometown Blues that he established himself as one of the finest back players in the world, winning a Super 12 title in 2003. Throughout his domestic career, he remained affiliated with Auckland in the Air New Zealand Cup, with more than 50 appearances for the union.

Barbarians
In May 2009, Howlett was named in the Barbarians squad to play England and Australia.

Munster
On 30 August 2007, Howlett signed for Munster, following in the footsteps of another All Black great, Christian Cullen. Howlett joined Munster at the start of 2008. He made his debut for Munster in the Heineken Cup against ASM Clermont Auvergne, notably starting the movement for Lifeimi Mafi's try. His second match came against London Wasps where he notably dived to save the ball in the build-up to Denis Leamy's try. He scored his first Munster try against Ulster on 22 March 2008.

On 24 May 2008, Howlett was part of the Munster team that beat Toulouse 16–13 to win the 2007–08 Heineken Cup. Howlett had won his first cup with Munster only five and a half months into his career in the Northern Hemisphere. Howlett himself scored a try in the final only for it to be disallowed due to a forward pass from Rua Tipoki. Howlett joins Rod Kafer and Brad Thorn in having won major rugby tournaments in both the southern and northern hemispheres, the Super 14 and Heineken Cup respectively. He enjoyed his success with the Auckland Blues in the 2003 Super 12 and Munster in 2008. With Munster winning the Magners League title for the 08–09 season, Howlett held both a Heineken Cup and Magners League medal in the space of just two seasons with Munster. On 26 February 2010 it was announced Howlett had signed a contract to stay on at Munster until the end of the 2010–11 season, with the option for a further year. That option was confirmed by Munster in February 2011, and he began the 2011/2012. But in December 2011, Howlett picked up an Achilles tendon injury in a Pro 12 game against Ospreys which ruled him out for the rest of the season.

On 24 February 2012, Munster announced that Howlett had extended his contract until the end of the 2012–13 season. On 24 August 2012, it was announced that Howlett would take over from Paul O'Connell as the Munster squad captain for the 2012–13 season. He underwent successful knee surgery in late January 2013, and returned to action after the surgery on 2 March 2013. On 14 May 2013, it was confirmed that Howlett, after receiving medical advice, would retire from rugby due to a shoulder injury he sustained playing against Glasgow Warriors in March 2013.

Howlett returned to the province as a corporate ambassador in December 2013. He went on to become Munster's head of commercial and marketing, before returning to New Zealand in the autumn of 2019.

International
Howlett debuted for the All Blacks on 16 June 2000. In his career, he scored on average 4 points per game (155 from his first 38). He was also a first choice winger in the 2003 World Cup.

Howlett scored 49 tries for the All Blacks, a team record. His hat-trick against Italy on 8 September 2007, at the 2007 Rugby World Cup, brought him level with the record of Christian Cullen, the All Blacks' previous leading try scorer and then his try in the 15th minute against Scotland on 23 September gave him the record.

He was selected for the Rugby World Cup squad ahead of Canterbury and Tasman player Rico Gear; however, he was expected to play the first three rounds of the 2007 Air New Zealand Cup. He scored a hat trick in Auckland's victory over Counties Manukau in the first round, and on 11 August against Waikato he scored two, bringing his try total for Auckland to 50. Howlett was known as a winger with a high work rate and strong defensive tackling ability.

Personal
Howlett is the brother of former Tongan rugby league international Phil Howlett.

On 22 February 2007 Howlett launched "The Doug Howlett Outreach Foundation" to support New Zealand children between the ages of 8 and 14 who demonstrated academic and sporting ability, initially in the codes of rugby union, rugby league, and netball. It was intended to assist with school and sports fees and sporting equipment. Scholarships and equipment were distributed in 2007 and 2008. The Foundation website is now offline and it appears defunct.

In May 2019, Howlett announced his decision to leave his role as Munster Rugby's Head of Commercial and Marketing after 6 years to return to New Zealand with his family.

Controversies
Howlett was arrested on 9 October 2007 outside Heathrow Airport's Hilton Hotel on suspicion of criminal damage to two cars. This followed the All Blacks' World Cup loss in Cardiff to France a few days earlier, a game in which Howlett did not play. Howlett subsequently issued an apology through the media.

He was again arrested on 23 December 2010 on suspicion of being drunk and disorderly after his team's Christmas party in Kilkenny city.

Honours
 Blues

 * Super Rugby Title: 2003 (1)

 Auckland

 * Ranfurly Shield Holder
 * National Provincial Championship: 1996,1999,2002,2003,2005,2007 (6)

Munster

 * European Champions Cup: 2007–08 (1)
 * Celtic League: 2008–09, 2010–11 (2)

New Zealand

 * Rugby Championship: 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007 (5)

title: Doug Howlett


text:
Subic

Subic may refer to:

 * Subic Bay, a bay in the Philippines
 * U.S. Naval Base Subic Bay, former United States naval base
 * Subic Special Economic and Freeport Zone, an economic free trade area located in the former U.S. naval base
 * Subic, Zambales, a municipality in the Philippines located on the bay
 * Šubić family, a noble clan from Dalmatia
 * Šubic, a Slovenian surname
 * Subić, a Serbian surname

title: Subic


text:
Gamma-ray spectrometer

A gamma-ray spectrometer (GRS) is an instrument for measuring the distribution (or spectrum—see figure) of the intensity of gamma radiation versus the energy of each photon. The study and analysis of gamma-ray spectra for scientific and technical use is called gamma spectroscopy, and gamma-ray spectrometers are the instruments which observe and collect such data. Because the energy of each photon of EM radiation is proportional to its frequency, gamma rays have sufficient energy that they are typically observed by counting individual photons.

Gamma-ray spectroscopy
Atomic nuclei have an energy-level structure somewhat analogous to the energy levels of atoms, so that they may emit (or absorb) photons of particular energies, much as atoms do, but at energies that are thousands to millions of times higher than those typically studied in optical spectroscopy. (Note that the short-wavelength high-energy end, of the atomic spectroscopy energy range (few eV to few hundred keV), generally termed X-rays, overlaps somewhat with the low end of the nuclear gamma-ray range (~10 MeV to ~10 keV) so that the terminology used to distinguish X-rays from gamma rays can be arbitrary or ambiguous in the overlap region.) As with atoms, the particular energy levels of nuclei are characteristic of each species, so that the photon energies of the gamma rays emitted, which correspond to the energy differences of the nuclei, can be used to identify particular elements and isotopes. Distinguishing between gamma-rays of slightly different energy is an important consideration in the analysis of complex spectra, and the ability of a GRS to do so is characterized by the instrument's spectral resolution, or the accuracy with which the energy of each photon is measured. Semi-conductor detectors, based on cooled germanium or silicon detecting elements, have been invaluable for such applications. Because the energy level spectrum of nuclei typically dies out above about 10 MeV, gamma-ray instruments looking to still higher energies generally observe only continuum spectra, so that the moderate spectral resolution of scintillation (often sodium iodide (NaI) or caesium iodide, (CsI) spectrometers), often suffices for such applications.

Astronomical spectrometers
A number of investigations have been performed to observe the gamma-ray spectra of the Sun and other astronomical sources, both galactic and extra-galactic. The Gamma-Ray Imaging Spectrometer, the Hard X-ray/Low-Energy Gamma-ray experiment (A-4) on HEAO 1, the Burst and Transient Spectrometry Experiment (BATSE) and the OSSI (Oriented Scintillation Spectrometer Experiment) on CGRO, the C1 germanium (Ge) gamma-ray instrument on HEAO 3, and the Ge gamma-ray spectrometer (SPI) on the ESA INTEGRAL mission are examples of cosmic spectrometers, while the GRS on the SMM and the imaging Ge spectrometer on the RHESSI satellite have been devoted to solar observations.

Planetary gamma-ray spectrometers
Gamma-ray spectrometers have been widely used for the elemental and isotopic analysis of bodies in the Solar System, especially the Moon and Mars. These surfaces are subjected to a continual bombardment of high-energy cosmic rays, which excite nuclei in them to emit characteristic gamma-rays which can be detected from orbit. Thus an orbiting instrument can in principle map the surface distribution of the elements for an entire planet. Examples include the mapping of 20 elements observed in the exploration of Mars, Eros and the Moon. They are usually associated with neutron detectors that can look for water and ice in the soil by measuring neutrons. They are able to measure the abundance and distribution of about 20 primary elements of the periodic table, including silicon, oxygen, iron, magnesium, potassium, aluminum, calcium, sulfur, and carbon. Knowing what elements are at or near the surface will give detailed information about how planetary bodies have changed over time. To determine the elemental makeup of the Martian surface, the Mars Odyssey used a gamma-ray spectrometer and two neutron detectors.

GRS instruments supply data on the distribution and abundance of chemical elements, much as the Lunar Prospector mission did on the Moon. In this case, the chemical element thorium was mapped, with higher concentrations shown as yellow/orange/red in the left image.

How a GRS works
Some constructions of scintillation counters can be used as gamma-ray spectrometers. The gamma photon energy is discerned from the intensity of the flash of the scintillator, a number of low-energy photons produced by the single high-energy one. Another approach relies on using Germanium detectors - a crystal of hyperpure germanium that produces pulses proportional to the captured photon energy; while more sensitive, it has to be cooled to a low temperature, requiring a bulky cryogenic apparatus. Handheld and many laboratory gamma spectrometers are therefore the scintillator kind, mostly with thallium-doped sodium iodide, thallium-doped caesium iodide, or, more recently, cerium doped lanthanum bromide. Spectrometers for space missions conversely tend to be of the germanium kind.

When exposed to cosmic rays (charged particles from space thought to possibly originate in supernova and active galactic nuclei), chemical elements in soils and rocks emit uniquely identifiable signatures of energy in the form of gamma rays. The gamma-ray spectrometer looks at these signatures, or energies, coming from the elements present in the target soil.

By measuring gamma rays coming from the target body, it is possible to calculate the abundance of various elements and how they are distributed around the planet's surface. Gamma rays, emitted from the nuclei of atoms, show up as sharp emission lines on the instrument's spectrum output. While the energy represented in these emissions determines which elements are present, the intensity of the spectrum reveals the elements concentrations. Spectrometers are expected to add significantly to the growing understanding of the origin and evolution of planets like Mars and the processes shaping them today and in the past.

Gamma rays and neutrons are produced by cosmic rays. Incoming cosmic rays—some of the highest-energy particles—collide with the nucleus of atoms in the soil. When nuclei are hit with such energy, neutrons are released, which scatter and collide with other nuclei. The nuclei get "excited" in the process, and emit gamma rays to release the extra energy so they can return to their normal rest state. Some elements like potassium, uranium, and thorium are naturally radioactive and give off gamma rays as they decay, but all elements can be excited by collisions with cosmic rays to produce gamma rays. The HEND and Neutron Spectrometers on GRS directly detect scattered neutrons, and the gamma sensor detects the gamma rays.

Water detection

By measuring neutrons, it is possible to calculate the abundance of hydrogen, thus inferring the presence of water. The neutron detectors are sensitive to concentrations of hydrogen in the upper meter of the surface. When cosmic rays hit the surface of Mars, neutrons and gamma-rays come out of the soil. The GRS measured their energies. Certain energies are produced by hydrogen. Since hydrogen is most likely present in the form of water ice, the spectrometer will be able to measure directly the amount of permanent ground ice and how it changes with the seasons. Like a virtual shovel "digging into" the surface, the spectrometer will allow scientists to peer into this shallow subsurface of Mars and measure the existence of hydrogen.

GRS will supply data similar to that of the successful Lunar Prospector mission, which told us how much hydrogen, and thus water, is likely on the Moon.

The gamma-ray spectrometer used on the Odyssey spacecraft consists of four main components: the gamma sensor head, the neutron spectrometer, the high energy neutron detector, and the central electronics assembly. The sensor head is separated from the rest of the spacecraft by a 6.2 meter (20 ft) boom, which was extended after Odyssey entered the mapping orbit at Mars. This maneuver is done to minimize interference from any gamma rays coming from the spacecraft itself. The initial spectrometer activity, lasting between 15 and 40 days, performed an instrument calibration before the boom was deployed. After about 100 days of the mapping mission, the boom was deployed and remained in this position for the duration of the mission. The two neutron detectors-the neutron spectrometer and the high-energy neutron detector-are mounted on the main spacecraft structure and operated continuously throughout the mapping mission.

GRS specifications for the Odyssey mission

The Gamma-Ray Spectrometer weighs 30.5 kilograms (67.2 lb) and uses 32 watts of power. Along with its cooler, it measures 468 by 534 by 604 mm (18.4 by 21.0 by 23.8 in). The detector is a photodiode made of a 1.2 kg germanium crystal, reverse biased to about 3 kilovolts, mounted at the end of a six-meter boom to minimize interferences from the gamma radiation produced by the spacecraft itself. Its spatial resolution is about 300 km.

The neutron spectrometer is 173 by 144 by 314 mm (6.8 by 5.7 by 12.4 in).

The high-energy neutron detector measures 303 by 248 by 242 mm (11.9 by 9.8 by 9.5 in). The instrument's central electronics box is 281 by 243 by 234 mm (11.1 by 9.6 by 9.2 in).

title: Gamma-ray spectrometer


text: Category:American sportspeople

title: Category:American sportspeople


text:
Template:To do/to do

 * This is just a test to-do list to help editors make sure that the text
 * shows
 * up
 * correctly
 * Normally, the "/to do" subpage should only be created under the article's Talk page, unless it is a notice board or project page.

 * To use this template for an article, insert   at the top of that article's Talk discussion page. To use it for a project or as your own personal list, add it to the project page or  your user page, respectively.

title: Template:To do/to do


text:
Talk:Annie Chapman

Untitled
''This article was listed on WP:VFD in August 2004. For an archive of the discussion see /delete.

Possible additions for later

 * Albert Cadosch next door reported hearing woman say/cry "no" when he went to use the backyard toilet.

 * I think her old husband might have actually been named Siffey.

 * False reports of polished farthings and rings at her feet, rings actually taken, no coins. Partial envelope found.

 * Inquest details.

DreamGuy 09:24, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * Dispute over her time of death. DreamGuy 20:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Chapman while alive photo
Someone uploaded the photo of Chapman alive. The public does not have access to the original version of this photo. It is held by the family and they have given permission to author Neal Stubbings Shelden to use it, as well as other groups on a case by case basis. The image has been extensively repaired for viewability purposes. Such photo enhancing is covered by a new and modern copyright, even if the original photo is not. As nobody has the original photo except Shelden and the Chapman family, the image that WOULD be public domain if it were available is NOT the same one being uploaded here. Not only is it a violation of copyright law to use this edited version without permission, I would also argue that it is morally incorrect to use the photo without permission from the family when they specifically said they must have prior approval for all uses as part of the condition of it being shown. DreamGuy (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Your claim is strenuously disputed on all the relevant talk pages. The issue here is whether legally the Chapman family own the rights to a photograph taken in 1869. Morality doesn't come in to it- we deal here only with the law. Under UK copyright law (and this image was taken in the UK) photographs taken before 1944 have a copyright term of 50 years from the date the photograph was taken, not from when the photograph was first published. If copyright applies, which it doesn't, it would belong to Annie Chapman, or her husband, or the original photographer, all long dead. If copyright applies to an enhanced and artistically tidied up version of the photograph, which is debatable, the original image remains copyright free. Jack1956 (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't dispute that the original photo is in the public domain. You don't have access to the original photo and do not even know what it looks like. The only own shown in public is the edited one. You have absolutely nothing to support your contention that the image you uploaded can be used. AS such, the way things work here is that images under dispute cannot be used until such time as the case is proven... otherwise people could forever continue to violate copyright just by continuously stubbornly insisting to be correct despite all evidence. Until you have proof that the original is the same as the one shown with permission by the family in a few limited publications you have nothing to support your side. The fact that the image has been up this whole time without any proof of public domain status is a violation of international copyright law, and any good faith effort Wikipedia might make to have made the violation out of ignorance goes out the window when you put the image up despite the violation being brought to your attention. Please do not let you stubborn ignorance but Wikipedia in legal jeopardy, and also maybe you should take a moment to respect the wishes of the family, without whom you'd never have seen this photo in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The image appears elsewhere on the internet, including here . Perhaps giving a credit to the family will resolve the issue.
 * The Casebook explicitly has permission from the family. It's inclusion there does not in anyway mean anyone can reproduce it elsewhere. Copyright violations do not suddenly become OK just by crediting the owner... if that's all it took anyone could steal anything and get away with it as long as it were credited. DreamGuy (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi DG, it seems clear that the family is upset over this. What is the source so we can read about it? Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 23:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Can anyone explain why the Chapman family are upset about the wedding photo being used as opposed to the mortuary photo? No-one seems to have an answer. In addition, no-one can own the copyright to any photo taken in 1869. Keep the photo. Dreamspy (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 * They don't own the mortuary photo, so they know there objections to its use are irrelevant. If they had the legal right to stop people using that without permission to guarantee it is used respectfully, they certainly would. I know they weren't thrilled when some yutz put the mortuary photo on a T-shirt design he was selling. They do, however, own the photo of her while alive and explicitly only allowed its use under very specific circumstances. They (through Neal Shelden) were also the first to publish any version of it, so they have the copyright. If you think nobody can own a copyright to any photo from 1869, then you are sadly mistaken. Guess you didn't bother to read the info posted above? Shame you decided to chime in without any research, even as little as reading what was spoon fed to you. DreamGuy (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The license placed on the photo says straight out "The above is all subject to any overriding Publication right which may exist. In practice, Publication right will often override the first of the bullet points listed." It also claims that the source is unknown, which is nonsense, we know exactly where it came from. The publication right for this photograph is owned by the family of Anne Chapman, as licensed to author Neal Shelden. The photo was only published with provision that it only be in publications approved of by the family. The family most especially does not approve of its use on Wikipedia (nor the copyright-violating site the uploader got it from) and the strongly objects claims on the photo that it is in the public domain. They reject the exploitation of their ancestor's image by third parties showing no respect. On top of that, this version of the photo underwent substantial photo enhancement before release, and this enhancement has a new copyright. *IF* the original photo were public domain, you'd have to have a copy of that. You don't. DreamGuy (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Question #1 — Where is this sourced? ...all of this about the family's wishes that is...
 * Question #2 — What website above is claimed to be the "copyright-violating site the uploader got it from" ?
 * Question #3 — What new information do you have that is different from the previous paragraphs above on this topic (i.e. why are you pursuing this again now and what has changed) ?
 * Question #4 — Why are you so certain that this photo is the supposedly new digitally-enhanced version? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 21:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Oh yes, please be mindful that while discussion is going on here on the talk page (or elsewhere as this may take us) that we don't change the content pertaining to these photos until a consensus may be achieved. Professional of us to avert potential edit warring, yes? A few days or a couple of weeks while the discussion goes on isn't a long time. Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 21:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, please be mindful that law trumps policy and policy trumps "discussion" and phoney baloney "consensus" -- The onus for using a photo is upn the peope who WANT to use it to PROVE they can, not the other way around. Violating the law and policy most definitely is a big deal. DreamGuy (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

 * This issue was resolved in May and again in August 2008 with a decision to Keep. Unless DG has some new evidence the decision stands. Please go along with the consensus...that's how Wikipedia operates. Jack1956 (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Copyright violations are not just "resolved" because some people ignorant of (or willfully opposed to following) the law vote on something. That's not how Wikipedia works.

 * I already spelled out the new evidence. Please tak the time to read things for comprehension instead of just blind reverting and kneejerk responses. The old evidence was sufficient anyway,m but the new info is that the license for old photos has been updated to more accurately reflect the actual legal situation. It no longer says that anything that old is automatically usable by anyone, it says that publication right for first publication of old material takes precedence. The Chapman family and its representative, Neal Shelden, have this legal right and have been policing it or years. And freaking anyone editing anything about Jack the Ripper should already know this, as this fact is widely discussed in the field, both on websites and in books. Casebook and Neal Shelden's book quite explicitly spell this out, as does any documentary or book that used the photo with permission. Jack1956 uploaded the image from a site that stole the photo and used it without permission, which in no way gives Wikipedia the legal right to do the same.

 * On top of that, photo editing does give new copyright if it's extensive, and as you don't have the original photo you have no way of knowing if the enhancement is minor or not. DreamGuy (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Note — Please see this decision to keep in August (alt link) and this active thread. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 13:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Old decision was wrong, and new info (change in license template to finally acknowledge that first publication means new copyright on old images) trumps old info anyway.

Bottom line here is that this is an open and shut case, and has been for ages. DreamGuy (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

See Publication right for the Wikipedia article on the concept. Note the line in the photo's tag explaining that this trumps all other concerns. The Chapman family, with Neal Shelden as their public face, has consistently defended this right for years. DreamGuy (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, rather than just open old wounds, why don't you take it up with Media Copyright Questions for an expert opinion. My personal view would be that even if it were to be found in copyright; it would constitute 'fair use' in the context of a page specifically on Annie Chapman - under Images with iconic status or historical importance. I note that the image is on wikicommons - and so the proper forum for a copyright deletion request is in that place - where I note a deletion request was discussed in July and was closed as keep. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All the proof that it is a violation was given. Since we do not use images without proof that we are legally allowed to, the image must be removed. Fair use does not mean "images I want to use but otherwise cannot" - the owners of this photo explicitly have publication rights and moral rights to the image. The family is private and would not have released the photo if anyone could just take it and use it for whatever they want, whether they call it Fair Use or anything else. Using it when we expressly do NOT have permission just makes it that much more likely that other people with photographs and other material will not let the public know if it's just going to be plundered by people breaking the law and ignoring their wishes. DreamGuy (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * DG, I have as dim a view of copyright infringements as yourself. The question is whether is it legal to host this image in the State of Florida? That is a matter that can appropriately be settled on commons, and in the media copyright forum. The questions of 'fair use' are 'is this image in context' - yes, the article is about the subject of the photograph and 'can this image be replaced?' - no, it is a historic image. 'Is this image the whole image?' - no, it's a reduced quality scan. If there is a copyright, 'does it materially affect the rights of the copyright holders to exploit the image'? - that's probably the only question you can argue on - normally the answer is no, as it's only a reduced quality scan of an original artwork.
 * I'm not seeking to make a determination either way, merely saying this is not the appropriate place to have that argument. The general guidance for wikipedia is that if something has been transferred to wikicommons, then it is considered to have passed the non-copyrighted image test. I note the additional 'publication right' specifically only applies within the EU, and not in Florida.
 * By all means have the argument, but (a) it should be somewhere where editors have specific experience to make a determination; and (b) somewhere where the debate would have an operative outcome. This is not the place to have that debate; and the consensus here seems to be to continue to display the image - which (I think) they have a right to, as long as the image exists on wikicommons. Your mileage may, as so often, differ. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Hello, I came to read the material parts f the discussion from the post in JTR. I think that DG brings up some pretty good points about copyright, and I think that Kbthompson makes an even better one that neither this article discussion nor the one at JTR is an appropriate place to pursue a discussion. What specifically renders it so is the July decision to keep. If DG wants to submit new evidence (the family's wailing and gnashing of teeth, the copyright info, etc.), there is a good place to do that, and links to such have been provided. If someone could provide a specific link to the destination of this complaint, I would be interested in followingthe discussion, as it presents as interesting problem of protocol as that represented by the Tasini Judgment on copyright. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the family - and author - do wish to assert a proprietorial interest in the photograph - and I could understand why the family might. Then they should get in touch with the ticket request system - asserting their claim over the image in wikicommons. An admin with specific knowledge about the copyright minefield would handle the request; and perhaps reach an accommodation - for instance due attribution. I would hope, DG, that you realise that no-one's trying to be obstructive here, merely trying to obtain a correct determination of the matter, in the correct forum and one where something can actually be done about the matter. For instance, no-one here has the power to remove the image from wikicommons. While it is still there, it may be used on any wiki, not just here. Kbthompson (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying that you hope I "realise" that no one is trying to be obstructive assumes that that claim is right, despite evidence to the contrary. If people were hoping to find the "correct determination" they would have taken the time to look up the laws themselves and, most importantly, not just erased my comments pointing out that the photo is being illegally used. Good faith is discussing the issue, not erasing other people's comments and hoping people don't see it. Both Benean Hunter and Jack1956 simply tried to erase the legal evidence showing that they were wrong right off of Wikimedia.

 * As far as filing a ticket, I will try contacting the family if it might get past the stubborn ignorance being displayed. Note, however, that they absolutely WILL NOT accept "due attribution" as an accommodation, as they explicitly do own the photo rights for multiple reasons and do not ever allow people to use it without explicit permission on a case by case basis. They have always been extremely firm on this point, and, again, anyone with much knowledge about the field of Ripperology would already be well aware of it... or, baring that, anybody who bothes to take a minimum amount of effort into looking it up would learn that quite easily. It's not up to copyright owners to PROVE they have copyright to take away Wikimedia's use of it without permission, it's up to Wikimedia to PROVE they can use it, and they most certainly have not done so in this case. Hell, they haven't even tried. It'd be nice if the editors here were not so actively opposed to dodging responsible actions and didn't demand other people do the work proving them wrong all the time, especially as in every case where they have it has always been proven. You'd think by now they'd realize that if I say something about this topic I know what I am talking about or else I wouldn't have said it in the first place. Stubborn refusal to accept anything I say despite my history of being shown to be right time after time is nothing but bad faith. DreamGuy (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The comment added by DreamGuy above in reopening this closed case is incorrect. The new licence he quotes quite clearly states: "The owner of a copy of a posthumous work, as distinguished from the owner of the original of the work, is vested with no such right, where the copy was transmitted without intent of transmitting such right". The copyright to the image belongs to the original photographer in 1869, and not to the Chapman family who merely own a copy of that image. By selling the original owners a copy of the image he took the photographer did not transmit ownership of that image. If the subjects in the photograph had wanted further copies back in 1869 they would have had to have gone back to him. Jack1956 (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It'd be nice if you stopped spouting the same old ignorant nonsense on multiple pages. Keep it to one place instead of several. It gets tiring correcting you. Suffice it to say you are wrong multiple ways, which have already been explained to you elsewhere. DreamGuy (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Hey now, let's all calm down, please - there is no call for the snarky uncivil comments. Jack, nothing in Wikipedia is ever really closed. If new copyright has become known, then DG has every right - indeed, he has the same responsibility that you, I and every other responsible editor here - to make sure we are following the laws governing that copyright, and revisit the matter if it seems that we aren't. You might not like who's saying it, or how they are saying it, but it doesn't make what they are saying any less important.
 * On the other side, DreamGuy, you need to realize (or remember) that this probably isn't the right venue to discuss the status of a WikiCommons image. Kbt correctly pointed out that if the image is Commons, it can be used in any wiki. You need to address the source of the issue, and not the side effects of it; doing so wastes less of your energy, time and patience. You may not think it a fair accusation, but you do have a reputation for undue brevity and little patience, and I can say unequivocally that it impedes your interactions with others here; it is almost certainly what is hampering your efforts here. Ease up a little bit, and folk will either come around, or more politely disagree.
 * DG, if, when you file in the appropriate venue, could you be troubled to post the link here? Speaking only for myself, I would like to follow this particular matter. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is what the wikipedia says about civility. Are we all agreed that this policy shouldn't be violated, even if you know with complete certainty that you are always right and everybody else is always wrong?:
 * "Civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles. While other core principles give firm standards as to the content of articles, the civility policy is a code of conduct, setting out how Wikipedia editors should interact: editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. Even during heated debates, editors should behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant work environment. This policy applies to all editing on Wikipedia, including user pages, talk pages, edit summaries, and any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians." Colin4C (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 * This is moving off on a tangent. Colin, I think DG is fully aware of the civility policy - he's under ArbCom civility parole, for crying out loud. While I do agree that he could be a lot less abrasive, understand that he is frustrated with what he feels is everyone else's willingness to disregard copyright law. I do not condone his language, tone or comments, but I think its a fair assessment of his motivation here. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and await the process of the Commons ticket discussion. The image isn't going anywhere before then - I think that has been established - and responding in kind to abrasive language doesn't help anyone. By staying cool, the person still unwilling to be nice looks ever more like a jerk for not calming down.
 * Let's refocus our efforts on another aspect of the article until the image discussion is decided in WikiCommons. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So, if at any time, I, (or any other editor) was "frustrated" that other editors did not recognise that I was completely infallible, the wikipedia guideline on civility falls into complete abeyance and I have licence to call any editor who crosses me an "ignorant bastard" twenty or thirty times in sucession? Thanks for clarifying that...Good job I'm feeling mellow and laid back today...Colin4C (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody called you an ignorant bastard. But the fact that you are ignorant about the topics you try to discuss has been factually established on several occasions. That's not an insult: I am not calling you stupid or incapable of learning. You and others here just have a long-demonstrated history of making arguments based upon misinformation and lack of understanding. The whole principle of making decisions here is to base them upon law, policy, and facts. Therefore it'd be very helpful if you and some others took the time to learn about any of those before jumping in all the time in tag teaming exercises. DreamGuy (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 * This matter has been raised at the media copyright noticeboard. I would suggest that people keep any arguments civil and accept any determination at that board, and at wikicommons - I don't think the latter is a 'well formed' deletion request, as the previous complaint has been closed. Kbthompson (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 * What an anoying case. Okey lets start with the dirrect aproach was the photo in "Annie Chapman: Jack the Ripper Victim - A Short Biography" or did it first appear in "The Victims of Jack the Ripper"?Geni 21:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While this has been noted on the media copyright noticeboard and I commented there, that is of little use because this is a commons image and all discussion or deletion proposal must take place on the commons because this wiki has no control of the image. ww2censor (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's we've been saying pretty much from the get-go. Thanks for joining the discussion, though. :P - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That statement isn't quite true. However I'm a commons admin so I can act on the result of a copyright debate anywhere. Now step one. Was the image in "Annie Chapman: Jack the Ripper Victim - A Short Biography"?Geni 09:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes Geni, it was. It was also on the cover of 'The Victims of Jack the Ripper' so I presume it is in the photographs in that book also. I haven't seen inside a copy. Jack1956 (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And it was first published in "Annie Chapman: Jack the Ripper Victim - A Short Biography"?Geni 15:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know which was published first, but I think it first appeared in "Annie Chapman: Jack the Ripper Victim - A Short Biography". Jack1956 (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So first published in the US after 1977 but before 2003 so not in the public domain in the US so we can't use it.Geni 15:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a case for WP:Fair use of an historical image? Kbthompson (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it a historical image? It's a personal photo in the possession of the subject's family. We aren't talking about an iconic image or anything. Nothing historic is taking place in it. Hell, even if it were in the public domain there's little encyclopedic reason to use it, but for something under copyright where the owners explicitly prohibit usage you'd have a hell of a time arguing fair use, especially since Wikipedia has been falsely telling people for more than a year that it was public domain and denying evidence the contrary.... pulling a stunt like declaring it fair use looks like simply ignoring copyright and not accepting an error. Good faith means something, and any we might have been able to argue has long since worn out. DreamGuy (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Exact legal criteria
The publication right law started in the UK in 1996.

Neal Shelden, on behalf of the family, first published the photo in 2001, so the law was active.

Just hitting the highlights here:

 * 16.—(1) A person who after the expiry of copyright protection, publishes for the first time a previously unpublished work has, in accordance with the following provisions, a property right ("publication right") equivalent to copyright.

Absolutely was previously unpublished, unlike a lot of photos in the case. So this wouldn't apply to most of the Ripper documentation.

 * (3) No account shall be taken for this purpose of any unauthorised act.

 * In relation to a time when there is no copyright in the work, an unauthorised act means an act done without the consent of the owner of the physical medium in which the work is embodied or on which it is recorded.

Family owns it, gave authorization to Neal Shelden.

 * (4) A work qualifies for publication right protection only if—

 * (a) first publication is in the European Economic Area, and

 * (b) the publisher of the work is at the time of first publication a national of an EEA state. Where two or more persons jointly publish the work, it is sufficient for the purposes of paragraph (b) if any of them is a national of an EEA state.

Published in the UK by Neal Shelden in a limited capacity, he's a UK citizen.

 * (6) Publication right expires at the end of the period of 25 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first published.

So copyright by this would expire at the end of 2026.

Open and shut case.

That's just the publication right. They assert additional rights. But those aren't even necessary to go into now with this clear cut evidence.

DreamGuy (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By 'publication' you are referring to Shelden's use of the image in 2001. The image was first published in 1869 by the photographer who took the original picture and sold a copy of it to the Chapman family. If you look on the back of such photographs you will usually see that, amid all the photographer's advertising, there is an assertion to ownership of the copyright of his images. [See image right} It will also usually add 'Additional copies can be had/ordered' clearly showing that the photographer reserved all rights over his images. Jack1956 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Think about that for a second. If that counted as publication for the purpose of this law, there would be no such thing as a non-published photograph, and there'd be no reason to list a photograph as an example of a work that could not have been published previously. The law does mention photographs. This law specifies what publication means for the purposes of this law. I didn't include it above, because I underestimated the stubbornness of certain people here I guess, but here you go:

 * (2) For this purpose publication includes any communication to the public, in particular—
 * (a) the issue of copies to the public;
 * (b) making the work available by means of an electronic retrieval system;
 * (c) the rental or lending of copies of the work to the public;
 * (d) the performance, exhibition or showing of the work in public; or
 * (e) broadcasting the work or including it in a cable programme service.

 * None of these criteria in the specific law being discussed (as compared to other laws) qualify for the Chapman photo until Neal Shelden published it. Thus he and the family have first publication by this law.

 * And, beyond that, you don't know that any photographer sold it to them, or if that photographer claimed copyright. You can't assert that this photo must have had a copyright notice on the back (or that any such notice complied with the law at the time -- copyright was a lot more difficult to get back then, and proper listing always included the copyright claim with date and owner, which your example does not so is not valid) unless you have seen the back of the photograph. What you are trying to do here is give *some* scenario in which you *think* you'd be allowed to use the photograph without proving that your scenario has any legal standing or that your scenario is even correct. Don't show me the back of some other photo and make claims about this photo. If you want to assert that the photo was copyrighted and published, show some proof of that. Otherwise you are just talking about what you want to believe and not what really happened. DreamGuy (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 * that doesn't count as publication under US law which is unforunate since it means that the work was published after 1977 but before 2003 under US law thus it is under copyright under US law and we can't use it. People in countries with more reasonable legal systems such as say Isreal can. While I would view the attempt to claim copyright over the image as an unreasonable use of copyright law the fact is the law does in fact support their position.Geni 16:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it "unfortunate" that we cannot violate the conditions in which the family set to even let the photo be seen by anyone? I hope your position is not that you wanted to violate the family's wishes and make it less likely that that family or others would ever let any researcher use the items in the future. DreamGuy (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I consider it unfortunate that the faimily has the right to set such conditions yes.Geni 19:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Fair enough, Geni. If I am wrong then I am wrong. I am in the UK and the image originated in the UK and I acted in good faith in uploading it, under what I understood as UK copyright law. Jack1956 (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the University of Cambridge cautions about providing access to private collections which can lead to an unwitting 'publication right' on previously unpublished material. The IPO provides clear guidance that the owner of the copyright is actually the photographer, or his representative; so, the good Sheldon should probably be chased by the photographer's heirs, and assignees, for usage fees. Kbthompson (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The name is Shelden, and, whatever the original copyright was -- still have not shown that the original photographer asserted one or that it was not someone in the Chapman family -- the current situation is clear. We cannot use it, period... just as I've been saying for a year. I don't know why some people can't just realize that I know what I am talking about and accept that instead of fighting tooth and nail every single time. DreamGuy (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no argument that the image should be removed from wikicommons; and I thank Geni for his time. The point I was making is that Shelden (apologies, splchkr doesn't like the name) probably owes usage fees, as UK law is quite clear that any ownership of the image remains with the original photographer, and his heirs - not with the republisher. It's not a right that can be assigned.
 * You can spend a year hollaring to yourself in front of a mirror, but it's only through using the due process of wikipedia that you can actually get anything done about the matter; and that has now been done in this case. Thanks again, Geni. Kbthompson (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering how badly you messed up your legal interpretation before you seem pretty certain that your interpretation that the family owes the photographer's family (still, you don't even know that they are different families) is accurate. I don't know why you continue to put such faith into your interpretation of what you skim when you've screwed them up so many times before. Probably better to let people who have proven they know what they are talking about do the talking. And the due process would have been done more than a year ago but for some ignorant people holding it up. DreamGuy (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Please stop, DreamGuy; this is precisely the sort of uncivil and unfriendly behavior which propels you to AN/I and ArbCom every single time. Please do not attack your fellow editors, no matter how wrong you feel them to be. You can point out their errors, but the attacks should stop, or you risk being blocked again. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean me being proven correct in a dispute and having people file false accusations out of an attempt at revenge? Don't you remember that the last three or more times you tried this particular tactic? That's right, when you took it somelpace official instead of just making threats your claims were rejected, and quite soundly. You'd think by now you'd give up making such obvious threats. Any claims you would have to be making such accusations in good faith go out the window with your documented history of abusing ANI and ArbCom dispute resolution system to try to prevail in personal conflicts. Give it a rest already. DreamGuy (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah..this really isn't the proper venue for discussing your issues, DG. Should we repair to one a bit more proper? There is no threat inherent in my comments. It was simply intended as a notice that you can be correct without calling everyone else a jerk for not believing you. I don't want to rehash your past indiscretions, blocks, etc, and I won't. Do others the same courtesy. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Should we repair to one a bit more proper? There is no threat inherent in my comments."' Wow. Talk about a major disconnect between what you say and what you claim to say. And I didn't call anyone a jerk. For all your claims of not wanting to drag up accusations (which aren't real anyway) you sure do bring them up a lot. Give it a rest already. DreamGuy (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am unsure of your point, DG, and frankly, I am pretty sure it wouldn't be even remotely connected to the article. When I suggest a different venue, I mean your usertalk page. Clearly, would be a wasted effort. The only person hurting your editing ability here, DreamGuy, is you. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

So delete the image already
Geni says it's under copyright in the US and UK. The uploader and others who were disputing this have agreed. So... why is the image still on the article? Maybe one of the people who edit warred to insist on having the illegal image there would do the right thing and remove it themselves instead of forcing me to do so for them again. DreamGuy (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I said it was under copyright in the US so we cannont use it. The situation in the UK is slightly different but would prevent any use in the UK.Geni 19:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, thanks for lending a hand, Geni. It is much appreicated. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  00:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to throw the cat among the pigeons, but what DreamGuy and others may not realise is that even now that the image has been deleted from the commons by Geni, no one will be stopped from uploading it again to this wiki and claiming a fair-use rationale which will most likely stick. ww2censor (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it would NOT stick, as it doesn't meet the criteria in the slightest. There is no encyclopedic purpose in having the photo in the first place, and one of the criteria is if other free images are available, and there clearly are free images. There's no rationale for using this image, especially in light of the major copyright violation Wikipedia was committing for well over a year. DreamGuy (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry DreamGuy, but I don't think you don't know what you are talking about. I clearly see this image as passing all of the fair use criteria if someone want's to claim it, no matter what you think, but that is up to you guys. ww2censor (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, here's the thing, Ww2censor; we seem to have arrived at a consensus that it shouldn't be in this article without the family's permission. As they are unlikely to provide it (and we are of course assuming in the first place that they object to its usage here - w/out material proof of such, we only have a single editor's word to go on), we can keep it out of both this article and related JTR articles. At least, I will work at ensuring that. An orphaned image usually gets deleted here in WP if unused within five days or so. A notice can be made in WikiCommons, so folk are aware of it. I think that covers most of the bases. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I wrote, that is up to you. ww2censor (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the odds of your maintaining a consensus to give any viewpoint in an article about a long dead person special consideration against a conserted challange are likely to be limited. But we shall see.Geni 01:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotes?
Where do the extended quotes in this article source from? They are interesting and notable, but appear out of nowhere and are unreferenced. 207.237.232.51 (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Age at death
Her age at death is given as 48 but her birth year makes it only possible that she be a maximum of 47 at death. Which is correct? Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The infoboxes are supposed to summarise the article, not contradict it. Thanks for pointing out the contradiction. Dimadick (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hallie Rubenhold
For a discussion on Hallie Rubenhold's The Five: The Untold Lives of the Women Killed by Jack the Ripper see Talk:Whitechapel murders --John B123 (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Resting place
In common with other victims, the coordinates of 51.5518265°N 0.0360350°W are incorrect as this is in Hackney 4 miles away from the Manor Park Cemetery, Forest Gate, London, Post Code E7 0NP. Her grave no longer exists but there is a memorial plaque in the cemetery & it's at 51.552354°N 0.043065°E see bullets below for reference.

 * Grave of Annie Chapman from Jack the Ripper tour.com
 * Visual Ref from YouTube The House of Lechmere
 * Annie Chapman @ Findagrave.com

Mistakes
This page has a number of mistakes, particularly around the killing itself. The witness that says she saw Annie saw her in the street, not in front of the backyard (whatever that means). Also Richardson went to the steps; he specifically said he did not go out into the backyard. This is all in The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, New Edition by Philip Sugden, widely acknowledged as the most authoritative book on the subject. I'm not going to edit because I'm not a regular editor and so my edits have often been reversed, when I tried on other pages, but I really recommend someone review the details as they are arguably some of the central facts of the killings. P.S. the use of photos on the page is excellent. Mrowand89 (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They are not errors - they are referenced (and yes, some authors' accounts slightly contradict others' very occasionally- I have noticed that myself but there is a myriad of info. to draw sources from). For example, Richardson went to Hanbury Street shortly before 5 to check the property was secured (a theft of tools had occurred a few months prior at the property). He walked to the back to the yard door (which was closed) and stood at the top of the steps, from where he could see the cellar door (from where 2x saws and 2x hammers had been stolen) was still securely padlocked. He then sat to trim a piece of leather from his boot with a "rusty little table knife without a handle" before standing, pocketing the knife, and leaving to walk along Hanbury Steet, allowing the yard door to close itself. The entire process was three minutes, maximum. This is in Beggs' book Jack the Ripper: The Facts pp 75-76.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Annie Chapman


text:
King Arthur's Round Table

King Arthur's Round Table is a Neolithic henge in the village of Eamont Bridge in the English county of Cumbria, around 2 km south east of Penrith. It is 400 metres from Mayburgh Henge. The site is free to visitors and is under the control of English Heritage.

Description
King Arthur's Round Table is a henge situated in a field next to the A6 road in the village of Eamont Bridge, south of Penrith, Cumbria. The northern part of the henge is now covered by the B5320 road and the Crown Hotel, while the A6 road has encroached on the eastern part. The larger Mayburgh Henge is just 400 metres to the west, and the fragments of the Little Round Table henge are 200 metres to the south. This indicates the presence of a henge complex and possible ritual landscape similar to those at Thornborough or Salisbury Plain.

The henge is around 90 metres in diameter. The enclosed area is about 50 metres across; the ditch has a maximum width of 16 metres; the berm 7 metres; and the bank 13 metres. There appears to have been two original entrances, but only the south-east entrance survives as the northwest entrance has been mostly destroyed by the modern road. Parts of the henge were landscaped in the late 18th to early 19th century, apparently with an intent to use the site as a tea garden. The site is in the care of English Heritage and open to the public.

Archaeology
Around 1664 William Dugdale sketched the remains, showing the two opposing entrances, and also showing that there were two standing stones, one either side of the northwest entrance. These stones had disappeared when William Stukeley saw the monument in 1725. In 1891, C. W. Dymond produced a comprehensive record of the remains.

Excavations were undertaken in 1937 by R. G. Collingwood and continued in 1939 by Gerhard Bersu. The excavations showed that the ditch had been cleared out and reshaped and the entrance through it made narrower in modern times. Collingwood claimed to have identified a number of structures, represented by postholes, and identified a "cremation trench" near the centre of the site. Bersu, however, contradicted most of Collingwood's findings, arguing that the posthole features were not of archaeological significance, and he found no evidence of cremation burning, although he accepted that there might be a disturbed grave. However Grace Simpson (1998), the daughter of the excavator F.G. Simpson, and Stephen Leach (2019) have queried Bersu's work and largely rehabilitated Collingwood as an excavator.

In 1988 a geophysical survey was conducted to examine the north segment and the southeast entrance, but the results were directly affected by the 18th–19th century landscaping.

Little Round Table
Little Round Table henge is 200 metres to the south of King Arthur's Round Table. It is mostly destroyed by buildings, tracks and roads. There is a barely discernible bank on the northern side 30 metres in length, up to 5 metres wide, but only 15 centimetres high. There are some fragmentary traces of a low earthen bank with some stone visible along the south side. These remains suggest that the site was originally about 90 metres in diameter. This corresponds to the sketch William Stukeley made in 1725 showing a roughly circular enclosure circa 90 metres in diameter with a bank with outer ditch.

title: King Arthur's Round Table


text:
Talk:Chu–Han Contention

Untitled
Note, although i have merged these two articles, they probably deserve to be two separate articles, when there's more in them. i only put them together because they were heading in the same direction. feel free to recreate Chu-Han War as a full article. tooto 12:22, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Need clarification
Under "End of the War":

'In the third month of 202 BC, Han Xin found himself besieged in the city of Gaixia, by the coalition force of Han and the other kings...'

I'm pretty sure it's Xiang Yu who's being besieged here? Dangerous Angel 09:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is Guanzhong?
Guanzhong currently redirects to Guangzhou, which is obviously not what is intended. Googling for "Guanzhong" returns no relevant results. It is my understanding that Qin was based in what is today Shaanxi? (It would be good if information about this was added to Qin (state) as well.) -- JanSöderback
 * Guanzhong = "within the passes", a corridor roughly between Xi'an and Luoyang--Confuzion 03:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, not quite -- Luoyang is clearly east of Hangu Pass, which is the eastern most point of Guanzhong. I'll try to fix the redirect situation.  --Nlu (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Please take a look and see what you guys think.  --Nlu (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Very precise definition; looks good to me--Confuzion 06:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. -- JanSöderback 07:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This article needs to make it clearer to the causal reader which calender the months are based on Fornadan (t) 16:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

improvements
A map of the various states and movement of the armies would be nice, as well as a quality polish. I mean statements like 'Therefore Xiang Yu disliked Tian Rong a lot.' are really painful.

Swords
Going by the Chinese swords article iron and steel swords were becoming common prior to the CHC: how familiar/available would they be to the military participants? Would 'leading generals', middle ranking officers, the ordinary soldiers have had iron/steel swords and/or daggers and under what circumstances? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chu–Han Contention


text:
Gamma Ray Spectrometer (2001 Mars Odyssey)

The Gamma Ray Spectrometer (GRS) is a gamma-ray spectrometer on the 2001 Mars Odyssey spacecraft, a space probe orbiting the planet Mars since 2001. Part of NASA's Mars Surveyor 2001 program, it returns geological data about Mars's surface such as identifying elements and the location of water. It is maintained by the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory at the University of Arizona in the United States. This instrument has mapped the distribution surface hydrogen, thought to trace water in the surface layer of Martian soil.

GRS specifications
The Gamma Ray Spectrometer weighs 30.5 kg and uses 32 watts of power. Along with its cooler, it measures 468 by. The detector is a photodiode made of a 1.2 kg germanium crystal, reverse biased to about 3 kilovolts, mounted at the end of a 6 m boom to minimize interferences from the gamma radiation produced by the spacecraft itself. Its spatial resolution is about 300 km.

The neutron spectrometer is 173 by.

The high-energy neutron detector measures 303 by. The instrument's central electronics box is 281 by.


text:
Talk:Ford Fiesta/to do

 * Photo of the 4th generation and XR2, XR2i/Si models.
 * Information about famous/limited editions.
 * External links -- but not linkspam or promotional owner's club-type sites
 * Information on its impact on the industry and history.
 * More information on XR2/XR2I/Si/ST and Fiesta in sports.
 * Fiesta culture.
 * The competition and criticism of the car.
 * Expand the Info Boxes for each generation
 * Verify number of distinct models: main text refers to the eighth generation being sole from autumn 2008 yet the picture of the latest model at the top is referred to as the sixth.

title: Talk:Ford Fiesta/to do


text:
Haggard (band)

Haggard is a German symphonic metal band founded in 1989. The group combines classical music and early music with death doom metal.

History
Haggard was founded in 1989 and originally played death metal. They changed their musical style after their first demo tape, Introduction in 1992, becoming a band with symphonic melodies and classical instruments but folk themes. The album And Thou Shalt Trust... the Seer marked their breakthrough in 1997. After their second album Awaking the Centuries (the life of the prophet Nostradamus), they toured through Mexico twice.

Just before their album Awaking the Centuries was released, the group had its highest number of musicians at 21. All their songs are written by vocalist and guitarist Asis Nasseri.

In 2004, they released their third album Eppur Si Muove about the life of Italian scholar Galileo Galilei, sentenced to house arrest for heresy by the Catholic Church for supporting Copernicus' claim that the Earth revolved around the Sun. In 2021 the album was elected by Metal Hammer as the 23rd best symphonic metal album.

The fourth album, Tales of Ithiria, was released in 2008 and is based on a fantasy story.

In 2010, the band had its first concert along with a symphonic orchestra. Haggard played together with the philharmonic orchestra of Plovdiv in the Bulgarian city of Plovdiv on 19 April 2010.

Although a new album with the title of Grimm was originally announced for the end of 2012, the album has since been postponed indefinitely.

Demos

 * Introduction (1992)
 * Progressive (1994)
 * Once... Upon a December's Dawn (1995)

Live

 * Awaking the Gods: Live in Mexico (2001)

DVDs and videos

 * In a Pale Moon's Shadow (1998)
 * Awaking the Gods: Live in Mexico (DVD/VHS) (2001)

Current members

 * Asis Nasseri – vocals, guitar (1991–present)
 * Giacomo Astorri – bass
 * Janika Groß – soprano
 * Frank Schumacher – tenor vocals
 * Claudio Quarta – guitar
 * Aline Deinert – violin
 * Ivica Kramheller – double bass
 * Lisa Hellmich – viola
 * Anne Eberlein – viola
 * Cosmin Nechita – violin
 * Johannes Schleiermacher – violoncello (cello)
 * Florinda Hoffmann – violoncello (cello)
 * Hans Wolf – piano, keyboards, organ, harpsichord
 * Ingrid Nietzer – piano, keyboards
 * Maurizio Guolo – drums, percussion (2012–present)
 * Stefana Sabau – oboe
 * Catalina Popa – flute
 * Veronika Kramheller - soprano
 * Michel Schumm - drums, percussion
 * Michel Stapf - violin

Past members

 * Florian Bartl – oboe, English horn
 * Judith Marschall – violin
 * Fiffi Fuhrmann – tenor vocals, bass
 * Dorothea Zelinsky – violin
 * Mark Pendry – clarinet
 * Sasema – vocals
 * Gaby Koss – soprano vocals
 * Robert von Greding – clarinet
 * Christoph von Zastrow – flute
 * Danny Klupp – guitar
 * Kathrin Pechlof – harp
 * Karin Bodemüller – vocals
 * Florian Schnellinger – percussion
 * Andi Nad – bass
 * Robin Fischer – bass
 * Andi Hemberger – vocals
 * Kathrin Hertz – cello
 * Andreas Peschke – flute
 * Manuela Kraller – soprano vocals
 * Susanne Ehlers – soprano vocals
 * Veronika Kramheller – soprano vocals
 * Jonathan Whynot – guitar
 * Michael Stapf – violin
 * Andreas Fuchs – horn – percussion
 * Linda Antonetti – oboe
 * Steffi Hertz – viola
 * Patrizia Krug – cello
 * Luz Marsen – drum
 * Michael Schumm – classical percussion – drum
 * Ally Storch-Hukriede – violin

In addition to the 16 band members, more than 10 guest artists and musicians were involved in the making of the album Eppur Si Muove.

title: Haggard (band)


text: File:Grs-head.jpg

title: File:Grs-head.jpg


text: User talk:64.212.141.156

title: User talk:64.212.141.156


text:
User:Pjacobi/Random

2004-08-07
On my first major random walked through en.wikipedia I looked at 250 pages using the Random page button. I counted several types of pages I decided beforehand (I learned about some other types, I'll have a look at next time). I excluded those with less than 5 matches from the results, due to the uncertainty associated with such small numbers.

I've found:

title: User:Pjacobi/Random


text:
Swiss Broadcasting Corporation

The Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft; Société suisse de radiodiffusion et télévision; Società svizzera di radiotelevisione; Societad Svizra da Radio e Televisiun; SRG SSR) is the Swiss public broadcasting association, founded in 1931, the holding company of 24 radio and television channels. Headquartered in Bern, the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation is a non-profit organisation, funded mainly through radio and television licence fees (79%) and making the remaining income from advertising and sponsorship.

Switzerland's system of direct democracy and the fact that the country has four official languages (German, French, Italian and Romansh) mean that the structure of Swiss public service broadcasting is rather complicated. The actual holders of the broadcasting licences that enable SRG SSR to operate are four regional corporations:
 * German Switzerland: Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen (SRF)
 * French Switzerland: Radio télévision suisse (RTS)
 * Italian Switzerland: Radiotelevisione svizzera di lingua italiana (RSI)
 * Romansh: Radiotelevisiun Svizra Rumantscha (RTR)

These four corporations maintain SRG SSR as a joint central production and broadcasting association. The fifth business unit of the SRG SSR is the ten-language news platform Swissinfo.

Name
The association's official name is Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft (SRG, formerly "Schweizerische Rundspruchgesellschaft") in German, Société suisse de radiodiffusion et télévision (SSR, formerly "Société suisse de radiodiffusion") in French, Società svizzera di radiotelevisione (SSR, formerly "Società svizzera di radiodiffusione") in Italian, and Societad svizra da radio e televisiun (SSR, formerly "Societad svizra da radio") in Romansh. The corporate name, SRG SSR, is derived from its initials in German and its initials in French, Italian and Romansh. In English, the organisation is known as the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation. The moniker, which refers to the public service mission of the organisation, was adopted in 1999 and was removed from the name in 2010.

History
Europe's third public radio station started broadcasting from Lausanne in 1922, from the start based on a licence fee system. 980 licences were bought in 1923. Within a few years radio cooperatives working along the same principles had started throughout the country. In 1930 it was decided that radio was an important public service that should not be allowed to become a money maker for private interests, and that it needed to be structured on a federal basis. In 1931 SRG SSR was founded (see original names above), as a co-ordination organisation for the regional broadcast associations, and received the only licence to broadcast from the Federal Council. The same year it was agreed that all news reports in the new medium had to be provided by the Swiss news agency SDA, a decision that remained unchanged until 1971.

The first national transmitters began operating in 1931: Radio Sottens for French, Radio Beromünster for German, and 1933 Radio Monte Ceneri for Italian. In 1938 Romansh was recognised as the country's fourth national language, and the Zürich studios began broadcasting programmes in Romansh in between those in German. During the Second World War, SRG SSR filled an important function as a neutral, unbiased supplier of news, reaching far outside Switzerland's borders through shortwave transmissions. Radio Beromünster and Radio Monte Ceneri became known as the only free German and Italian-language radio stations in Europe.

In 1950, SRG SSR was one of 23 founding broadcasting organisations of the European Broadcasting Union. In 1939 television test transmissions started in Zürich. In 1953 regular TV transmissions started in German (from Zürich) – one hour per evening, five days a week. A year later, in 1954, French transmissions were broadcast from Geneva. For the Italian-speaking region, the programmes were re-transmitted with Italian subtitles until dedicated Italian studios were built in 1961.

In 1960, the company was renamed Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft (and the equivalent names in the other languages - see above) to reflect the addition of television services. In 1965, the Federal Council allowed television advertising, as a means of keeping licence fees down. In 1966, the three main language communities were each given a second radio channel, in order to counter the effects of new commercial broadcasters outside the country, whose strong signals were reaching the Swiss population. In the same year, a dedicated Romansh broadcasting unit was created in Chur, using some of the new German-language second channel's broadcasting time. In 1968, colour television was introduced.

In 1978, the radio channels started stereo transmissions. In 1983, the Federal Council relaxed the Swiss media legislation to permit local private and commercial radio channels. SRG SSR countered this threat by launching its third set of channels, aimed at a younger audience. In 1991, SRG SSR underwent a wide-ranging restructuring. The enterprise organised itself as a private industry association, structured as a holding company under Swiss company law. The name, SRG SSR idée suisse, was introduced in 1999. In 1992, Radio Rumantsch was separated from the German-language radio broadcaster that had housed the Romansh broadcasting activities since 1938, and in 1995, the Romansh TV activities were moved over as well and the Romansh company renamed itself Radio e Televisiun Rumantscha.

In 1997, SRG SSR started digital broadcasts via the Hot Bird (13 degrees East) satellite. It is encrypted from satellite due to copyright restrictions. SRG SSR Sat Access information channel stopped broadcasting in 2005. Since 2016, all channels have been broadcasting via satellite only in HD quality. All radio and SRF info TV channels are free-to-air via satellite.

On 3 June 2019, SRG SSR terminated digital terrestrial (DVB-T) broadcasts of all of its television channels due to the extremely low usage of digital terrestrial signals on television sets in Switzerland, which was part of a series of cost-saving measures partly brought about as a result of the 2018 "No Billag" popular initiative. Since then, reception of SRG SSR television channels is only possible mainly through digital cable, Internet streaming, IPTV and DTH satellite.

Organisation
SRG SSR is headquartered in Bern. It is governed by an Executive Board, appointed by a central council consisting of representatives of the four organisations.

Broadcasting is handled by five business units:
 * Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen: handles German-speaking radio and television
 * Radio télévision suisse: handles French-speaking radio and television
 * Radiotelevisione svizzera di lingua italiana: handles Italian-speaking radio and television
 * Radio Television Rumantscha: handles Romansh-speaking radio and television
 * Swissinfo.ch: provides reporting on Swiss politics, business, science, culture and society for an international audience with an interest in Switzerland and handles the web portal swissinfo.ch

In addition, there are two subsidiary companies which produce for example the teletext pages.

HD suisse was the first high-definition television channel of the SRG SSR. Programming came from the four language networks of SRG SSR.

SRG SSR is free to watch all television channels on the internet. However, it cannot be watched outside Switzerland due to broadcasting rights on all television channels. All radio broadcasts are listened to outside Switzerland.

Swissinfo
The former abbreviation SRI originally stood only for "Swiss Radio International", which was SRG SSR's international broadcasting arm (1935–2004), aimed at expatriates and others interested in Switzerland. In October 2004, SRI ceased broadcasting on shortwave and satellite, and instead concentrated its efforts on its multimedia internet platform SWI swissinfo, which now takes most of the resources. The Swissinfo website is produced in English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Russian and Japanese.

Swiss Satellite Radio
Swiss Satellite Radio (SSatR) is a radio company owned by SRG SSR that includes three stations: Radio Swiss Pop (pop music); Radio Swiss Jazz (jazz, soul and blues) and Radio Swiss Classic (classical music) all without interruptions. These stations have been on air since 1 September 1998.

title: Swiss Broadcasting Corporation


text: User talk:67.125.227.145

title: User talk:67.125.227.145


text:
Phelix

Phelix is a high-speed stream cipher with a built-in single-pass message authentication code (MAC) functionality, submitted in 2004 to the eSTREAM contest by Doug Whiting, Bruce Schneier, Stefan Lucks, and Frédéric Muller. The cipher uses only the operations of addition modulo 232, exclusive or, and rotation by a fixed number of bits. Phelix uses a 256-bit key and a 128-bit nonce, claiming a design strength of 128 bits. Concerns have been raised over the ability to recover the secret key if the cipher is used incorrectly.

Performance
Phelix is optimised for 32-bit platforms. The authors state that it can achieve up to eight cycles per byte on modern x86-based processors.

FPGA Hardware performance figures published in the paper "Review of stream cipher candidates from a low resource hardware perspective" are as follows:

Helix
Phelix is a slightly modified form of an earlier cipher, Helix, published in 2003 by Niels Ferguson, Doug Whiting, Bruce Schneier, John Kelsey, Stefan Lucks, and Tadayoshi Kohno; Phelix adds 128 bits to the internal state.

In 2004, Frédéric Muller published two attacks on Helix. The first has a complexity of 288 and requires 212 adaptive chosen-plaintext words, but requires nonces to be reused. Souradyuti Paul and Bart Preneel later showed that the number of adaptive chosen-plaintext words of Muller's attack can be reduced by a factor of 3 in the worst case (a factor of 46.5 in the best case) using their optimal algorithms to solve differential equations of addition. In a later development, Souradyuti Paul and Bart Preneel showed that the above attack can also be implemented with chosen plaintexts (CP) rather than adaptive chosen plaintexts (ACP) with data complexity 235.64 CP's. Muller's second attack on Helix is a distinguishing attack that requires 2114 words of chosen plaintext.

Phelix's design was largely motivated by Muller's differential attack.

Security
Phelix was selected as a Phase 2 Focus Candidate for both Profile 1 and Profile 2 by the eSTREAM project. The authors of Phelix classify the cipher as an experimental design in its specifications. The authors advise that Phelix should not be used until it had received additional cryptanalysis. Phelix was not advanced to Phase 3, largely because of Wu and Preneel's key-recovery attack noted below that becomes possible when the prohibition against reusing a nonce is violated.

The first cryptanalytic paper on Phelix was a chosen-key distinguishing attack, published in October 2006. Doug Whiting has reviewed the attack and notes that while the paper is clever, the attack unfortunately relies on incorrect assumptions concerning the initialisation of the Phelix cipher. This paper was subsequently withdrawn by its authors.

A second cryptanalytic paper on Phelix titled "Differential Attacks against Phelix" was published on 26 November 2006 by Hongjun Wu and Bart Preneel. The paper is based on the same attacks assumption as the Differential Attack against Helix. The paper shows that if the cipher is used incorrectly (nonces reused), the key of Phelix can be recovered with about 237 operations, 234 chosen nonces and 238.2 chosen plaintext words. The computational complexity of the attack is much less than that of the attack against Helix.

The authors of the differential attack express concern that each plaintext word affects the keystream without passing through (what they consider to be) sufficient confusion and diffusion layers. They claim this is an intrinsic weakness in the structure of Helix and Phelix. The authors conclude that they consider Phelix to be insecure.

title: Phelix


text: Category:History of Scotland

title: Category:History of Scotland