text:
Bruno Nettl

Bruno Nettl (14 March 1930 – 15 January 2020) was an ethnomusicologist who was central in defining ethnomusicology as a discipline. His research focused on folk and traditional music, specifically Native American music, the music of Iran and numerous topics surrounding ethnomusicology as a discipline.

Life and career
Bruno Nettl was born in Prague, Czechoslovakia in 1930, and he was the son of Paul and Gertrude (Hutter) Nettl, who both had musical backgrounds. In 1939, Nettl and his family, which was of Jewish heritage, moved to the US to escape the Holocaust, which caused several deaths within his family. He studied at Indiana University with George Herzog and the University of Michigan and taught from 1964 at the University of Illinois, where he eventually was named Professor Emeritus of Music and Anthropology. Nettl met his wife, Wanda Maria White, while he was a student at Indiana University and the couple married in 1952. Bruno and Wanda had two children, Rebecca and Gloria. The Nettl’s were a connected family, as his daughters continued living in Champaign even in their adult lives, and Bruno was said to be a devoted father and husband who cherished every moment with his family. He continued to teach part-time until his death. Nettl introduced and expanded the ethnomusicology department at the University of Illinois, making it among the national leaders in ethnomusicology. Nettl was known to have pride in the accomplishments of his students, many of whom went on to teach at leading national universities. Active principally in the field of ethnomusicology, he did field research with Native American peoples (1960s and 1980s, see Blackfoot music), in Iran (1966, 1968–69, 1972, 1974), and in South India (1981–82). He served as president of the Society for Ethnomusicology and as editor of its journal, Ethnomusicology. Nettl held honorary doctorates from the University of Illinois, Carleton College, Kenyon College, and the University of Chicago. He was a recipient of the Fumio Koizumi Prize for ethnomusicology, and was a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Nettl was named the 2014 Charles Homer Haskins Prize Lecturer by the American Council of Learned Societies. In the course of his long career as a scholar and as a professor, he was the teacher of many of the most visible ethnomusicologists active today in the international scene, including Philip Bohlman, Christopher Waterman, Marcello Sorce Keller, and Victoria Lindsay Levine. The Sousa Archives and Center for American Music holds the Bruno Nettl Papers, 1966–1988, which consists of administrative and personal correspondence while Nettl was a professor and head of the Musicology Division for the University of Illinois School of Music.

The Study of Ethnomusicology
The Study of Ethnomusicology, initially published in 1983, provides comprehensive discourse of ethnomusicology and is widely considered some of Nettl’s best work. The book’s first edition included 29 chapters discussing the ins and outs of ethnomusicology, which Nettl expanded to 31 chapters in 2005, and 33 chapters in 2015. The work includes an array of riveting discussions surrounding ethnomusicology, including defining the practice, the topic of universals, fieldwork, and the effects of music on different cultures and demographics.

Nettl discusses fieldwork throughout his book, as seen in Chapter 10, “Come Back and See Me Next Tuesday: Essentials of Fieldwork,” and Chapter 11, “You Will Never Understand This Music: Insiders and Outsiders.” Chapter 10 provides an insight into Nettl’s fieldwork, as the chapter opens by detailing Nettl’s interactions with a Native American called Joe. Nettl had to do a series of favors for Joe before earning the right to interview him, demonstrating the importance of earning one’s trust while conducting fieldwork. Next, Nettl used this anecdote as a base to dive deeper into fieldwork, stating how every ethnomusicologist has a unique approach to fieldwork, fieldwork can be a private matter for some ethnomusicologists, and understanding cultural dynamics and building relationships plays a tremendous role in the success of one’s fieldwork. He also explained how three kinds of data should be gathered in fieldwork: texts, structures, and “the imponderabilia of everyday life." This chapter also extensively investigated the history of fieldwork in ethnomusicology. In this section, Nettl showed how fieldwork and research have become more unified, how ethnomusicologists became more willing to immerse themselves into a field, and how the increased accessibility of travel evolved fieldwork. The chapter concluded by detailing the best ways to identify an informant within the field and how to best extract information from him or her.

Meanwhile, Chapter 11 concentrates on a somewhat controversial ethnomusicological topic: insiders and outsiders. The chapter begins by explaining how natives to a culture tend not to appreciate foreign, especially Western, ethnomusicologists entering their domain and making claims about their music and cultures. Nettl also elaborated on how some ethnomusicologists struggle to ingratiate themselves into a field and how some view music systems as “untranslatable.” Nettl then articulated three common problems with outsider ethnomusicologists:

•	They are only focused on comparing foreign traditions to their own.

•	They want to use their own approaches to non-Western music.

•	They generalize categories of music too easily.

The chapter then transitioned to examining insiders. Nettl stated that colonialism could lead to confusion when determining who an insider is and debated whether insiders should help ethnomusicologists without compensation. The chapter concluded by outlining the best way to conduct fieldwork. Fieldwork is most effective when insiders and outsiders have mutual respect and understanding. It is also essential for outsiders to enter a field with an open mind and engage in their research as a “participant.”

Selected publications
Nettl was an extremely prolific scholar who authored numerous articles and book chapters found in an array of scholarly journals and edited volumes. Below is the list of books for which he is credited as author or editor.

 * (1956). Music in Primitive Culture. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-59000-7.
 * (1960). Cheremis Musical Styles. Indiana University Press
 * (1964). Theory and Method in Ethnomusicology. The Free Press of Glencoe.
 * (1965/1989). Folk and Traditional Music of the Western Continents. Prentice-Hall, Inc. ISBN 0-13-323247-6.
 * (1976). Folk Music In The U.S. An Introduction. WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
 * (1977). Daramad of Chahargah: a study in the performance practice of Persian music. Detroit : Information Coordinators.
 * (1978). Eight Urban Musical Cultures. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS PRESS.
 * (1989). Blackfoot Musical Thought: Comparative Perspectives. Ohio: The Kent State University Press. ISBN 0-87338-370-2.
 * (1983/2005). The Study of Ethnomusicology. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0-252-03033-8.
 * (1991). Comparative Musicology And Anthropology Of Music. (with Philip V. Bohlman) University of Chicago Press.
 * (1995). Heartland Excursions. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0-252-02135-5
 * (1995). Music, Culture, & Experience. UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS.
 * (1996). Excursions In World Music. PRENTICE HALL
 * (1996). Musica Folklorica Y Tradicional En Los Continentes ALIANZA
 * (1997). Africa in GARLAND PUBLISHING
 * (1998). South America, Mexico, Central America And The Car
 * (1998). In The Course Of Performance. UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
 * (1999). Europe in GARLAND ENCYCLOPEDIA OF WORLD MUSIC, V. 8
 * (2005). Study Of Ethnomusicology UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS PRESS
 * (2010). Nettl's Elephant UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS PRESS
 * (2013). Becoming an Ethnomusicologist: A Miscellany of Influences. The Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0-8108-8697-9.

title: Bruno Nettl


text:
Academic honor code

An academic honor code or honor system in the United States is a set of rules or ethical principles governing an academic community based on ideals that define what constitutes honorable behaviour within that community. The use of an honor code depends on the notion that people (at least within the community) can be trusted to act honorably. Those who are in violation of the honor code can be subject to various sanctions, including expulsion from the institution. or in other words, honor code is like a pledge taken by students to the effect that they will uphold academic integrity and ethical behavior and will not engage in any kind of cheating, stealing, and misrepresentation. One of the first such codes was created at the College of William & Mary in the early 18th Century.

US military service academies
Presently, some of the most notable and most stringent honor codes exist at the Federal Service Academies and Senior Military Colleges.

The military academy honor codes not only govern the cadets and midshipmen's lives at the academies but also are deemed essential to the development of military officers who are worthy of the public trust. As such, the codes are not limited merely to academic situations or to conduct on campus; cadets and midshipmen are expected to live by the codes' ethical standards at all times. The codes are as old as the academies themselves and simply state that cadets and midshipmen do not lie, cheat or steal, nor tolerate those who do. A single-sanction Honor Code, in which any offense results in expulsion regardless of severity, exists at Virginia Military Institute, which features a "drum out" ceremony which is still carried out upon a cadet's dismissal. Outside of the military, Washington and Lee University has a single sanction code.

At three of the service academies and at Virginia Military Institute, anyone who learns of an honor code violation is required to report it. Failure to do so is considered "toleration," which itself violates the code. That also holds true at schools with combined cadet and traditional student programs, such as Norwich University, Texas A&M, and The Citadel, whose honor codes specifically provide that all students, both cadets and civilians, do not "tolerate those who do." It is notable that the three Senior Military Colleges have two honor codes, one for cadets and one for civilians, whether on-campus or through distance online programs, etc. The Honor Concept of the Brigade of Midshipmen at the United States Naval Academy allows the observer of an honor violation to confront the accused without formally reporting. It was found that it was more constructive at developing the honor of midshipmen. A non-toleration clause, on the other hand, is believed to make enemies of classmates. Additionally, it is thought that one's true honor, if other than utmost, was not able to be formally remediated when hidden from public view. Under the academies' honor codes, violators can face severe punishment, up to being forwarded for expulsion by the Secretary of the Army, Navy, or Air Force.

Stringent honor codes, however, are not limited to military institutions. The all-male Hampden–Sydney College is reputed for an honor code system on a par with military systems, which extends to all student activities both on and off campus (off-campus violations can be prosecuted), and also like the military system, it considers tolerance of a violation itself a violation. Like the Naval Academy, however, those who witness a violation are encouraged to confront the violator and convince them to turn themselves in before resorting to reporting the violation. Another school with a very strict honor code is Brigham Young University. The university not only mandates honest behavior but also incorporates various aspects of Mormon religious law: drinking, smoking, drug use, premarital sex and same-sex relationships are all banned. Also, the code includes standards for dress and grooming. Men must be clean-shaven, and men and women cannot wear short shorts or other revealing clothing.

American academic honor systems
Many military academies have strict Honor systems, such as the following:
 * U.S. Air Force Academy
 * U.S. Coast Guard Academy
 * U.S. Merchant Marine Academy
 * U.S. Military Academy
 * U.S. Naval Academy

In addition, the following colleges with a Corps of Cadets maintain an honor code for both the cadets and civilian students:
 * Norwich University
 * Texas A&M University
 * Virginia Military Institute
 * Virginia Tech
 * The Citadel

There are also traditional liberal arts and technical universities that maintain Honor systems:
 * Amherst College, (Massachusetts)
 * Birmingham-Southern College, (Alabama)
 * Brigham Young University, (Utah)
 * Bryn Mawr College, (Pennsylvania)
 * California Institute of Technology, (California)
 * Centenary College of Louisiana, (Louisiana)
 * College of Idaho, (Idaho)
 * College of William & Mary, (Virginia)
 * Colorado College, (Colorado)
 * Connecticut College, (Connecticut)
 * Dartmouth College, (New Hampshire)
 * Davidson College, (North Carolina)
 * Duke University, (North Carolina)
 * Olin College, (Massachusetts)
 * Georgia Institute of Technology, (Georgia)
 * Gettysburg College, (Pennsylvania)
 * Gustavus Adolphus College, (Minnesota)
 * Hamilton College, (New York)
 * Hampden–Sydney College, (Virginia)
 * Harvard University, (Massachusetts)
 * Harvey Mudd College, (California)
 * Haverford College, (Pennsylvania)
 * Hollins University, (Virginia)
 * Johns Hopkins University, (Maryland)
 * Kansas State University, (Kansas)
 * Knox College, (Illinois)
 * Lawrence University, (Wisconsin)
 * Lyon College, (Arkansas)
 * Meredith College (North Carolina)
 * Middlebury College (Vermont)
 * Mount Holyoke College (Massachusetts)
 * Notre Dame of Maryland University, (Maryland)
 * Oberlin College, (Ohio)
 * Oglethorpe University, (Georgia)
 * Pohang University of Science and Technology, (Daegu-Gyeongbuk, Republic of Korea)
 * Princeton University, (New Jersey)
 * Reed College, (Oregon)
 * Rhodes College, (Tennessee)
 * Rice University, (Texas)
 * Smith College,(Massachusetts)
 * Southwestern University, (Texas)
 * Stanford University, (California)
 * Stevens Institute of Technology, (New Jersey)
 * Texas A&M University, (Texas)
 * University of Mary Washington, (Virginia)
 * University of Maryland, College Park, (Maryland)
 * University of Michigan, (Michigan)
 * University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, (North Carolina)
 * University of the South, (Tennessee)
 * University of Virginia, (Virginia)
 * Valparaiso University, (Indiana)
 * Vanderbilt University, (Tennessee)
 * Virginia Commonwealth University, (Virginia)
 * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, (Virginia)
 * Washington and Lee University, (Virginia)
 * Wake Forest University, (North Carolina)
 * Webb Institute, (New York)
 * Wellesley College, (Massachusetts)
 * Wheaton College, (Massachusetts)
 * William Peace University (North Carolina)
 * Williams College, (Massachusetts)
 * Wilson College (Pennsylvania)

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

title: Academic honor code


text:
Ain't Had Enough Fun

Ain't Had Enough Fun is the 11th studio album by the American rock band Little Feat, released in 1995 (see 1995 in music). It was their first with female vocalist Shaun Murphy, and was dedicated to the memory of their cover artist Neon Park who died in 1993.

Track listing

 * 1) "Drivin' Blind" (Bill Payne, Wray) – 5:12
 * 2) "Blue Jean Blues" (Barrère, Payne, Fred Tackett, Wray) – 6:06
 * 3) "Cadillac Hotel" (Payne, Wray) – 5:35
 * 4) "Romance Without Finance" (Clayton, Kibbee, Payne) – 4:05
 * 5) "Big Bang Theory" (Barrère, Murphy, Payne, Tackett, Wray) – 5:32
 * 6) "Cajun Rage" (Barrère, Kibbee, Wray) – 5:30
 * 7) "Heaven's Where You Find It" (Barrère, Murphy, Payne, Tackett) – 5:03
 * 8) "Borderline Blues" (Barrère, Murphy, Payne, Tackett, Wray) – 7:43
 * 9) "All That You Can Stand" (Barrère, Payne, Wray) – 6:35
 * 10) "Rock & Roll Everynight" (Barrère, Murphy, Payne, Tackett, Wray) – 5:06
 * 11) "Shakeytown" (Barrère, Kibbee) – 5:12
 * 12) "Ain't Had Enough Fun" (Barrère, Murphy, Payne, Strand, Tackett) – 3:27
 * 13) "That's a Pretty Good Love" (Lucas, Mendelsohn) – 4:50

Band members

 * Paul Barrère – guitar, dobro, vocals
 * Sam Clayton – percussion, vocals
 * Kenny Gradney – bass
 * Richie Hayward – drums, vocals
 * Shaun Murphy – vocals, percussion (first album as group member)
 * Bill Payne – keyboards, vocals
 * Fred Tackett – guitar, mandolin

Texicali Horns
These guys play on tracks 2, 3, 10, & 13
 * Darrell Leonard – trumpet
 * Joe Sublett – tenor saxophone
 * David Woodford – tenor and baritone saxophone

Additional personnel

 * Piero Mariani – electronic percussion (tracks 1,2,6-9)
 * Van Dyke Parks – accordion (track 12)

title: Ain't Had Enough Fun


text:
Wikipedia:Entertainment Collaboration of the week/current banner

 This is the current Entertainment Collaboration of the week!  Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia article.


text:
Wikipedia:Entertainment Collaboration of the week/Candidate

 * This is a candidate for Entertainment Collaboration of the week. Please visit that page to support or comment on the nomination.


text:
Wikipedia:Entertainment Collaboration of the week

Please note this is now the Entertainment COTW not the Television Show COTW.

Each week an Entertainment Collaboration of the week will be picked using this page. This is a specific Entertainment related topic which initially either has no article, has only a basic stub-like page, or is in need of more information. The aim of this project is to improve the quality of Wikipedia's entertainment articles through widespread cooperative editing.

The project is also used to fill gaps in Wikipedia, to give users a focus, and to give us all something to be proud of. Any registered user can nominate an article and can vote for any number of the nominated articles. Every Sunday, the votes are tallied, and the winner will be promoted for a week to potential contributors.

Previous winners that have gone on to become featured articles can be found at /Features. Previous winners can be found at /History. Removed nominations can be found at /Removed.

Selecting the next Entertainment Collaboration of the week
The next winner will be selected on Sunday, October 31, 18:00 (UTC).

Voting
Please vote for as many of the following candidates as you like. Please add only support votes. Opposing votes will not affect the result, as the winner is simply the one with the most support votes (see Approval voting).

Remember: Any registered user is encouraged to vote.

To enter your votes, simply edit the appropriate sections by just inserting a new line with "# ~". This will add your username and a time stamp in a new numbered list item.

Tie-breakers
In case of a tie, voting will be extended for 24 hours. If there is still a tie, the candidate that was nominated first wins.

Nominations
New nominations can be made at any time and should be added at the end of this page. Please use the provided template.

If the page you are nominating already exists, please add to the top of its talk page. This expands to:

If the article is selected as the Entertainment Collaboration of the week, please add to the top of the article page. This expands to:

Considerations for nominations

 * Giving reasons as to why an article should become the ECOTW may assist others in casting their vote.
 * Can the community easily contribute to the article? Or is it something only a small number of people will know about?

Pruning
Nominations will be moved to /Removed if they have not received 5 votes after 7 days on the list, 10 votes after 14 days, 15 votes after 21 days, and so on.

Party of Five

 * Nominated October 20; needs 5 votes by October 27 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support:
 * 1) Cordell Walker 00:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Silverfish 20:49, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Ambi 10:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) NeoJustin 04:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) PedanticallySpeaking 18:19, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This article should have been the ECOTW last week, so I'm nominating it this week even though I couldn't care less about the show.
 * It'd be nice to get this off the ground - it looks like this COTW project has stalled. How about putting it up in a couple of weeks? I finish school in six days, and I'm ready to put in the work on this if it's made ECOTW then. Ambi 06:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * That's probably fair. I wish more people had worked on MacGyver, but its been up for quite a while. We can take Party of Five starting on Sunday.  Anyone want to nominate any other items? Remember, we expanded to "Entertainment", which theoretically should expand the appeal.  If we can get a few nominations out, I think we can ask for more participants. -- Netoholic @ 06:52, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Born Innocent

 * Nominated October 20; needs 5 votes by October 27 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support:
 * 1) Mike H 02:08, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
 * VERY controversial television movie...probably as notable to American television history as Cathy Come Home is to Britain. Among other things, the television movie, starring a 14-year-old Linda Blair, showed the first all-female rape scene on American television. Quite groundbreaking for its time (1974).

Byker Grove

 * Nominated October 22; needs 5 votes by October 29 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support: Comments:
 * 1) [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:43, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Silverfish 20:50, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) A.K.A.47 21:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * A popular show, which should be updated with recent events. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:43, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've just about forgiven them for Ant and Dec, so OK. A.K.A.47 21:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shaft (1971 movie)

 * Nominated [November 13]; needs 5 votes by [November 20] (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support:
 * 1) PlasmaDragon 13:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Joelkirk 10:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * An academy award winner and a member of the National Film Registry deserves more than a stub.


text:
2004–2008 volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens

The 2004–2008 volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens in Washington, United States has been documented as a continuous eruption in the form of gradual extrusion of magma. Starting in October 2004 and ceasing in January 2008, a new lava dome was built up. The new dome did not rise above the rim of the crater created by the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens.

2004 activity
On September 23, 2004, around 2:00 a.m. PDT, Mount St. Helens experienced an earthquake swarm, with about 200 small (less than magnitude 1) earthquakes occurring less than one-half mile (one kilometer) below the 1980s lava dome. Activity increased, and on September 26, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network issued a "notice of volcanic unrest", stating that a "hazardous event" was possible, and the U.S. Forest Service closed the mountain to all climbing. They also closed some trails in the area, due to the risk of debris flows from the possible melting of the Crater Glacier in the volcanic crater.

Seismic activity continued to accelerate following the USGS advisory, with earthquakes approaching magnitude 2.5 occurring at a rate of about four per minute on September 29, prompting the USGS and Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network to issue a second advisory, increasing the "alert level" to the second of three levels, and warn of an increased likelihood of a steam explosion or eruption from the lava dome within the next few days. Such an event was expected to be relatively small and not pose a threat to regions beyond the immediate area of the mountain. However, the intensities and occurrences of the earthquakes continued to rise. The largest earthquake recorded was a magnitude 3.3.

At 12:02p.m. PDT on October 1, 2004, the mountain erupted a plume of steam and volcanic ash about 9,700 feet (about 3 kilometers) into the air (according to pilot reports), from a vent in the then-unnamed Crater Glacier just southwest of the lava dome. The resulting ash plume was reported to have drifted south to Vancouver, Washington, Northern California and Wood Village, Oregon, dusting cars with a fine layer of black, sooty ash.

Mount St. Helens vented another plume of steam the next day at 12:14p.m. PDT, which was stronger than the previous steam release. A low-frequency harmonic tremor followed the steam release, which led seismologists to raise the "alert level" to the third of three levels, indicating a potential threat to life and property. Accordingly, the Johnston Ridge Observatory overlooking Mount St. Helens was evacuated; television media established their bases at Castle Lake Viewpoint about 9 mi away, while tourists moved to various locations for several miles along State Route 504.

On October 3, low-frequency harmonic tremor activity began at around 3:00a.m. PDT and lasted for up to 90 minutes, which may have indicated the movement of magma beneath the mountain. The tremors were followed by a steam release at around 10:40a.m.

Mount St. Helens' eruptive activity continued over the following days, with steam releases occurring on October 4 at 9:47 a.m., 2:12p.m., and at 5:40p.m.; then again on the morning of October 5 at around 9:03a.m., with an ash plume that dusted Randle, Morton, and Packwood, Washington, towns on or near U.S. Route 12 about 30 mi from the volcano. Between steam releases, elevated seismic activity on the mountain continued with the strongest tremors remaining near magnitude 3.0.

On October 6, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that the alert level was being lowered, saying "We no longer think that an eruption is imminent in the sense of minutes or hours."

Magma reached the surface of the volcano around October 11, resulting in the building of a new lava dome on the existing dome's south side. Dome building continued, with the USGS reporting in early November 2004 that magma was being extruded at a rate of 7 to 10 cubic meters per second. Had magma continued to extrude at this rate uninterrupted, the crater would have been completely filled and Mount St. Helens would have regained its former height in about eleven years. The Mount St. Helens VolcanoCam located at Johnston Ridge was able to view the new dome especially at night when the glow of new magma was visible via the camera's infrared capabilities.

Included in the new dome was a feature dubbed the "Whaleback" (named such because of its close resemblance to the back of a whale), which was a lava spine, a long shaft of solidified magma being extruded by pressure of magma underneath it. This feature was very hot but fragile. The edges of it began crumbling rapidly, forming loose material around the new dome. The rate of crumbling soon matched the rate of growth, with the size of the whaleback remaining fairly constant.

2005 activity
On February 1, 2005, the new lava dome on Mount Saint Helens measured 7,642 ft in elevation. This brought its elevation to 1,363 ft above the 1980 crater floor, approximately 2,000 ft above the surface of the Crater Glacier, and 721 ft below the highest point of the volcano. The whaleback feature measured approximately 1,550 ft in length and 500 ft in width. The diameter of the new dome was about 1,700 ft, and it contained about 50 million cubic yards (40 million cubic meters) of material. The total amount of glacier lost by this date was estimated to be 5–10%, but the flow of water from the crater was almost unchanged because the porous nature of the floor of the crater caused the water to be absorbed quickly.

Mount St. Helens experienced major activity again on March 8, 2005, at about 5:30p.m. PST, when a 36,000 ft plume of steam and presumably ash was witnessed emerging from the volcano, accompanied by a tremor that measured about magnitude 2.5. The plume was visible from the metropolitan areas of Seattle, Washington, to Salem, Oregon, but only lasted for about 20–30 minutes. Ash was reported falling from the sky in Yakima, Washington, and surrounding areas. This activity was not considered a large eruption but merely a minor release of pressure consistent with the nature of dome building. Scientists believed it was triggered by a partial collapse of the lava dome. There was no increase in quake activity before the volcanic event.

By May 5, 2005, the highest point on the new dome was 7,675 ft, 688 ft below the highest point of the volcano. It contained approximately 58 e6yd3 of material. Growth of the new dome continued steadily, and small earthquakes continued to be observed every few minutes. The whaleback feature disintegrated steadily but continued to be extruded as solidified lava pushed upward from below.

On July 2, 2005, the tip of the whaleback feature broke off, causing a rockfall that sent ash and dust several hundred meters into the air.

2006 activity
Following the collapse of the dome and whaleback, a new feature, termed the "slab", began growing. Approximately the size of a football field, the large, cooled volcanic rock was being forced upward as quickly as 6 ft per day, though the top part of the slab would usually collapse on a daily basis, under its own weight.

On July 21, 2006, the crater rim was reopened to hikers.

On December 19, 2006, an eruption sent a steam plume billowing over Washington.

2008 activity
After a relatively quiet 2007, on January 16, 2008, USGS geologist John S. Pallister spotted steam seeping from the lava dome in Mount St. Helens' crater. At approximately the same time, the Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network recorded a magnitude 2.9 earthquake, followed by a small tremor that lasted for nearly ninety minutes, and a magnitude 2.7 earthquake. But by the end of January, the lava dome growth had stopped. On July 10, 2008, it was determined that the eruption that began in 2004 had ended, after 5 months of inactivity.


text: Category:Companies of Bosnia and Herzegovina


text:
Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/October 6

Matthew Shepard in selected anniversaries
Copied from the village pump:

Re: Template:October 6 selected anniversaries, today is the anniversary of the attack on Matthew Shepard. I'm worried that our write-up is needlessly wordy and sensational. It reads "1998 - Gay-bashing & Hate crimes: University of Wyoming student Matthew Shepard was viciously and fatally attacked for being gay." I think there is one too many adverbs and one too many categories. We should remove either "gay-bashing" or "hate crimes," and also remove the sensational word "viciously." Rhobite 02:54, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Since it only gets a day of coverage and I'm going to bed, I'm going to go ahead and make these edits. This is just a style nitpick, please nobody accuse me of homophobia until I've had my morning coffee. Rhobite 04:52, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * I like the simplicity and the readability. Thanks. :-) -- PFHLai 05:26, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

Fast of Gedalia
While other Jewish holidays have been mentioned in selected anniversaries, the Fast of Gedalia which this year (2005) falls today has not. It is minor so it need not be listed, but I thought I'd suggest it because its minor nature makes it even more curious. --jnothman talk 02:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. This holy day is listed on Holidays and events in Israel, so it's not that minor. And we actually have an informative page in Wikipedia about this. I'll post it up. -- PFHLai 05:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

2012 notes
— howcheng  {chat} 05:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved to Ineliglble: 51 Pegasi b (maintenance)
 * Omitted: Battle of Tigranocerta; German American; Cubana Flight 455; Anwar Sadat (ineligible—maintenance); Death of Keith Blakelock
 * Included: Battle of Forts Clinton and Montgomery (first appearance); Eleftherios Venizelos (first appearance); The Jazz Singer (6th appearance, last in 2010); Carlos Álvarez (politician) (first appearance); Maritime Jewel (first appearance)

2013 notes
— howcheng  {chat} 00:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Omitted: Battle of Forts Clinton and Montgomery; Eleftherios Venizelos; The Jazz Singer; Carlos Álvarez (politician); Maritime Jewel
 * Included: Aelia Eudoxia (first appearance); German American (2nd appearance, last in 2011); Bosnian crisis (first appearance); Yom Kippur War (9th appearance, last in 2010; 40th anniversary); Matthew Shepard (5th appearance, last in 2010)

Matthew Shepard
While the attack was, in the end, the source of his death, the term "murder" implies that he died today. He was attacked, and died on the 12th. This wording leads the reader to believe that his attack and death occurred at the same time. While we should avoid too morbid of a description, perhaps it could be edited to read along the lines of "was attacked, leading to his death days later" or restoring "fatal attack"

Antiwesley (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. — howcheng  {chat} 04:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

2014 notes

 * Deleted: Aelia Eudoxia (moved to March 27)
 * Omitted: German American (ineligible—maintenance); Yom Kippur War; Matthew Shepard
 * Included: Samuel of Bulgaria (first appearance; death anniversary); Battle of Tigranocerta (2nd appearance, last in 2011); Battle of Forts Clinton and Montgomery (2nd appearance, last in 2012); The Jazz Singer (7th anniversary, last in 2012); Thammasat University massacre (first appearance; rescued from Ineligible)
 * Repeats: Bosnian crisis (2nd consecutive appearance, 2 total)

2015 notes
— howcheng  {chat} 08:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Rescued from Ineligible (unused): Anwar Sadat
 * Omitted: Battle of Tigranocerta; Bosnian crisis; Thammasat University massacre
 * Included: Eleftherios Venizelos (2nd appearance, last in 2012); Death of Keith Blakelock (2nd appearance, last in 2011; 30th anniversary); Carlos Álvarez (politician) (2nd appearance, last in 2012)
 * Repeats: Battle of Forts Clinton and Montgomery (2nd consecutive appearance, 3 total); The Jazz Singer (2nd consecutive appearance, 8 total)

2016 notes
— howcheng  {chat} 07:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * New articles (ineligible): Francis Burton Harrison (maintenance)
 * Omitted: Battle of Forts Clinton and Montgomery; The Jazz Singer; Death of Keith Blakelock; Carlos Álvarez (politician)
 * Included: Battle of Yanshi (first appearance); Battle of Manila (1762) (first appearance); Cubana de Aviación Flight 455 (2nd appearance, last in 2011; 40th anniversary); Maritime Jewel (2nd appearance, last in 2012)
 * Repeats: Eleftherios Venizelos (2nd consecutive appearance, 3 total)

dab link
Replace with and with
 * 1849 – In Arad, Romania, present-day Romania, 13 Hungarian rebel honvéd generals...
 * 1849 – In Arad, Romania, present-day Romania, 13 Hungarian rebel honvéd generals...
 * 618 – Wang Shichong's army defeated that of Li Mi, allowing Wang to consolidate his power and soon depose China's Sui dynasty.
 * 618 – Wang Shichong's army defeated that of Li Mi, allowing Wang to consolidate his power and soon depose China's Sui dynasty.

Thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * @Headbomb I believe you intended for this to be a fully-protected edit request, not a conflict of interest edit request. The queue for the former process is monitored much more actively than the latter. Altamel (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Seems like the Li Mi bit was done per WP:ERRORS, I've done the other one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

2017 notes
— howcheng  {chat} 06:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Moved to Ineligible: Bosnian crisis (maintenance); The Jazz Singer (maintenance); Thammasat University massacre (maintenance); Cubana de Aviación Flight 455 (maintenance); Anwar Sadat (maintenance)
 * New articles (unused): Goh Keng Swee
 * Omitted: Battle of Yanshi; Battle of Manila (1762); Eleftherios Venizelos; Cubana de Aviación Flight 455; Maritime Jewel
 * Included: Battle of Tigranocerta (3rd appearance, last in 2014); Battle of Forts Clinton and Montgomery (4th appearance, last in 2015); Operation Badr (1973) (first appearance; blurb previously featured Yom Kippur War, which is currently ineligible, and is making its 10th appearance, last in 2013); Death of Keith Blakelock (3rd appearance, last in 2015); Carlos Álvarez (politician) (3rd appearance, last in 2015); Matteo Ricci (first appearance); Guru Har Rai (first appearance); Hattie Jacques (first appearance)

2018 notes
— howcheng  {chat} 01:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Omitted: Battle of Tigranocerta; Battle of Forts Clinton and Montgomery; Operation Badr (1973); Death of Keith Blakelock; Carlos Álvarez (politician); Matteo Ricci; Guru Har Rai; Hattie Jacques
 * Included: Battle of Yanshi (2nd appearance, last in 2016; 1400th anniversary); Battle of Manila (1762) (2nd appearance, last in 2016); Events of 6 October/Catalan State (1934) (both: first appearance); Matthew Shepard (6th appearance, last in 2013; 20th anniversary); Instagram (first appearance); Sarah Crosby (first appearance); Goh Keng Swee (first appearance); Babasaheb Bhosale (first appearance)

2019 notes
— howcheng  {chat} 16:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * New articles (unused): Nicetas the Patrician
 * Omitted: Battle of Yanshi; Events of 6 October/Catalan State (1934); Matthew Shepard; Instagram (ineligible—maintenance); Sarah Crosby; Goh Keng Swee; Babasaheb Bhosale
 * Included: Battle of Tigranocerta (4th appearance, last in 2017); Bosnian Crisis (3rd appearance, last in 2014; rescued from Ineligible); The Jazz Singer (9th appearance, last in 2015; rescued from Ineligible); Maritime Jewel (3rd appearance, last in 2016); Wenceslaus III of Bohemia (first appearance); Karol Szymanowski (first appearance); Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) (2nd appearance, last in 2018; also appeared on December 20, his birthday)
 * Repeats: Battle of Manila (1762) (2nd consecutive appearance, 3 total)

2020 request
- it's the 200th anniversary of the birth of Jenny Lind OTD. Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * She normally appears on May 19, but we can temporarily move her for this year. — howcheng  {chat} 06:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops, forgot about this. — howcheng  {chat} 03:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind, stuff happens. Mjroots (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 notes
— howcheng  {chat} 03:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Rescued from Ineligible (unused): Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations (blurb previously featured Cubana de Aviación Flight 455, which remains ineligible)
 * Omitted: Battle of Manila (1762); Bosnian Crisis; The Jazz Singer; Maritime Jewel; Wenceslaus III of Bohemia; Karol Szymanowski; Bill O'Reilly (cricketer)
 * Included: Battle of Forts Clinton and Montgomery (5th appearance, last in 2017); Events of 6 October/Catalan State (1934) (both: 2nd appearance, last in 2018); Carlos Álvarez (Argentine politician) (4th appearance, last in 2017; 20th anniversary); Instagram (2nd appearance, last in 2018; 10th anniversary); Nicetas the Patrician (first appearance); Meghnad Saha (first appearance); Hattie Jacques (2nd appearance, last in 2017; 40th anniversary)
 * Repeats: Battle of Tigranocerta (2nd consecutive appearance, 5 total)

2021 notes
— howcheng  {chat} 01:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Deleted: 1973 Thai popular uprising (wrong date)
 * Omitted: Battle of Tigranocerta; Battle of Forts Clinton and Montgomery; Events of 6 October/Catalan State (1934); Carlos Álvarez (Argentine politician); Instagram; Nicetas the Patrician; Meghnad Saha; Hattie Jacques
 * Included: Battle of Yanshi (3rd appearance, last in 2018); Battle of Manila (1762) (4th appearance, last in 2019); The Jazz Singer (10th appearance, last in 2019); Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations (first appearance); Death of Keith Blakelock (4th appearance, last in 2017); Samuel of Bulgaria (2nd appearance, last in 2014); Francesco Manfredini (first appearance); Sadiq al-Ahmar (first appearance)

2022 notes
 Heart  (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Moved to Ineligible: Battle of Tigranocerta (maintenance); Karol Szymanowski (maintenance); Goh Keng Swee (maintenance)
 * Omitted: Battle of Manila (1762); The Jazz Singer; Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations; Death of Keith Blakelock; Samuel of Bulgaria; Francesco Manfredini; Sadiq al-Ahmar
 * Included:
 * Repeats: Battle of Yanshi (2nd consecutive appearance, 4 total); Battle of Forts Clinton and Montgomery (6th appearance, last in 2020); Bosnian Crisis (4th appearance, last in 2019); Operation Badr (1973) (2nd appearance, last in 2017); Castro Sweep (first appearance); Wenceslaus III of Bohemia (2nd appearance, last in 2019); Meghnad Saha (2nd appearance, last in 2020); Hattie Jacques (3rd appearance, last in 2020)


text:
File:Little Feat - Live From Neon Park.jpg

Summary
Little Feat - Live From Neon Park album cover


text:
Robert Gray (poet)

Robert William Geoffrey Gray (born 23 February 1945) is an Australian poet, freelance writer, and critic. He has been described as "an Imagist without a rival in the English-speaking world" and "one of the contemporary masters of poetry in English".

Biography
Gray was born in Port Macquarie, grew up in Coffs Harbour and was educated in a country town on the north coast of New South Wales. He trained there as a journalist, and since then has worked in Sydney after settling in the 1970s as an editor, advertising copywriter, reviewer and buyer for bookshops. His first book of poems, Creekwater Journal, was published in 1973.

As a poet Gray is most notable for his keen visual imagery and intensely observed landscapes, known as a very skilful imagist. Les Murray has said about Gray, "[he] has an eye, and the verbal felicity which must accompany such an eye. He can use an epithet and image to perfection and catch a whole world of sensory understanding in a word or a phrase." His wide reading in and experience of East Asian cultures and their varieties of Zen Buddhism is clear in many of the themes and forms he chooses to work in, including, for example haiku-style free verse works, nature style poetry, as well as discursive and narrative style poems, such as "Diptych," (1984). Gray's essentially Australian response to nature is reinforced by what he sees as a commonsensical Eastern view of man as within nature rather than an agent removable from, and capable of controlling nature. Martin Langford has written that Gray's poetry captures the Australian ambivalence towards their own landscapes. "No-one captures better that dual sense of our fascination with the physical world, and our dismay at its indifference." Gray has been a writer-in-residence at Meiji University in Tokyo and at several schools and universities throughout Australia including Geelong College in 1982. From February–March 2012, Gray lectured at Campion College in New South Wales.

He has won numerous awards including the Adelaide Arts Festival award and the New South Wales and Victorian Premiers' awards for poetry. In 1990 he received the Patrick White Award.

With Geoffrey Lehmann, he edited two anthologies, The Younger Australian Poets and Australian Poetry in the Twentieth Century, and he is the editor of Selected Poems by Shaw Neilson, and Drawn from Life, the journals of the painter John Olsen. 2008 saw the much anticipated publication of his memoir, The Land I Came Through Last.

In 2012 his collected poems was published under the title Cumulus. As with each of his poetic publications, it includes all that Gray wishes to preserve of his earlier poetry and many newer poems.

Awards

 * 1986 – New South Wales Premier's Literary Awards Kenneth Slessor Prize for Poetry for Selected Poems 1963–83
 * 1986 – The Adelaide Festival of the Arts Award for Poetry for Selected Poems 1963–83
 * 1986 – The Grace Leven Prize for Poetry
 * 1990 – Patrick White Award
 * 1994 – Victorian Premier's Literary Award – C. J. Dennis Prize for Poetry for Certain Things
 * 2002 – The Age Book of the Year Dinny O'Hearn Poetry Prize for Afterimages
 * 2002 – Victorian Premier's Literary Award – C. J. Dennis Prize for Poetry for Afterimages
 * 2011 – Australia Council Writers' Emeritus
 * 2012 – Philip Hodgins Memorial Prize

Memoir

 * The Land I Came Through Last (Giramond, 2008)

Collections

 * Cumulus: Collected Poems (John Leonard Press, 2012)
 * Nameless Earth (Carcanet, 2006)
 * Afterimages (Duffy & Snellgrove, 2002)
 * New Selected Poems (Duffy & Snellgrove, 1998)
 * Lineations (Duffy & Snellgrove, 1996)
 * Certain Things (William Heinemann Australia, 1993)
 * Selected Poems (Angus & Robertson, 1990)
 * Piano (Angus & Robertson, 1988)
 * Selected Poems 1963–1983 (Angus & Robertson, 1985)
 * The Skylight (Angus & Robertson, 1984)
 * Grass Script (Angus & Robertson, 1979)
 * Creekwater Journal (University of Queensland Press, 1974)
 * Introspect, Retrospect : Poems (Lyre-Bird Writers, c.1970)

Edited

 * Australian Poetry Since 1788 (University of New South Wales Press, 2011) with Geoffrey Lehmann
 * A Spill of Light, A Thrust of Shadow (Youngstreet Poets, 1999)
 * Australian Poetry in the Twentieth Century (William Heinemann Australia, 1991) with Geoffrey Lehmann
 * Sydney's Poems : A Selection on the Occasion of the City's One Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary 1842–1992 (Primavera Press, 1992) with Vivian Smith
 * Selected Poems / Roland Robinson (Angus & Robertson, 1989)
 * The Younger Australian poets (Hale & Iremonger, c1983) with Geoffrey Lehmann

Biography

 * The King's Wife : Five Queen Consorts (Secker & Warburg, 1990)

Interviews

 * "The Sydney Morning Herald"

title: Robert Gray (poet)


text:
Live from Neon Park

Live from Neon Park is the second live album by the American rock band Little Feat, released in 1996. The name of the album was a suggestion of a Little Feat fan in commemoration of the then-recent passing of long-time Little Feat album cover artist and friend of the band, Neon Park.

Track listing
Disc one
 * 1) "Introductions" – 1:47
 * 2) "Two Trains" (George) – 5:43
 * 3) "Spanish Moon/Skin It Back" – 10:23
 * 4) "Rock and Roll Everynight" – 5:07
 * 5) "Down on the Farm" (Barrère, Barrère) – 6:23
 * 6) "Willin'" (George) – 5:41
 * 7) "Hate to Lose Your Lovin'" (Barrère, Fuller) – 4:21
 * 8) "Can't Be Satisfied/They're Red Hot (Hot Tamales) [medley]" (Johnson, Waters) – 4:49
 * 9) "Cadillac Hotel" (Payne, Wray) – 6:50
 * 10) "Changin' Luck" (Fuller, Payne, Tackett) – 7:22
 * 11) "You're Taking Up Another Man's Place" (Isaac Hayes, David Porter) – 6:54
 * "Oh, Atlanta" (Payne) – 5:35

Disc two
 * 1) "Texas Twister" (Barrère, Kibbee, Payne, Tackett) – 5:17
 * 2) "Fat Man in the Bathtub" (George) – 7:11
 * 3) "Representing the Mambo" (Barrère, Park, Payne, Tackett) – 7:51
 * 4) "Long Distance Love" (George) – 3:35
 * 5) "Rad Gumbo" (Barrère, Clayton, Gradney, Kibbee, Park, Payne) – 3:54
 * 6) "Dixie Chicken" (George, Kibbee) – 17:28
 * 7) "Feats Don't Fail Me Now" (Barrère, George, Kibbee) – 7:49
 * 8) "Sailin' Shoes" (George) – 5:13
 * 9) "Let It Roll/High Roller" [Acoustic] – 12:07

Little Feat

 * Paul Barrère – guitar, vocals
 * Sam Clayton – percussion, vocals
 * Kenny Gradney – bass
 * Richie Hayward – drums, vocals
 * Shaun Murphy – vocals, percussion
 * Bill Payne – keyboards, vocals
 * Fred Tackett – guitar, mandolin, trumpet

Guest musicians

 * Craig Fuller – vocals, guitar on "Hate To Lose Your Lovin'"
 * Inara George (daughter of Lowell) – vocals on "Sailin' Shoes"
 * Piero Mariani (husband of Shaun Murphy) – electronic percussion
 * Miles Tackett (son of Fred) – guitar on "Dixie Chicken"
 * Joel Tepp – clarinet

Texicali Horns

 * Darrell Leonard – trumpet
 * Joe Sublett – tenor saxophone
 * David Woodford – tenor and baritone saxophone

title: Live from Neon Park


text:
Category:Furniture designers

Individuals involved in the design of furniture.

title: Category:Furniture designers


text: Category:Companies of Romania

title: Category:Companies of Romania


text:
Under the Radar (Little Feat album)

Under the Radar is the 12th studio album by the American rock band Little Feat, released in 1998 (see 1998 in music). It was the fifth studio album since the band reunited in 1988, and the second since vocalist Shaun Murphy joined the group.

Track listing

 * 1) "Home Ground" (Barrère) – 4:07
 * 2) "Eden's Wall" (Barrère, Murphy, Payne) – 6:33
 * 3) "A Distant Thunder" (Barrère, Murphy, Payne) – 5:36
 * 4) "Hoy Hoy" (Barrère, Murphy, Payne, Tackett) – 4:08
 * 5) "Under The Radar" (Barrère, Murphy, Payne) – 7:14
 * 6) "Vale Of Tears" (Barrère, Murphy, Payne, Tackett) – 6:11
 * 7) "Loco Motives" (Barrère, Murphy, Payne, Tackett) – 5:16
 * 8) "Ferocious Morning" (Barrère, Murphy, Payne, Tackett) – 6:06
 * 9) "Voiceless Territory (Intro to Falling Through the Worlds)" (Barrère, Murphy, Payne, Tackett) – 0:49
 * 10) "Falling Through the Worlds" (Barrère, Murphy, Payne, Tackett) – 5:55
 * 11) "The Blues Don't Tell It All" (Murphy, Payne) – 6:14
 * 12) "I Got Happiness" (Barrère, Murphy) – 4:32
 * 13) "Calling The Children Home" (Barrère, Payne, Tackett) – 7:51

Japan bonus track

 * 1) "Cat Fever (Live Version)"

Little Feat

 * Paul Barrère – vocals, guitar, dobro, dulcimer, harmonica
 * Sam Clayton – percussion, backing vocals
 * Kenny Gradney – bass, backing vocals
 * Richie Hayward – drums, backing vocals
 * Shaun Murphy – vocals, tambourine
 * Bill Payne – keyboards, vocals
 * Fred Tackett – guitar, dobro, trumpet, backing vocals

Texicali Horns
on tracks 1, 2, 13

 * Darrell Leonard – trumpet, trombonium
 * Joe Sublett – saxophone

Additional personnel

 * Lenny Castro – percussion (tracks 1,2)
 * Piero Mariani – percussion (tracks 10,11,13)

title: Under the Radar (Little Feat album)


text:
User talk:Eurytus

Hello, "Eurytus" and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:

. -- Infrogmation 05:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Peruse Welcome, newcomers and associated pages, such as
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * You can experiment in the Sandbox.
 * Sign talk page entries with ~, which is automatically converted to a name and date.
 * If you have any questions, see Help, or you can a question at the Help desk.
 * I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.

Your deletions from African American will be reverted unless you can give us some meaningful reason for the invalidity of the current language. RickK 00:33, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Are the massive changes you have made to the other articles your own work, or did you copy them from somewhere? If your own work, well done, really well-written. If copied, then we can't have them as copyright violations. Still, if they're your own work, please see Manual of Style to see how to properly mark up Wikipedia articles. RickK 00:36, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

File source problem with File:RNA.PNG
Thank you for uploading File:RNA.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eurytus


text: File:Little Feat - Chinese Work Songs.jpg


text:
Chinese Work Songs

Chinese Work Songs is the 13th studio album by the American rock band Little Feat, released in 2000.

Four of the album's songs are covers; of "Rag Mama Rag" by The Band, "Sample in a Jar" by Phish, "It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes a Train to Cry" by Bob Dylan and "Gimme a Stone" from the concept album Largo. "Gimme a Stone" marked the only time drummer Richie Hayward sang lead vocals with the group.

Track listing

 * 1) "Rag Mama Rag" (J. R. Robertson) – 4:38
 * 2) "Eula" (Barrère, Tackett) – 4:26
 * 3) "Bed of Roses" (Murphy, Payne) – 4:48
 * 4) "Sample in a Jar" (Anastasio, Marshall) – 4:54
 * 5) "Just Another Sunday" (Murphy, Payne) – 7:52
 * 6) "Gimme a Stone" (Hyman, Chertoff, Forman, Bazilian) – 5:06
 * 7) "Rio Esperenza" (Murphy, Payne) – 4:54
 * 8) "Tattoo Heart" (Barrère, Murphy) – 6:55
 * 9) "Marginal Creatures" (Barrère, Tackett) – 5:16
 * 10) "Chinese Work Songs" (Payne, Tackett) – 6:27
 * 11) "It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes a Train to Cry" (Bob Dylan) – 6:07

Little Feat

 * Paul Barrère – vocals, guitar, dobro, bicycle bells
 * Sam Clayton – percussion, backing vocals
 * Kenny Gradney – bass, backing vocals
 * Richie Hayward – drums, vocals
 * Shaun Murphy – vocals, percussion
 * Bill Payne – keyboards, vocals
 * Fred Tackett – guitar, dobro, backing vocals

Texicali Horns

 * Darrell Leonard – trumpet, trombonium
 * Joe Sublett – saxophone

Additional personnel

 * Béla Fleck – banjo on Gimme A Stone
 * Lenny Castro – percussion
 * Piero Mariani – percussion

title: Chinese Work Songs


text:
User talk:0101LAIoy

Hellok, "0101LAIoy" and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:

 * Peruse Welcome, newcomers and associated pages, such as
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * You can experiment in the Sandbox.
 * Sign talk page entries with Catapult 03:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC), which is automatically converted to a name and date.
 * If you have any questions, see Help, or you can a question at the Help desk.
 * I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.. -- Infrogmation 05:17, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:0101LAIoy


text:
Colonne di San Lorenzo

The Colonne di San Lorenzo or Columns of San Lorenzo is a group of ancient Roman ruins, located in front of the Basilica of San Lorenzo in central Milan, region of Lombardy, northern Italy.

History
The colonnade, consisting mainly of 16 tall Corinthian columns in a row, now fronts an open square. In the 4th century, the columns were moved here, after removal from a likely 2nd century pagan temple or public bath house structure. South of the columns, one of the medieval gates still has some Roman marble decoration in place. In the 16th century, in preparations for a celebratory entrance into Milan of the monarch King Philip II of Spain, it was proposed to raze the colonnade to widen the route; Ferrante Gonzaga declined the suggestion.

Up until 1935, the space between the church and columns was entirely occupied by old houses abutting onto the façade of the church itself. Indeed, the church complex was fully surrounded by old houses. Despite the plans to conserve this ancient urban fabric, the renovations led to the demolition of the old houses and the isolation of the monument on the front side. Following bombing during World War II, the church complex became isolated also on the rear side, where the fenced Basilicas Park now stands, allowing popular views of the Basilica.

title: Colonne di San Lorenzo


text:
South Gippsland Freeway

South Gippsland Freeway is a short freeway linking Dandenong in Melbourne's south–east to other south–eastern destinations, including the Mornington Peninsula and the Gippsland region. The freeway bears the designation M420.

Route
South Gippsland Freeway starts at the interchange with Monash Freeway in Endeavour Hills and runs south as a four-lane, dual-carriageway route, under the Princes Highway at Eumemmering, over the Pakenham railway line, then along the western border Hampton Park until it ends at the interchange with the South Gippsland and Western Port Highways in Lynbrook.

The standard travel time on the South Gippsland Freeway is 4 minutes (city-bound) and 3 minutes (Lynbrook-bound). The usual peak period travel time, is between 6–8 minutes. However, in times of extreme congestion or roadworks, including being residual due to an incident, the travel time can well exceed 10 minutes.

History
Plans for a "Mulgrave By-pass Road and Eumemmerring By-pass Road" had been made as far back as 1966, between Warrigal Road in Chadstone and Princes Highway at Eumemmerring. The freeway began as an overflow from construction of Mulgrave Freeway (now Monash Freeway) in 1970, where the freeway entered a sweeping turn south, crossed Eumemmerring Creek in Doveton and officially terminated at Princes Highway in Eumemmerring: this section opened in 1972 as Eumemmering Freeway, and was later renamed South Gippsland Freeway in April 1974. The freeway was extended 2.5 kilometres further south to terminate at the original alignment of the South Gippsland Highway where it met Pound Road in 1976.

The last extension 3.5 kilometres south connected Pound Road to Lyndhurst, where Lyndhurst Road (renamed Dandenong-Hastings Road not long afterwards) met the South Gippsland Highway. The highway's old alignment was duplicated and upgraded into the new stretch of the freeway, and a new dual-carriageway alignment of the South Gippsland Highway was constructed approximately a kilometre to the freeway's west. Pound Road was extended a few hundred metres west across a new bridge over the freeway, with Dandenong-bound ramps. Lyndhurst Interchange, where the freeway and the old and new alignments of the South Gippsland Highway met, was reconstructed to allow traffic to head south via an overpass above the realigned South Gippsland Highway to Dandenong-Hastings Road.

Extensions to the Mulgrave Freeway – renamed the South Eastern Arterial in 1988, subsuming the section between Doveton and Eumemmering – also resulted in heavier use of the South Gippsland Freeway. The bridge over Lyndhurst Interchange was duplicated with little fanfare in the late 1998s, leading to increased use of the road, mostly to semi-trailers and heavy freight to get to the docks in the Westernport district (Dandenong-Hastings Road was yet again renamed the Western Port Highway to reflect this and was eventually duplicated). Traffic levels dropped substantially when the Hallam bypass opened in 2003; the South Gippsland Freeway was extended back to its original terminus in Doveton at a new junction with the Monash Freeway.

In 2010, the Pound Road half-diamond interchange was substantially upgraded with a new four-lane carriageway being constructed over the freeway, the addition of traffic lights to the on-ramp intersection, and ramp metering signals. These works were completed late 2011.

In recent years, the freeway has become very busy, carrying high volumes of traffic off the South Gippsland Highway, Western Port Highway and the Pound Road and Princes Highway on-ramps. The freeway attracts all these vehicles, a large proportion of which are freight (hence two ramp metering sites inbound have a priority lane), due to the Monash Freeway which connects to it, being the major south-east freeway leading to Melbourne City. It is also the only freeway (or non-tollway, such as EastLink) to the city. It has led to slow or heavy traffic (inbound) during the morning peak and gets even more congested when the Monash Freeway is already heavy. Outbound is not so bad, although when very heavy traffic comes off the Monash Freeway (outbound), it can cause a bottleneck near and around the Princes Highway interchange, so a ramp signal site was installed to meter out traffic and reduce flow breakdown.

So, as part of the major 2007 M1 (Monash-CityLink-WestGate) Upgrade; which included widening to more lanes, updates to safety, electronic drive time signs and associated arterial road real-time information signs and a freeway management system with ramp metering (key component). The freeway was also upgraded to include a Freeway Management System, from its start at the South Gippsland Highway interchange to the Monash Freeway junction. It added Ramp Metering signals to the South Gippsland Freeway / Pound Road / Princes Hwy (inbound) on-ramps (the outbound on-ramp already had an existing metering site). With this, it also included electronic real-time information signs on the three inbound on-ramps, showing travel times and flow conditions downstream from that respective location to either destinations on the Monash Freeway and/or South Gippsland Freeway. Therefore, it also included installation of hundreds of new in-road sensors on the freeway with associated access point poles, data stations and CCTV cameras. It is completely integrated with the M1 Monash Freeway.

Timeline of development

 * 1972: Mulgrave and Eumemmerring Freeways, total 3.5 mi from Princes Highway, Eumemmerring to Stud Road, Dandenong North, opened by the Governor of Victoria Sir Rohan Delacombe, 21 November 1972, total cost A$6.8 million.
 * 1976: South Gippsland Freeway, dual carriageways completed between Princes Highway and Pound Road, Hampton Park, as well as the southbound carriageway to Dandenong-Hastings Road, opened 6 December 1976 at a cost of $12 million.
 * 1977/78: Northbound carriageway from Pound Road to Dandenong-Hastings Road completed.
 * 2011: Pound Road interchange reconstruction, opened late 2011.

Road classification
The freeway was signed Freeway Route 81 upon its opening in 1972, until its replacement with National Route 1 in 1988 (with a portion of it renamed to the South Eastern Arterial) until the Princes Highway in Eumemmering, and the remaining stretch between Eumemmering and Lyndhurst Interchange allocated Metropolitan Route 65. With Victoria's conversion to the newer alphanumeric system in the late 1990s this was replaced by routes M1 and M420 respectively. When the Hallam bypass opened and route M1 reallocated along it in 2003, route M420 was officially extended north to the new junction with the Monash Freeway.

The passing of the Road Management Act 2004 granted the responsibility of overall management and development of Victoria's major arterial roads to VicRoads: in 2004, VicRoads re-declared South Gippsland Freeway (Freeway #1310) from Monash Freeway at Doveton to Western Port Highway in Lynbrook.

title: South Gippsland Freeway


text:
Numbered highways in Kentucky

The Kentucky Revised Statute 177.020(1) provides that the Department of Highways, a part of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, is responsible for the establishment and classification of a State Primary Road System which includes the state primary routes, interstate highways, parkways and toll roads, state secondary routes, rural secondary routes and supplemental roads. These routes are listed below.

History
Kentucky began a numbered route system in the 1920s. Originally numbered so that odd numbers ran from north to south, increasing to the west and even numbers ran east to west, increasing to the south, this pattern was only followed for KY 1 through KY 100. Routes numbered KY 101 and higher are in sequential order as designated by the Department of Highways.

An exception to the pattern for highways numbered 1 through 100 is New Circle Road, a circular bypass around Lexington that is also numbered as KY 4. KY 4 was previously located elsewhere.

City specific
These are comprehensive lists of city-controlled and state maintained routes.

 * Roads of Ashland, Kentucky
 * Roads of Lexington, Kentucky
 * Roads of Louisville, Kentucky
 * Roads of Nicholasville, Kentucky

title: Numbered highways in Kentucky


text:
Utility (patentability requirement)

In United States patent law, utility is a patentability requirement. As provided by, an invention is "useful" if it provides some identifiable benefit and is capable of use and "useless" otherwise. The majority of inventions are usually not challenged as lacking utility, but the doctrine prevents the patenting of fantastic or hypothetical devices such as perpetual motion machines.

The patent examiners guidelines require that a patent application expresses a specific, credible, and substantial utility. Rejection by an examiner usually requires documentary evidence establishing a prima facie showing that there is no specific, substantial, and credible utility.

The main reason for having the utility requirement is to prevent issuing patents on things which are speculative and may block useful inventions in the future. In a pharmaceutical context, the utility problem usually arises when there is a patent claim on a new drug, but the patent disclosure does not specify (or does not prove) what disease this drug treats. Notably, a full FDA approval of the drug is not required before a patent application is filed. It suffices to demonstrate that this drug candidate passes some established in vitro test (see below).

One commentator explained in 1853 the rationale against useless inventions as: A patent for a useless invention is thought by some to be void at common law by others by force of the Statute of Monopolies which renders void grants of privileges which tend to the hurt of trade or are generally inconvenient. Now if a monopoly were allowed in a useless invention other persons would be prevented from improving it or turning it to any account whatever so that combinations of utility might be impeded. It would stand in the way of real inventors and hence be mischievous to the public generally.

European patent law and Patent Cooperation Treaty instead of utility use the term industrial applicability. Although it serves a similar purpose as the US utility and patentable subject matter requirements, it is more narrow in practice.

Utility criteria
In considering the requirement of utility for patents, there are three main factors to review: operability of the invention, a beneficial use of the invention, and practical use of the invention.

Operability
The importance of operability as a requirement of claims is disputed.

Janice Mueller claims that an inoperable invention may fail to satisfy the enablement requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because "an inventor cannot properly describe how to use an inoperable invention...." However, as authority Ms. Mueller's textbook cites to another textbook, Landis on Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting, which itself cites section 2173.05(l) in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. Section 2173.05(l) has not been part of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure since the 1990s. The most recent pronouncement of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure is 2107.01:

"Situations where an invention is found to be 'inoperative' and therefore lacking in utility are rare, and rejections maintained solely on this ground by a Federal court even rarer. In many of these cases, the utility asserted by the applicant was thought to be 'incredible in the light of the knowledge of the art, or factually misleading' when initially considered by the Office. ... Other cases suggest that on initial evaluation, the Office considered the asserted utility to be inconsistent with known scientific principles or 'speculative at best' as to whether attributes of the invention necessary to impart the asserted utility were actually present in the invention. ... However cast, the underlying finding by the court in these cases was that, based on the factual record of the case, it was clear that the invention could not and did not work as the inventor claimed it did. Indeed, the use of many labels to describe a single problem (e.g., a false assertion regarding utility) has led to some of the confusion that exists today with regard to a rejection based on the 'utility' requirement."

Beneficial utility
Beneficial utility became established as a requirement in United States patent law in 1817 as a result of Lowell v. Lewis (1 Mason. 182; 1 Robb, Pat. Cas. 131 Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. May Term. 1817.). The utility criterion established by this case is, as Justice Joseph Story wrote in the Court's decision, that, to be patentable, an invention must be "useful" and must "not be frivolous or injurious to the well-being, good policy, or sound morals of society". In spite of this ruling however, patents continued to be granted for devices that could be deemed immoral (e.g. gambling devices, see, e.g., Brewer v. Lichtenstein and Ex parte Murphy ) or deceitful (see, Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc. (dealing with a juice dispenser that arguably deceived the public into believing that the liquid seen in the attached reservoir was that which was being dispensed)). In Juicy Whip, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit put an end to the requirement: "Congress never intended that the patent laws should displace the police powers of the States, meaning by that term those powers by which the health, good order, peace and general welfare of the community are promoted…we find no basis in section 101 to hold that inventions can be ruled unpatentable for lack of utility simply because they have the capacity to fool some members of the public."(Juicy Whip Inc. v. Orange Bang Inc., 185 F.3d 1364, 1367–68, 51 USPQ2d 1700, 1702-03 (Fed. Cir. 1999), see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 706.03(a)(II))

Practical utility
The last utility category is practical or specific utility. According to Mueller, "to be patentable an invention must have some real-world use." The utility threshold is relatively easy to satisfy for mechanical, electrical, or novelty inventions, because the purpose of the utility requirement is to ensure that the invention works on some minimal level. However, the practical or specific utility requirement for patentability may be more difficult to satisfy for chemical or biological inventions, because of the level of uncertainty in these fields. The United States Supreme Court in Brenner v. Manson (in 1966) held that a novel process for making a known steroid did not satisfy the utility requirement, because the patent applicants did not show that the steroid served any practical function. The Court ruled, "... a process patent in the chemical field, which has not been developed and pointed to the degree of specific utility, creates a monopoly of knowledge which should be granted only if clearly commanded by the statute." Practical or specific utility is the requirement for an invention to have a particular purpose.

History and development
The very first US Patent Act of 1790 required patentable inventions to be "sufficiently useful and important". An 1817 case Lowell v. Lewis (Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts) proclaimed that: the word "useful," therefore, is incorporated into the [Patent] act in contradistinction to mischievous or immoral. This very broad definition survived well into the Twentieth Century. It was the basis for the beneficial utility doctrine, which excludes from patentability anything immoral or deceitful. However, in the 1970's after cases establishing patentability of a slot machine in 1977, and drink machines with decorative reservoirs that did not contain the drink actually dispensed, the United States Patent and Trademark Office and federal courts no longer consider beneficial utility nor the deceitful or immoral qualities of inventions.

However, it is not only "mischievous or immoral" inventions, that fase the utility challenge. Oftentimes new chemicals, which are known to be useful as a class, but have not demonstrated a "specific, substantial and credible utility" are denied a patent. The landmark decision in this area is 1966 Brenner v. Manson. In this case, the SCOTUS concluded that a new steroid was not "useful" in the meaning of the patent law, because it had no defined use at the time of the application. "A patent is not a hunting license," the Court stated. It is "not a reward for the search, but compensation for [the search's] successful conclusion." This standard for utility cannot be met until a "specific benefit exists in currently available form."

On the same day as Brenner v. Manson, the Court decided two other cases In re Kirk and In re Joly. These cases denied patentability to chemical intermediates for products, which had no known use.

In 1955 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re Brana clarified, that utility requirement for pharmaceutical inventions does not require formal approval by the Food and Drug Administration. Instead an in vitro proof of efficacy, using a known test is sufficient.

In 1995, the USPTO published new utility guidelines, which eliminated the "substantial", but retained “specific” and “credible” requirements. In the case of a process of making chemicals, the utility of the process can be established only if a product of this process has a utility. Thus, a process resulting only in products, which have no known use, is not patentable.

Another landmark decision related to utility of biological inventions was 2005 case In re Fisher. It denied patentability of express sequence tags (which are “tiny portion[s] of an entire gene that can be used to help identify unknown genes and to map their positions within a genome”), because their only known use at the time of patent application was as a research tool.

The utility of invention must be demonstrated in the patent application itself. Post application activities cannot be used to prove utility.

Burden of proof during prosecution
During patent prosecution, the disclosed utility is presumed valid. The patent office bears the burden to disprove utility. The standard the USPTO uses is whether it is more likely than not that it would lack utility from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art. If the examiner shows evidence that the invention is not useful, the burden shifts to the applicant to prove utility. The applicant can then submit additional data to support a finding of utility. The invention must possess utility at the time of application.

title: Utility (patentability requirement)


text:
Talk:2004–2008 volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens

Who moved this?
Who exactly moved this? I think it was better within the original article.PiccoloNamek 08:37, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * I did not, but I think this is appropriate in anticipation of upcoming events. User:MPS 132.159.147.77 17:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * As do I. The amount of text for this was already more than the 1980 summary in the main St. Helens article when it was moved. The few sentences about this event in the main St. Helens article seem to be appropriate for what will likely just be some more dome building. If this becomes a major eruption, then an appropriately long summary of this article will be placed in the main St. Helens entry. --mav 04:33, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Merge/rename
I merged in the growing text from the original Mount St. Helens article, so that this article now covers events in 2005 as well. I was unsure about renaming it -- does 2004-2005 volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens make more sense, or 2004-present volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens? Anybody want to chime in? Somebody could also help trim down the text in the base article, which is still longer than that about the 1980 eruption (probably because there wasn't a "main article" flag -- I put one in -- to let poeple know to add stuff here). --Dhartung | Talk 08:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Link to seismograph
http://www.pnsn.org/WEBICORDER/webimaps.html#msh Maybe this link should be added to the list. you can click on the station code on the right of the map, and you'll get real time seismic data from mount st. Helens. AugustinMa 18:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Article rename?
"2004 and later volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens" seem an obsolete article name, now that (as of July 2008) the 2004 eruption has been officially declared over, as of January 2008 ... I think the article should maybe get renamed, then, to "2004-2008 volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens" --Chibiabos (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ninety minutes?
The article says that on January 16, 2008, "an observatory in Vancouver, Washington recorded a magnitude 2.9 earthquake, followed by a small tremor that lasted nearly ninety minutes". How is that possible? The longest earthquake I have ever heard of lasted 12 minutes, and the reference given links to a Yahoo! search. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

 * It isn't even close to the longest earthquake. Check out Slow earthquake.  Some reports I've heard in Washington state have described "slow earthquakes" that have endured for years.  --Chibiabos (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_050306_env_mt_st_helens_slab.7608185.html
 * In 2004–2008 volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens on 2011-05-25 07:54:32, 404 Not Found
 * In 2004–2008 volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens on 2011-06-11 13:21:30, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.fs.fed.us./gpnf/recreation/mount-st-helens/
 * In 2004–2008 volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens on 2011-05-25 07:54:34, 404 Not Found
 * In 2004–2008 volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens on 2011-06-11 13:21:40, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080117/ap_on_re_us/mount_st__helens;_ylt=AgG2I.MOh4Wc6xcfvYV3X6BvzwcF
 * In 2004–2008 volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens on 2011-05-25 07:54:36, 404 Not Found
 * In 2004–2008 volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens on 2011-06-11 13:21:51, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.kevision.com/helens.html
 * In 2004–2008 volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens on 2011-05-25 07:54:33, 404 Not Found
 * In 2004–2008 volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens on 2011-06-11 13:22:01, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


text:
Fort Ontario

Fort Ontario is an American historic bastion fort situated by the City of Oswego in Oswego County, New York. It is owned by the state of New York and operated as a museum known as Fort Ontario State Historic Site.

Geography and early history
Fort Ontario is located on the east side of the Oswego River on high ground overlooking Lake Ontario.

Fort Ontario was one of several forts erected by the British to protect the area around the east end of Lake Ontario. The original Fort Ontario was erected in 1755, during the French and Indian War, in order to bolster defenses already in place at Fort Oswego on the opposite side of the river. At that time its name was the "Fort of the Six Nations," but the fort was destroyed by French forces during the Battle of Fort Oswego in 1756 and rebuilt by British forces in 1759.

At the conclusion of Pontiac's War, Pontiac urged moderation and agreed to travel to New York, where he made a formal treaty with William Johnson at Fort Ontario on July 25, 1766.

During the American Revolutionary War, a detachment from the 3rd New York Regiment destroyed the fort in July, 1778, after the British abandoned it. The British returned and rebuilt the fort in 1782. There was an aborted attack on the fort by Colonel Marinus Willet in 1783. The British held the fort after the war was over until 1796 after the signing of Jay's Treaty.

Nineteenth century
The fort was attacked and destroyed by British forces during the War of 1812 in the year 1814. After a period of disuse, new construction was undertaken in part because of tensions with Great Britain as well as to check smuggling activities between Canada and the United States.

During the American Civil War the new construction began at the fort because of fear of British help from Canada to the Confederacy. After the American Civil War it held Company F, 42nd Infantry which consisted of wounded soldiers from the war that had reenlisted in the U.S. Army. Although the fort remained a military base, the fort itself fell into ruin, since funds were used to create more modern quarters outside the fort.

Recent
When the United States entered World War I in April 1917, the fort was repurposed as a military hospital, known as General Hospital No. 5. The facility was used to train medical personnel before they were posted to France.

In 1921, the fort again became an infantry base, initially the 28th Infantry Regiment and in 1933, the 2nd Brigade of the U.S. 1st Infantry Division called Fort Ontario home until the brigade was deactivated on June 1, 1940. During this period, some of the historic buildings inside the fort were restored and a golf course was laid out on the grassy ramparts. In 1940, the fort was refurbished as an induction center for new conscripts with 60 new buildings for 3,000 men, but it was used instead as a base for several National Guard anti-aircraft units. As America entered World War II, Fort Ontario was repurposed again as a training center for African American military police. Later in the war, the fort was home to approximately 982 Jewish refugees, from August 1944 to February 1946. The Fort Ontario Emergency Refugee Shelter was the only attempt by the United States to shelter Jewish refugees during the war. After the end of the war the refugees were kept in internment because of disagreements concerning whether or not to allow them to become United States citizens. In January 1946, the decision was made to allow them to become citizens, and by February all of the Jewish refugees were allowed to leave Fort Ontario.

Although closed by the U.S. Army after World War II, some of the buildings at Fort Ontario are still used for training by the Army Reserve.

The restored fort is open to the public as a state historic site. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1970. In 2010, Fort Ontario was one of the state-funded historical sites named by Governor David Paterson as being potentially unfunded because of the budget crisis faced by New York State. In response, many of the citizens of Oswego and students of the State University of New York at Oswego have joined together in support of the historical site.

Fort Ontario was built with two other forts in the period, Fort George and Fort Oswego.

Description
The present fortifications are built on a pentagonal plan with five bastions, similar to the layout of Fort Jackson, Louisiana. It was designed for heavy cannon mounted en barbette (i.e. in the open firing over the parapet), but howitzers were mounted in casemates built into the ramparts of the bastions. The stone-faced scarp walls of the bastions were also pierced with loopholes for rifle fire, which are of varying design, reflecting the preferences of the different engineers overseeing the construction. Originally, a ravelin protected the side of the fort facing Lake Ontario and mounted further heavy guns.

The current layout of the fort includes Officer Quarters #1, the Powder Magazine, the Enlisted Men's Barracks, the Storehouse, and Officer Quarters #2. There are also two guardhouses by the entrance of the tunnel to the main entrance.

title: Fort Ontario


text:
Live at the Rams Head

Live at the Ram's Head is the third live album by the American rock band Little Feat, released in 2002 (see 2002 in music).

Track listing
Disc one
 * 1) "Hate to Lose Your Lovin'" (Barrère, Fuller) – 4:35
 * 2) "Rocket in My Pocket" (George) – 7:13
 * 3) "Honest Man" (George, Tackett) – 6:49
 * 4) "Oh Atlanta" (Payne) – 7:30
 * 5) "Calling the Children Home" (Barrère, Payne, Tackett) – 8:46
 * 6) "Rag Mama Rag" (J. R. Robertson) – 6:50
 * 7) "Shake Me Up" (Barrère, Fuller, Kibbee, Payne) – 4:44
 * 8) "Easy to Slip/I Know You Rider" (George, Kibbee, Traditional) – 8:01
 * 9) "Bed of Roses" (Murphy, Payne) – 4:52
 * 10) "One Clear Moment" (Barrère, Fuller, Payne) – 4:48
 * 11) "Willin'" (George) – 6:15

Disc two
 * 1) "Gringo" (Payne) – 8:35
 * 2) "Cajun Rage" (Barrère, Kibbee, Wray) – 6:20
 * 3) "Cadillac Hotel" (Payne, Wray) – 6:33
 * 4) "Spanish Moon" (George) – 8:36
 * 5) "Skin It Back" (Barrère) – 7:34
 * 6) "Hoy Hoy" (Barrère, Murphy, Payne, Tackett) – 5:32
 * 7) "Let It Roll" (Barrère, Payne, Kibbee) – 10:00
 * 8) "On Your Way Down" (Toussaint) – 8:18
 * 9) "Cajun Girl" (Payne, Kibbee) – 7:29
 * 10) "Feats Don't Fail Me Now" (George, Barrère, Kibbee) – 5:04

Band members

 * Paul Barrère - guitar, vocals
 * Sam Clayton - percussion, vocals
 * Kenny Gradney - bass, vocals
 * Richard Hayward - drums, vocals
 * Shaun Murphy - vocals, percussion
 * Bill Payne - keyboards, vocals
 * Fred Tackett - guitar, mandolin, trumpet, vocals

Special guest

 * Ron Holloway - tenor saxophone on "Feats Don't Fail Me Now"

title: Live at the Rams Head


text:
Novelty (patent)

Novelty is one of the patentability requirement for a patent claim, whose purpose is to prevent issuing patents on known things, i.e. to prevent public knowledge from being taken away from the public domain.

An invention is anticipated (i.e. not new) and therefore not patentable if it was known to the public before the priority date of the patent application. Although the concept of "novelty" in patent law appears simple and self-explanatory, this view is very far from reality. Some of the most contentious questions of novelty comprise:

 * 1) inventor's own prior disclosures (only a few countries provide a grace period, most notably, 1 year in the US);
 * 2) new uses of known things, such as pharmaceuticals;
 * 3) a broader question of (2) is inherent anticipation;
 * 4) patenting things, which are newly discovered in (or isolated from) nature (see Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.) This question overlaps with patentable subject matter.

Definition
Novelty is requirement for a patent claim to be patentable. In contrast, if an invention was known to the public before filing a patent application, or before its date of priority, if the priority of an earlier patent application is claimed, the invention is not considered new and therefore not patentable.

To assess the novelty of an invention, a search through what is called the prior art is usually performed, the term "art" referring to the relevant technical field. A prior art search is generally performed with a view to proving that the invention is "not new" or old. No search can possibly cover every single publication or use on earth, and therefore cannot prove that an invention is "new". A prior art search may for instance be performed using a keyword search of large patent databases, scientific papers and publications, and on any web search engine. However, it is impossible to guarantee the novelty of an invention, even once a patent has been granted, since some little known publication may have disclosed the claimed invention.

Rationale
A patent grants an inventor a legally enforceable monopoly over their invention. This means that others can be legally restrained from exploiting the invention. It is not the intention of the patent system to deny anyone what they have been free to do before someone claims an invention. For example, one cannot patent the wheel, as that would exclude others from doing what they had previously been free to do. The legal test is that the invention must be something new, i.e. it must possess "novelty". The invention of the wheel is not new, because the wheel already forms part of the prior art.

Inventor's own disclosures
In some countries, such as the Australia, Canada, China, Japan, Russia, United States, a grace period exists for protecting an inventor or their successor in title from authorised or unauthorised disclosure of the invention before the filing date. That is, if the inventor or the successor in title publishes the invention, an application can still be validly filed which will be considered novel despite the publication, provided that the filing is made during the grace period following the publication. The grace period is usually 6 or 12 months. In China, the grace period is 6 months. In Russia, the grace period is 6 months (Civil Code part IV, article 1350 (3)). In US, the grace period is 12 months ("Leahy-Smith America Invents Act")

In other countries, such as in EPO members, any act that makes an invention available to the public, no matter where in the world, before the filing date or priority date has the effect of barring the invention from being patented. Examples of acts that can make an invention available to the public are written publications, sales, public oral disclosures and public demonstrations or use.

The grace period should not be confused with the priority year defined by Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. The priority year starts when the first filing in a contracting state of the Paris Convention is made, while the grace period starts from the pre-filing publication.

Local novelty only regards publications, uses or sales that have taken place within that jurisdiction to be novelty destroying.

Novelty in a discovery of a product of nature
Another controversial issue in novelty analysis is whether a discovery and isolation of a product of nature should be patentable. In 1911, Billings Learned Hand, who had been only 2 years in his position as a judge, "had made an uninformed mistake in Parke-Davis v. Mulford" by pronouncing that naturally occurring adrenaline can be patented in its pure form. This judicial tradition, allowing patenting of isolated natural products in the US, continued for over 100 years. Another notable example of it was In re Bergstrom, where a court reversed the Patent Office’s refusal to patent on prostaglandins. In Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. (1991) and Schering Corp. v. Amgen Inc (2000), courts confirmed patentability of recombinant DNA molecules, which encode known proteins.

The practice of patenting isolated products of nature came to an end only in 2013, when the SCOTUS decided in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. that an isolated product of Nature (a DNA sequence in that case) does not deserve a composition-of-matter claim. At the same time, the Court decided that complementary DNA, which is produced by reverse transcription of messenger RNA and does not contain introns, can be patentable. It is worth noting, that the denial of patentability in this case was not based on novelty, but rather on subject matter eligibility.

Anticipation
Anticipation refers to advance use or disclosure of an otherwise-patentable invention, thereby undermining its novelty. The United Kingdom's House of Lords referred to "anticipation" as "convenient" terminology to cover "that part of the state of art which is inconsistent with the invention being new". Anticipation and infringement are two sides of the same coin: that which anticipates earlier in time would infringe later in time.

Point of novelty
Point of novelty is a term used in patent law to distinguish those elements or limitations in a patent claim that are conventional or known from those elements or limitations that are novel, i.e. not conventional or known. That part of the invention may also be termed its "point of departure from the prior art". The term is also applied to a patentability test – the point of novelty test – which determines patentability (usually, obviousness) by considering the point(s) of novelty after dissecting out the conventional part.

In a Jepson claim, the conventional parts of the claim elements are placed in a preamble, such as "In a grease gun comprising a cylinder enclosing a piston longitudinally movable in said cylinder, said cylinder having a nozzle at a distal end thereof", which is followed by a transitional phrase such as "the improvement comprising", which is followed by a recitation of the element or elements constituting the point of novelty, such as "said nozzle having a fluted opening at a distal end thereof".

A conceptual problem may arise in applying the point of novelty method of analysis when the elements at the point of novelty cooperate or co-act with the conventional elements or part of them in a novel way. The novel co-action is properly considered part of the point of novelty of the invention and should therefore properly be recited after the transitional phrase.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit formerly used the point of novelty test for design patents as the basis of a patent infringement analysis, but the court recently abandoned that test in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. The Federal Circuit has at times criticized use of the point of novelty test in obviousness analysis, but the Supreme Court has continued to use a point of novelty test for obviousness. In Parker v. Flook the Supreme Court analyzed patent-eligibility (statutory subject matter) under a point of novelty test, citing Neilson v. Harford and O'Reilly v. Morse as authority, but in Diamond v. Diehr, the Court used the opposite approach. Then in Mayo v. Prometheus and Alice v. CLS Bank the Supreme Court went back to the test of the Flook case.

Present-day American patent law still acknowledges that some parts of a patent claim may constitute "insignificant post-solution activity". This is regarded as a kind of "point of novelty" approach, disallowed under present (Federal Circuit) patent law. To combat infringement, truly "insignificant" elements are routinely kept out of patent claims. The purpose of the patent-eligibility doctrine concerning insignificant post-solution activity, however, is that adding such limitations to a claim does not involve adding an "inventive concept" to the otherwise ineligible underlying idea.

The "contribution approach" in European patent law is similar to the American "point of novelty" approach. It is supposed to be invalid, but it is still being applied under various guises in order to avoid counter-intuitive results.

Canada
In Canada, the requirements for novelty are codified under section 28.2 of the Patent Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4):

The section does not restrict disclosure to prior patents, giving a broad description of what includes prior disclosure; so long as the subject-matter was disclosed “in such manner that the subject-matter became available to the public”, the subject-matter is barred from being patented. This may include prior patents, publications or the invention itself being put on display. Disclosures in a private document, such as an internal memo that is not available to the public, do not count.

There is an eight-pronged test to determine whether anticipation occurs in Canada. The prior art must: The current test now requires that only 1 of the 8 tests be fulfilled in order to find anticipation.
 * 1) give an exact prior description;
 * 2) give directions which will inevitably result in something within the claims;
 * 3) give clear and unmistakable directions;
 * 4) give information which for the purpose of practical utility is equal to that given by the subject patent;
 * 5) convey information so that a person grappling with the same problem must be able to say "that gives me what I wish";
 * 6) give information to a person of ordinary knowledge so that he must at once perceive the invention;
 * 7) in the absence of explicit directions, teach an "inevitable result" which "can only be proved by experiments"; and
 * 8) satisfy all these tests in a single document without making a mosaic.

European Patent Convention
Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), European patents shall be granted for inventions which, among other things, are new. The central legal provision governing the novelty under the EPC is.

United States
In the United States the four most common ways in which an inventor will be barred under Section 102 are:

 * 1) by making the invention known or allowing the public to use the invention; or
 * 2) having the invention published in a fixed medium (such as in a patent, patent application, or journal article); or
 * 3) if the invention was previously invented in the U.S. by another, who has not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed the invention, or
 * 4) if the invention was described in a patent application filed by another, where the application later issues as a US patent.

In U.S. patent law, a claim lacks novelty, and anticipation occurs when one prior art reference or event discloses all the features of a claim and enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The term "features" in this context refers to the elements of art of the claim or its limitations as explained in the all elements rule.

A prior art reference must not only disclose every feature of a claim, but must also disclose the features arranged or combined in the same way as the claim.

title: Novelty (patent)


text:
Thomas Knoll

Thomas Knoll is an American software engineer who created Adobe Photoshop. He initiated the development of image processing routines in 1988. After Knoll created the first core routines, he showed them to his brother, John Knoll, who worked at Industrial Light and Magic. John liked what he saw, suggested new features, and encouraged Tom to bundle them into a package with a graphical user interface. In 1988, John sold the distribution license for Photoshop to Adobe Systems and later on March 31, 1995, he sold the rights to the program to Adobe for $34.5 million.

Thomas Knoll was the lead developer until version CS4, and currently contributes to work on the Camera Raw plug-in to process raw images from cameras.

Knoll was born and raised in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and graduated from the University of Michigan.

His last name also graces an elementary school in Ann Arbor, Michigan founded by his wife in 1995 called Summers-Knoll School.

In 2016 Thomas (alongside with his brother John) were inducted into the International Photography Hall of Fame and Museum.

At the 2019 Oscars, Thomas and his brother John were awarded a Scientific and Engineering Award for the original architecture, design and development of Photoshop.

title: Thomas Knoll