text:
Talk:Zola River

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Zola River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150207105947/http://www.zistab.com/projectdetail2-61-en.html to http://www.zistab.com/projectdetail2-61-en.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Zola River


text:
Category:User ja-2

List of users who can contribute with an intermediate level of Japanese.

 * ja-N : User whose mother tongue is Japanese.
 * ja-3 : User can contribute with an advanced level of Japanese.
 * ja-2 : User can contribute with an intermediate level of Japaneses.
 * ja-1 : User can contribute with a basic level of Japanese.

source: wikimedia

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

title: Category:User ja-2


text:
User:Elias Ziade/sandbox/3

 * on the strategic importance of syria to the roman war against mesopotamia

* [https://books.google.com.lb/books?id=SBOlDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&dq=roman+temples+phoenicia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjg8qOzkIzlAhVTUBUIHV4UDU4Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=roman%20temples%20phoenicia&f=false p121 on the romanization of semitic worship

p.120 mountians were fringes of lore and the dwelling of wild beings]

This hypothesis was upheld by later semiologists and scholars

 * p.156 beit meri

title: User:Elias Ziade/sandbox/3


text:
Donald Currie (field hockey)

Donald Currie (born 6 March 1935) is an Australian field hockey player. He competed in the men's tournament at the 1960 Summer Olympics.

title: Donald Currie (field hockey)


text:
Talk:Puzzles/Statistical puzzles/3 Bags of Marbles/Solution

That's Just not True :-P
This is my take on this whole talk page... maybe I didn't understand the problem? Well this makes sense to me :)

-to random ip address guy

Your logic assumes that the concept of probability actually exists but it doesn't, it's just a mathematical concept to simplify the world. In actuality all things that happen always have a 100% chance of happening and all things that don't happen always have a 0% chance of happening. It's like watching a movie. The same events will always happen unless they are altered even before they can be predicted by probablity. No matter how much you rewind a movie, or even if you were rewinding time itself, the same events always happen. Now thinking of probability just as a mathematical concept certain things just happen more often that others and this is simplified into saying that there is a greater chance of such and such happening again. So if we took that random male voter from your example we could indeed say that there is a 55% chance he voted for Bush. Sure, at the end of the day he either did vote for him or he didn't but if you look at it that way probability is irrelevant and non-existant.

But anyway, I think the answer to this puzzle needs to be corrected. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is how I interpretted it: a marble is chosen randomly and it happens to be white and another marble is to be chosen from the same bag. We can eliminate bag 2 from the equation since that can't be the bag that we're concerned with. This means it's either bag 1 or 2. In bag 1 we will always choose a white marble because there are only white marbles, a 100% chance. In bag 3 we will always choose the black marble since if this is the bag at hand, the white marble was already removed, a 0% chance of choosing a white marble. So the average is a 50% chance of choosing a white marble. I'm not sure if you meant the white marble that's chosen is removed from the bag or replaced, if it's replaced the answer should be a 75% chance.

That got long, sorry if you read all that ^_^ thanks though. So did I get it?

--Swizzly 00:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that you have picked a white marble does indeeed tell you that you have picked either bag 1 or bag 3.

Dear <IP_ADDRESS>
Before vandalizing module like thi you should consult with others here, if you don't want module resumed to it's previous state. Thank you. --Divinity 10:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * if by any chance after reading comment you want to put "either 0.0 or 1.0" please don't. "0.0 or 1.0" is not a probability. It is the outcome. Probability indicates how often would this outcome happen. By saying probability is 2/3, we mean that if we pick a random bag and draw a white marble out of it 100 times, and after each event draw another one, ~67 of theese marbles will be white. *this* is the probability. --Divinity 05:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed fallacious argument from main page
COMMENT: Once we get to the point described in the puzzle the probability that the second ball will be white is either 1.0 or 0. It can be nothing else.

Probability has to do with the situation PRIOR to an event. Once the outcome is determined probability is no longer a factor. In the case of the scenario presented by this puzzle, the outcome has already been determined. The fact that we don't know the color of the second ball doesn't change the fact that its color is fixed. That we don't see the color doesn't mean there is any chance that it can be different from what it is. Only one outcome is possible when the second ball if taken out of the bag.

It's true that if we were asking, before we started, what the probabilies are that we WOULD get certain outcomes the probability of getting bag, white ball, white ball is twice that of getting bag, white ball, black ball. But that's not the question asked by the puzzle. The puzzle says we've already selected a bag. That means the colors of both balls have been determined. If it happens to be the bag with one white and one black there's probability associated with different color outcomes just prior to selection of the first ball, but after that first ball is selected there is no subsequent possibility of different scenarios. Only one scenario is possible even if we don't know what that scenario is.

Here's another example: Exit polling data indicate that 55% of males who voted in the last election voted for Bush. So, before we do anything, we can say that if we randomly select a male who voted there's a 0.55 probability that it'll be somebody who voted for Bush.

But once we select the person, that person either voted for Bush or he didn't. If we say there's a 0.55 probability he voted for Bush, we are not being accurate. There are only two possibilities at that point. Either he voted for Bush (1.0) or he did not (0).

Same with flipping a coin. Before the coin is flipped you can say there's a 0.50 probability it'll be heads. If you say ahead of time that you're going to call heads there's a 0.50 probability that you'll be right. But once it's been flipped it is what it is. If you say heads you're either right or you're wrong. If the coin beneath the hand covering it is tails it is tails whether you can see that or not. If you say heads at that point your probability of being right is zero.


text:
Talk:Deborah Carthy Deu

Fatima?
Откуда информация? Похоже на вандализм. Schekinov Alexey Victorovich (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Dear colleagues, the user that have added middle name "Fatima" was blocked. I have checked his/her contribution and found many other similar edits to other articles where he/her would just add a middle name to personalities without providing any source. It seems for me too as a vandalism. So, I would suggest to remove this middle name and it would be great if some one could check other his/her edits to fix other articles too. Best regards. --Headgo (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Deborah Carthy Deu


text:
experimentar

Verb

 * 1) to experiment
 * 2) to experience

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1) to experience
 * 2) to experiment
 * 3) to try taste of food, fit of clothing etc.
 * 4) to attempt
 * 1) to attempt

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to experiment
 * 2) to experience
 * 3) to feel
 * 1) to feel

title: experimentar


text:
Aaron Rhind

Aaron Rhind (born 13 February 1991) is an Australian swimmer. He was selected to represent Australia at the 2012 Summer Paralympics in the 200 m individual medley and 50 m butterfly swimming events. He did not medal at the 2012 Games.

Personal
Rhind was born on 13 February 1991 and is from Yass, New South Wales. His mother has multiple sclerosis. He had a ruptured cerebral aneurysm when he was ten years old, which largely affects the left side of his body. Prior to his stroke, he played rugby union. He went to high school at Canberra's St Francis Xavier College and Mount Carmel High School. He has a Certificate III in Childcare.

Swimming
Rhind is an S6 classified swimmer competing in the 100 m freestyle, 100 m backstroke, 200 m individual medley and 50 m butterfly events. He trains with Australian Olympic swimming medalist Adam Pine at the Canberra International Swimming and Aquatic Centre, has a scholarship with the Australian Capital Territory Academy of Sport, and is a member of Ginninderra Marlins He listens to Kanye West's "Stronger" before he competes.

Rhind started competing in 2003 because contact sports were off limits based on doctor's advice. In early 2007, he swam in the S8 classification but was downgraded to S6 ahead of the 2007 ‘Day of Difference’ Junior Games, where he represented New South Wales. The change in classification meant that Rhind had to change his swimming technique as the classification allowed him to only use one arm to swim. He set a S6 100 m butterfly Australian record at the Junior Games. He tried to qualify for the 2008 Summer Paralympics but did not make it. He competed at the 2009 Australian Short Course Championships in the 100 metre butterfly event, where he set a world record that was 3.41 seconds faster than the previous one. He competed at six other events in the competition where he set personal best times. Rhind first represented Australia in 2010. He represented Australia at the 2011 Arafura Games, winning two bronze medals and one silver medal. That year, he also competed at the Oceania Paralympic Championships and the German National Swimming Championships. In July 2012, he was formally selected to represent Australia at the 2012 Summer Paralympics in the 200 m individual medley SM6 and 50 m butterfly S6 events. He was scheduled to depart for London on 10 August. He did not medal at the 2012 Games.

title: Aaron Rhind


text:
Talk:Adam Arkapaw

Assassin's Creed
I added info about the upcoming film Assassin's Creed, which Arkapaw shot. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Adam Arkapaw


text:
Tales of the Wizard of Oz

Tales of the Wizard of Oz is a 1961 animated television series produced by Crawley Films for Videocraft (later known as Rankin/Bass Productions). This is the second animated series produced by the studio and the first by Rankin/Bass to feature traditional animation.

Summary
The series features stories derived from characters created in L. Frank Baum's 1900 novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Several characters are given additional names, including Dandy the Cowardly Lion, Rusty the Tin Man, and Socrates the Strawman. In this adaptation, rather than being dropped by a tornado, Dorothy and Toto are blown in from Kansas through a hole cut out of the landscape.

Each episode is a brief vignette about an adventure that the characters are involved in, often centering around the Wizard's attempts to fulfil the characters' wishes.

Artistic renditions of the Oz characters created for this series were later featured in the hourlong television special Return to Oz. The series was also adapted to a comic book for a one-shot issue in Dell's Four Color #1308 (March–May 1962).

, this series has yet to be released on DVD.

Cast

 * Carl Banas as The Wizard
 * Corinne Conley as Dorothy
 * Bernard Cowan as Munchkins, Various
 * Stan Francis as Various
 * Paul Kligman as Dandy Lion, Ham
 * Peggi Loder as Various
 * Larry D. Mann as Rusty the Tin Man, the Wicked Witch, Topsy Turvy, Desmond the Dragon
 * Alfie Scopp as Socrates the Strawman, Baker, Robby the Rubber Man

Episode list

 * 1) Pilot: Part 1
 * 2) Pilot: Part Two - The Witch Switch
 * 3) Leapin' Lion
 * 4) The Magic Hat
 * 5) The Balloon Buzz
 * 6) Machine-Gun Morris
 * 7) Movie Maid
 * 8) Shadow Shakes
 * 9) The Big Cake Bake
 * 10) Desmond's Dilemma
 * 11) Misfire Miss
 * 12) Gung-Ho Gang
 * 13) Heart Burn
 * 14) Stuffed
 * 15) The Fountain of Youth
 * 16) The Rubber Man
 * 17) The Happy Forest
 * 18) Dandy's Dilemma
 * 19) The Search
 * 20) The Bag of Wind
 * 21) The Music Men
 * 22) To Bee or Not to Bee
 * 23) Have Your Pie and Eat It Too
 * 24) The Sound of Munchkins
 * 25) The Count
 * 26) Places, Please
 * 27) The Green Golfer
 * 28) The Flying Carpet
 * 29) The Monkey Convention
 * 30) The Big Shot
 * 31) On the Wing
 * 32) To Stretch A Point
 * 33) The Flipped Lid
 * 34) Down in the Mouth
 * 35) The Gusher
 * 36) The Family Tree
 * 37) Boomer Rang
 * 38) The Great Laurso
 * 39) The Pudgy Lion
 * 40) Beauty and the Beach
 * 41) The Hillies and the Billies
 * 42) The School Marm
 * 43) An Optical Delusion
 * 44) Watch the Bouncing Bull
 * 45) All in a Lather
 * 46) The Green Thumb
 * 47) Leap Frog
 * 48) The Cultured Lion
 * 49) Chowy Mein
 * 50) The Super-Duper Market
 * 51) Friends of a Feather
 * 52) Monkey Air Lift
 * 53) Guaranteed for Life
 * 54) The Skills of Bravery
 * 55) The Coat of Arms
 * 56) Roar, Lion, Roar
 * 57) Be a Card
 * 58) The Inferior Decorator
 * 59) The Salesman
 * 60) The Cat's Meow
 * 61) The Yellow Brick Road
 * 62) Rusty Rusty
 * 63) The Scarecrow
 * 64) The Invisible Man
 * 65) Free Trade
 * 66) The Bull Fighter
 * 67) The Golden Touch
 * 68) The Long Hair
 * 69) Roll the Presses
 * 70) The Big Brother
 * 71) The Cool Lion
 * 72) Gabe the Gobbler
 * 73) The Raffle
 * 74) The Strawman Twist
 * 75) The Dinner Party
 * 76) The Fire Chief
 * 77) The Green Tomato
 * 78) The Poet
 * 79) The Three Musketeers
 * 80) One Big Headache
 * 81) Get Out the Vote
 * 82) The Wizard's Promise
 * 83) Well Done
 * 84) The Do-It-Yourself Heart
 * 85) The Great Oz Auto Race
 * 86) The Jail Breakers
 * 87) The Reunion
 * 88) The Sucker
 * 89) The Bubble Champ
 * 90) Too Much Heart
 * 91) The Witch's Boyfriend
 * 92) The Clock Watchers
 * 93) Double Trouble
 * 94) The O.N.
 * 95) Going to Pieces
 * 96) Mail-Order Lover
 * 97) Love Sick
 * 98) It's a Dog's Life
 * 99) The Fallen Star
 * 100) Don't Pick the Daisies
 * 101) The Munchkin Robin Hood
 * 102) The Wizard's Tail-Fins
 * 103) The Rubber Doll
 * 104) The Magic World Of Oz
 * 105)  The Wisdom Teeth
 * 106)  The Brain
 * 107) Bake Your Cake and Eat it Too
 * 108) A Fish Tale
 * 109)  The Last Straw
 * 110) Plug-In Courage
 * 111) The Wizard's Magic Wand
 * 112)  The Mail Man
 * 113) The Pony Express
 * 114) TV Romance

Film: Return to Oz (Feb 9, 1964)

title: Tales of the Wizard of Oz


text:
USA-151

USA-151, also known as GPS IIR-5, GPS SVN-44, and Navstar-48 is an American navigation satellite which forms part of the Global Positioning System. It was the fifth Block IIR GPS satellite to be launched, out of thirteen in the original configuration, and twenty one overall. It was built by Lockheed Martin, using the AS-4000 satellite bus.

USA-151 was launched at 09:17:00 UTC on 16 July 2000, atop a Delta II carrier rocket, flight number D279, flying in the 7925-9.5 configuration. The launch took place from Space Launch Complex 17A at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, and placed USA-151 into a transfer orbit. The satellite raised itself into medium Earth orbit using a Star-37FM apogee motor.

By 27 July 2000, USA-151 was in an orbit with a perigee of 20184 km, an apogee of 20426 km, a period of 722.98 minutes, and 55 degrees of inclination to the equator. It is used to broadcast the PRN 28 signal, and operates in slot 3 of plane B of the GPS constellation, having originally been operated in slot 5. The satellite has a mass of 2032 kg, and a design life of 10 years.

It was originally retired on 23 June 2021. On 14 Aug 2023, it was reactivated to replace SVN-63.

title: USA-151


text:
nino

Noun

 * 1) doll, especially one representing a male

Etymology
Probably imitative of infantile language, possibly through a. Compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1)  baby

Pronoun

 * 1) by whom, of whom, whose

title: nino


text:
Talk:David Thomson (film critic)

Biographical Dictionary of Film editions should be included in bibliography
New editions of old books usually do not belong in a bibliography, but I believe this is an exception since each new edition has been a major reworking. Thomas Tvileren (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:David Thomson (film critic)


text:
Portal:Cartography

Welcome to the Wikiversity Center for Cartography.

The Center for Cartography is a Wikiversity content development project where participants create, organize and develop learning resources for map-making and related activities ranging from simple hand-drawn maps to sophisticated computerized GIS data models.

Related studies
Part of Engineering and Technology

Relates to:
 * Mechanical Engineering
 * Production and Design Engineering
 * Computer Science
 * Civil Engineering

Learning materials

 * WikiMap (WikiMapia)
 * Geospatial Information Systems (GIS)
 * CAD Lesson - Principles of CAD and Terminology

Related learning projects

 * Geoinformatics (Computer Science)
 * Computer Aided Design Course

Software

 * OCAD - a software program designed to draw maps of all types.
 * Inkscape - a vector graphics editor application compliant with the XML, SVG and CSS standards.
 * The GIMP - an image manipulation package freely-available for Linux, Windows, Mac OS X.

Resources

 * Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER)
 * U.S. Census Bureau TIGER web page
 * Tiger Map Server Browser
 * GRASS: Geographic Resources Analysis Support System

title: Portal:Cartography


text:
United States Government/General Provisions

Introduction
The Constitution provides for many things other than the Union and member state government operation.

Supreme Law
The Constitution calls itself, the United States laws, and treaties, the Supreme Law of the land. No state law may conflict with the Supreme Law. If they do, the conflicting parts are ruled void. However the supremacy of federal law over state law only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuance to its constitutionally granted powers.

Also, the Constitution is itself superior to federal laws and treaties. If either of these, or any Executive order made by the President, or a state law, or other regulation similar to law, conflicts with the constitution, the Courts may declare it unconstitutional, and the law or regulation becomes void. Note that this is not explicitly provided for by the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall originally used judicial review- the power to declare laws unconstitutional- in the early 1800's when he decided the case Marbury v. Madison.

Oaths
The Union and member state officers take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Only the Union President's oath is explicitly spelled out- the form of the other oaths is left to the appropriate government. The Constitution, while mentioning oaths, specifically prohibits the United States or a member state from requiring a religious oath or observance of a certain religion in order to qualify for any office.

Amendment
The Constitution is not an unchangeable document. Changes to it are known as amendments. By tradition, an amendment does not strike out words and insert others. In order to leave the original Constitution whole, Amendments are added as separate Articles at the end of the Constitution.

There are two ways in which an amendment can be proposed, and two ways in which it can be ratified, or approved. First, the Amendment can be proposed by Congress. For this to occur, two-thirds of the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate must vote for the Amendment. Second, an Amendment can be proposed by a Constitutional Convention. If two-thirds of the member states make an application to Congress, Congress must call this Convention, which then proposes Amendments. However, a Constitutional Convention has never been called.

Regardless of the way in which the Amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the member states. The first manner in which ratification by a member state may occur is through the legislature. Secondly, a state convention can be called to ratify an amendment. The second method has only been used once. Note that each member state cannot decide which method it wishes to use. Whoever proposed the Amendment- the Congress or a Union Convention- will decide if legislatures or state conventions will ratify.

There have been twenty-seven Constitutional Amendments to date. The first ten guarantee certain already existing rights to the people and member states- they are therefore known as the Bill of Rights.


text:
adluminal

Adjective

 * 1)  Near or toward the lumen of a seminiferous tubule.

Translations

 * Portuguese: adluminal

Adjective

 * 1)   near or toward the lumen of a seminiferous tubule

title: adluminal


text:
User:Jarodalien/sandbox

Britain contributed to the Manhattan Project by helping initiate the effort to build the first atomic bombs in the United States during World War II, and helped carry it through to completion in August 1945 by supplying crucial expertise. Following the discovery of nuclear fission in uranium, scientists Rudolf Peierls and Otto Frisch at the University of Birmingham calculated, in March 1940, that the critical mass of a metallic sphere of pure uranium-235 was as little as 1 to 10 kg, and would explode with the power of thousands of tons of dynamite. The Frisch–Peierls memorandum prompted Britain to create an atomic bomb project, known as Tube Alloys. Mark Oliphant, an Australian physicist working in Britain, was instrumental in making the results of the British MAUD Report known in the United States in 1941 by a visit in person. Initially the British project was larger and more advanced, but after the United States entered the war, the American project soon outstripped and dwarfed its British counterpart. The British government then decided to shelve its own nuclear ambitions, and participate in the American project.

In August 1943, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill, and the President of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, signed the Quebec Agreement, which provided for cooperation between the two countries. The Quebec Agreement established the Combined Policy Committee and the Combined Development Trust to coordinate the efforts of the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. The subsequent Hyde Park Agreement in September 1944 extended this cooperation to the postwar period. A British Mission led by Wallace Akers assisted in the development of gaseous diffusion technology in New York. Britain also produced the powdered nickel required by the gaseous diffusion process. Another mission, led by Oliphant who acted as deputy director at the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory, assisted with the electromagnetic separation process. As head of the British Mission to the Los Alamos Laboratory, James Chadwick led a multinational team of distinguished scientists that included Sir Geoffrey Taylor, James Tuck, Niels Bohr, Peierls, Frisch, and Klaus Fuchs, who was later revealed to be a Soviet atomic spy. Four members of the British Mission became group leaders at Los Alamos. William Penney observed the bombing of Nagasaki and participated in the Operation Crossroads nuclear tests in 1946.

Cooperation ended with the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, known as the McMahon Act, and Ernest Titterton, the last British government employee, left Los Alamos on 12 April 1947. Britain then proceeded with High Explosive Research, its own nuclear weapons programme, and became the third country to test an independently developed nuclear weapon in October 1952.

Origins
The 1938 discovery of nuclear fission in uranium by Otto Robert Frisch, Fritz Strassmann, Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn, raised the possibility that an extremely powerful atomic bomb could be created. Refugees from Nazi Germany and other fascist countries were particularly alarmed by the notion of a German nuclear weapon project. In the United States, three of them, Leo Szilard, Eugene Wigner and Albert Einstein, were moved to write the Einstein–Szilárd letter to the President of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, warning of the danger. This led to the President creating the Advisory Committee on Uranium. In Britain, Nobel Prize in Physics laureates George Paget Thomson and William Lawrence Bragg were sufficiently concerned to take up the matter. Their concerns reached the Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence, Major General Hastings Ismay, who consulted with Sir Henry Tizard. Like many scientists, Tizard was sceptical of the likelihood of an atomic bomb being developed, reckoning the odds against success at 100,000 to 1.

Even at such long odds, the danger was sufficiently great to be taken seriously. Thomson, at Imperial College London, and Mark Oliphant, an Australian physicist at the University of Birmingham, were tasked with carrying out a series of experiments on uranium. By February 1940, Thomson's team had failed to create a chain reaction in natural uranium, and he had decided that it was not worth pursuing. But at Birmingham, Oliphant's team had reached a strikingly different conclusion. Oliphant had delegated the task to two German refugee scientists, Rudolf Peierls and Otto Frisch, who could not work on the University's radar project because they were enemy aliens and therefore lacked the necessary security clearance. They calculated the critical mass of a metallic sphere of pure uranium-235, the only fissile isotope found in significant quantity in nature, and found that instead of tons, as everyone had assumed, as little as 1 to 10 kg would suffice, which would explode with the power of thousands of tons of dynamite.

Oliphant took the Frisch–Peierls memorandum to Tizard, and the MAUD Committee was established to investigate further. It directed an intensive research effort, and in July 1941, produced two comprehensive reports that reached the conclusion that an atomic bomb was not only technically feasible, but could be produced before the war ended, perhaps in as little as two years. The Committee unanimously recommended pursuing the development of an atomic bomb as a matter of urgency, although it recognised that the resources required might be beyond those available to Britain. A new directorate known as Tube Alloys was created to coordinate this effort. Sir John Anderson, the Lord President of the Council, became the minister responsible, and Wallace Akers from Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) was appointed the director of Tube Alloys.

Early Anglo-American cooperation
In July 1940, Britain had offered to give the United States access to its scientific research, and the Tizard Mission's John Cockcroft briefed American scientists on British developments. He discovered that the American project was smaller than the British, and not as far advanced. As part of the scientific exchange, the Maud Committee's findings were conveyed to the United States. Oliphant, one of the Maud Committee's members, flew to the United States in late August 1941, and discovered that vital information had not reached key American physicists. He met the Uranium Committee, and visited Berkeley, California, where he spoke persuasively to Ernest O. Lawrence, who was sufficiently impressed to commence his own research into uranium at the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory. Lawrence in turn spoke to James B. Conant, Arthur H. Compton and George B. Pegram. Oliphant's mission was a success; key American physicists became aware of the potential power of an atomic bomb. Armed with British data, Vannevar Bush, the director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), briefed Roosevelt and Vice President Henry A. Wallace in a meeting at the White House on 9 October 1941.

The British and Americans exchanged nuclear information, but did not initially combine their efforts. British officials did not reply to an August 1941 offer by Bush and Conant to create a combined British and American project. In November 1941, Frederick L. Hovde, the head of the London liaison office of OSRD, raised the issue of cooperation and exchange of information with Anderson and Lord Cherwell, who demurred, ostensibly over concerns about American security. Ironically, it was the British project that had already been penetrated by atomic spies for the Soviet Union.

Yet the United Kingdom did not have the manpower or resources of the United States, and despite its early and promising start, Tube Alloys fell behind its American counterpart and was dwarfed by it. Britain was spending around £430,000 per year on research and development, and Metropolitan-Vickers was building gaseous diffusion units for uranium enrichment worth £150,000; but the Manhattan Project was spending £8,750,000 on research and development, and had let construction contracts worth £100,000,000 at the fixed wartime rate of four dollars to the pound. On 30 July 1942, Anderson advised the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill, that: "We must face the fact that ... [our] pioneering work ... is a dwindling asset and that, unless we capitalise it quickly, we shall be outstripped. We now have a real contribution to make to a 'merger.' Soon we shall have little or none."

By then, the positions of the two countries had reversed from what they were in 1941. The Americans had become suspicious that the British were seeking commercial advantages after the war, and Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves, Jr., who took over command of the Manhattan Project on 23 September 1942, wanted to tighten security with a policy of strict compartmentalisation similar to the one that the British had imposed on radar. American officials decided that the United States no longer needed outside help. The Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, felt that since the United States was doing "ninety percent of the work" on the bomb, it would be "better for us to go along for the present without sharing anything more than we could help". In December 1942, Roosevelt agreed to restricting the flow of information to what Britain could use during the war, even if doing so slowed down the American project. In retaliation, the British stopped sending information and scientists to America, and the Americans then stopped all information sharing.

The British considered how they would produce a bomb without American help. A gaseous diffusion plant to produce 1 kg of weapons-grade uranium per day was estimated to cost up to £3,000,000 in research and development, and anything up to £50,000,000 to build in wartime Britain. A nuclear reactor to produce 1 kg of plutonium per day would have to be built in Canada. It would take up to five years to build and cost £5,000,000. The project would also require facilities for producing the required heavy water for the reactor costing between £5,000,000 and £10,000,000, and for producing uranium metal £1,500,000. The project would need overwhelming priority, as it was estimated to require 20,000 workers, many of them highly skilled, 500,000 tons of steel, and 500,000 kW of electricity. Disruption to other wartime projects would be inevitable, and it was unlikely to be ready in time to affect the outcome of the war in Europe. The unanimous response was that before embarking on this, another effort should be made to obtain American cooperation.

Cooperation resumes
By March 1943 Conant decided that British help would benefit some areas of the project. In particular, the Manhattan Project could benefit enough from assistance from James Chadwick, the discoverer of the neutron, and several other British scientists to warrant the risk of revealing weapon design secrets. Bush, Conant and Groves wanted Chadwick and Peierls to discuss bomb design with Robert Oppenheimer, and Kellogg still wanted British comments on the design of the gaseous diffusion plant.

Churchill took up the matter with Roosevelt at the Washington Conference on 25 May 1943, and Churchill thought that Roosevelt gave the reassurances he sought; but there was no follow-up. Bush, Stimson and William Bundy met Churchill, Cherwell and Anderson at 10 Downing Street in London. None of them was aware that Roosevelt had already made his decision, writing to Bush on 20 July 1943 with instructions to "renew, in an inclusive manner, the full exchange with the British Government regarding Tube Alloys."

Stimson, who had just finished a series of arguments with the British about the need for an invasion of France, was reluctant to appear to disagree with them about everything, and spoke in conciliatory terms about the need for good post-war relations between the two countries. For his part, Churchill disavowed interest in the commercial applications of nuclear technology. The reason for British concern about the post-war cooperation, Cherwell explained, was not commercial concerns, but so that Britain would have nuclear weapons after the war. Anderson then drafted an agreement for full interchange, which Churchill re-worded "in more majestic language". News arrived in London of Roosevelt's decision on 27 July, and Anderson was dispatched to Washington with the draft agreement. Churchill and Roosevelt signed what became known as the Quebec Agreement at the Quebec Conference on 19 August 1943.

The Quebec Agreement established the Combined Policy Committee to coordinate the efforts of the United States, United Kingdom and Canada. Stimson, Bush and Conant served as the American members of the Combined Policy Committee, Field Marshal Sir John Dill and Colonel J. J. Llewellin were the British members, and C. D. Howe was the Canadian member. Llewellin returned to the United Kingdom at the end of 1943 and was replaced on the committee by Sir Ronald Ian Campbell, who in turn was replaced by the British Ambassador to the United States, Lord Halifax, in early 1945. Dill died in Washington, D.C., in November 1944 and was replaced both as Chief of the British Joint Staff Mission and as a member of the Combined Policy Committee by Field Marshal Sir Henry Maitland Wilson.

Even before the Quebec Agreement was signed, Akers had already cabled London with instructions that Chadwick, Peierls, Oliphant and Francis Simon should leave immediately for North America. They arrived on 19 August, the day it was signed, expecting to be able to talk to American scientists, but were unable to do so. Two weeks would pass before American officials learnt of the contents of the Quebec Agreement. Over the next two years, the Combined Policy Committee met only eight times.

The first occasion was on 8 September 1943, on the afternoon after Stimson discovered that he was the chairman. The first meeting established a Technical Subcommittee chaired by Major General Wilhelm D. Styer. Because the Americans did not want Akers on the Technical Subcommittee due to his ICI background, Llewellin nominated Chadwick, whom he also wanted to be Head of the British Mission to the Manhattan Project. The other members were Richard C. Tolman, who was Groves's scientific adviser, and C. J. Mackenzie, the president of the Canadian National Research Council. It was agreed that the Technical Committee could act without consulting the Combined Policy Committee whenever its decision was unanimous. The Technical Subcommittee held its first meeting on 10 September, but negotiations dragged on. The Combined Policy Committee ratified the proposals in December 1943, by which time several British scientists had already commenced working on the Manhattan Project in the United States.

There remained the issue of cooperation between the Manhattan's Project's Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago and the Montreal Laboratory. At the Combined Policy Committee meeting on 17 February 1944, Chadwick pressed for resources to build a nuclear reactor at what is now known as the Chalk River Laboratories. Britain and Canada agreed to pay the cost of this project, but the United States had to supply the heavy water. At that time, the United States controlled, by a supply contract, the only major production site on the continent, that of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company at Trail, British Columbia. Given that it was unlikely to have any impact on the war, Conant in particular was cool about the proposal, but heavy water reactors were of great interest. Groves was willing to support the effort and supply the heavy water required, but with certain restrictions. The Montreal Laboratory would have access to data from the research reactors at Argonne and the X-10 Graphite Reactor at Oak Ridge, but not from the production reactors at the Hanford Site; nor would they be given any information about plutonium. This arrangement was formally approved by the Combined Policy Committee meeting on 19 September 1944. The Canadian ZEEP (Zero Energy Experimental Pile) reactor went critical on 5 September 1945.

Chadwick supported British involvement in the Manhattan Project to the fullest extent, abandoning any hopes of a British project during the war. With Churchill's backing, he attempted to ensure that every request from Groves for assistance was honoured. While the pace of research was easing as the war entered its final phase, these scientists were still in great demand, and it fell to Anderson, Cherwell and Sir Edward Appleton, the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which was responsible for Tube Alloys, to prise them away from the wartime projects in which they were invariably engaged.

The September 1944 Hyde Park Agreement extended both commercial and military cooperation into the post-war period. The Quebec Agreement specified that nuclear weapons would not be used against another country without mutual consent. On 4 July 1945, Wilson agreed that the use of nuclear weapons against Japan would be recorded as a decision of the Combined Policy Committee.

Gaseous diffusion project
Tube Alloys made its greatest advances in gaseous diffusion technology, and Chadwick had originally hoped that the pilot plant at least would be built in Britain. Gaseous diffusion technology was devised by Simon and three expatriates, Nicholas Kurti from Hungary, Heinrich Kuhn from Germany, and Henry Arms from the United States, at the Clarendon Laboratory in 1940. The prototype gaseous diffusion equipment, two two-stage models and two ten-stage models, was manufactured by Metropolitan-Vickers at a cost of £150,000 for the four units. Two single-stage machines were later added. Delays in delivery meant that experiments with the single-stage machine did not commence until June 1943, and with the two-stage machine until August 1943. The two ten-stage machines were delivered in August and November 1943, but by this time the research programme they had been built for had been overtaken by events.

The Quebec Agreement allowed Simon and Peierls to meet with representatives of Kellex, who were designing and building the American gaseous diffusion plant, Union Carbide and Carbon, who would operate it, and Harold Urey's Substitute Alloy Materials (SAM) Laboratories at Columbia University, the Manhattan Project's centre tasked with research and development of the process. The year's loss of cooperation cost the Manhattan Project dearly. The corporations were committed to tight schedules, and the engineers were unable to incorporate British proposals that would involve major changes. Nor would it be possible to build a second plant. Nonetheless, the Americans were still eager for British assistance, and Groves asked for a British mission to be sent to assist the gaseous diffusion project. In the meantime, Simon and Peierls were attached to Kellex.

The British mission consisting of Akers and fifteen British experts arrived in December 1943. This was a critical time. Severe problems had been encountered with the Norris-Adler barrier. Nickel powder and electro-deposited nickel mesh diffusion barriers were pioneered by American chemist Edward Adler and British interior decorator Edward Norris at the SAM Laboratories. A decision had to be made whether to persevere with it or switch to a powdered nickel barrier based upon British technology that had been developed by Kellex. Up to this point, both were under development. The SAM Laboratory had 700 people working on gaseous diffusion and Kellex had about 900. The British experts conducted a thorough review, and agreed that the Kellex barrier was superior, but felt that it would be unlikely to be ready in time. Kellex's technical director, Percival C. Keith, disagreed, arguing that his company could get it ready and produce it more quickly than the Norris-Adler barrier. Groves listened to the British experts before he formally adopted the Kellex barrier on 5 January 1944.

The United States Army assumed responsibility for procuring sufficient quantities of the right type of powdered nickel. In this, the British were able to help. The only company that manufactured it was the Mond Nickel Company at Clydach in Wales. By the end of June 1945, it had supplied the Manhattan Project with 5000 lt of nickel powder, paid for by the British government and supplied to the United States under Reverse Lend-Lease.

The Americans planned to have the K-25 plant in full production by June or July 1945. Having taken two years to get the prototype stages working, the British experts regarded this as incredibly optimistic, and felt that, barring a miracle, it would be unlikely to reach that point before the end of 1946. This opinion offended their American counterparts and dampened the enthusiasm for cooperation, and the British mission returned to the United Kingdom in January 1944. Armed with the British Mission's report, Chadwick and Oliphant were able to persuade Groves to reduce K-25's enrichment target; the output of K-25 would be enriched to weapons grade by being fed into the electromagnetic plant. Despite the British Mission's pessimistic forecasts, K-25 was producing enriched uranium in June 1945.

After the rest of the mission departed, Peierls, Kurti and Fuchs remained in New York, where they worked with Kellex. They were joined there by Tony Skyrme and Frank Kearton, who arrived in March 1944. Kurti returned to England in April 1944 and Kearton in September. Peierls moved on to the Los Alamos Laboratory in February 1944; Skyrme followed in July, and Fuchs in August.

Electromagnetic project
On 26 May 1943, Oliphant wrote to Appleton to say that he had been considering the problem of electromagnetic isotope separation, and believed that he had devised a better method than Lawrence's, one which would result in a five to tenfold improvement in efficiency, and make it more practical to use the process in Britain. His proposal was reviewed by Akers, Chadwick, Peierls and Simon, who agreed that it was sound. While the majority of scientific opinion in Britain favoured the gaseous diffusion method, there was still a possibility that electromagnetic separation might be useful as a final stage in the enrichment process, taking uranium that had already been enriched to 50 per cent by the gaseous process, and enriching it to pure uranium-235. Accordingly, Oliphant was released from the radar project to work on Tube Alloys, conducting experiments on his method at the University of Birmingham.

Oliphant met Groves and Oppenheimer in Washington, D.C., on 18 September 1943, and they attempted to persuade him to join the Los Alamos Laboratory, but Oliphant felt that he would be of more use assisting Lawrence on the electromagnetic project. Accordingly, the Technical Subcommittee directed that Oliphant and six assistants would go to Berkeley, and later move on to Los Alamos. Oliphant found that he and Lawrence had quite different designs, and that the American one was frozen, but Lawrence, who had expressed a desire for Oliphant to join him on the electromagnetic project as early as 1942, was eager for Oliphant's assistance. Oliphant secured the services of a fellow Australian physicist, Harrie Massey, who had been working for the Admiralty on magnetic mines, along with James Stayers and Stanley Duke, who had worked with him on the cavity magnetron. This initial group set out for Berkeley in a B-24 Liberator bomber in November 1943. Oliphant found that Berkeley had shortages of key skills, particularly physicists, chemists and engineers. He prevailed on Sir David Rivett, the head of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research in Australia, to release Eric Burhop to work on the project. His requests for personnel were met, and the British mission at Berkeley grew in number to 35, two of whom, Robin Williams and George Page, were New Zealanders.

Members of the British mission occupied several key positions in the electromagnetic project. Oliphant became Lawrence's de facto deputy, and was in charge of the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory when Lawrence was absent. His enthusiasm for the electromagnetic project was rivalled only by Lawrence's, and his involvement went beyond scientific problems, extending to policy questions such as whether to expand the electromagnetic plant, although in this he was unsuccessful. The British chemists made important contributions, particularly Harry Emeléus and Philip Baxter, a chemist who had been research manager at ICI, was sent to the Manhattan Project's Clinton Engineering Works at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in 1944 in response to a request for assistance with uranium chemistry, and became personal assistant to the general manager. His status as an ICI employee was of no concern to Groves. The British mission was given complete access to the electromagnetic project, both in Berkeley and at the Y-12 electromagnetic separation plant in Oak Ridge. While some of the British mission remained at Berkeley or Oak Ridge only for a few weeks, most stayed until the end of the war. Oliphant returned to Britain in March 1945, and was replaced as head of the British mission in Berkeley by Massey.

Los Alamos Laboratory

When cooperation resumed in September 1943, Groves and Oppenheimer revealed the existence of the Los Alamos Laboratory to Chadwick, Peierls and Oliphant. Oppenheimer wanted all three to proceed to Los Alamos as soon as possible, but it was decided that Oliphant would go to Berkeley to work on the electromagnetic process and Peierls would go to New York to work on the gaseous diffusion process. The task then fell to Chadwick. The original idea, favoured by Groves, was that the British scientists would work as a group under Chadwick, who would farm out work to them. This was soon discarded in favour of having the British Mission fully integrated into the laboratory. They worked in most of its divisions, only being excluded from plutonium chemistry and metallurgy.

First to arrive was Otto Frisch and Ernest Titterton and his wife Peggy, who reached Los Alamos on 13 December 1943. At Los Alamos Frisch continued his work on critical mass studies, for which Titterton developed electronic circuitry for high voltage generators, X-ray generators, timers and firing circuits. Peggy Titterton, a trained physics and metallurgy laboratory assistant, was one of the few women working at Los Alamos in a technical role. Chadwick arrived on 12 January 1944, but only stayed for a few months before returning to Washington, D.C.

Niels Bohr and his son Aage, a physicist who acted as his father's assistant, arrived on 30 December on the first of several visits as a consultant. Bohr and his family had escaped from occupied Denmark to Sweden. A De Havilland Mosquito bomber brought him to England where he joined Tube Alloys. In America, he was able to visit Oak Ridge and Los Alamos, where he found many of his former students. Bohr acted as a critic, a facilitator and a role model for younger scientists. He arrived at a critical time, and several nuclear fission studies and experiments were conducted at his instigation. He played an important role in the development of the uranium tamper, and in the design and adoption of the modulated neutron initiator. His presence boosted morale, and helped improve the administration of the laboratory to strengthen ties with the Army.

Nuclear physicists knew about fission, but not the hydrodynamics of conventional explosions. As a result, there were two additions to the team that made significant contributions in this area of physics. First was James Tuck whose field of expertise was in shaped charges used in anti tank weapons for armour piercing. In terms of the plutonium bomb the scientists at Los Alamos were trying to wrestle with the idea of the implosion issue. Tuck was sent to Los Alamos in April 1944 and used a radical concept of explosive lensing which was then put into place. Tuck also designed the Urchin initiator for the bomb working closely with Seth Neddermeyer. This work was crucial to the success of the plutonium atomic bomb: Italian-American scientist Bruno Rossi later stated that without Tuck's work the plutonium bomb could not have exploded in August 1945. The other was Sir Geoffrey Taylor, an important consultant who arrived a month later to also work on the issue. Taylor's presence was desired so much at Los Alamos, Chadwick informed London, "that anything short of kidnapping would be justified". He was sent, and provided crucial insights into the Rayleigh–Taylor instability. The acute need for scientists with an understanding of explosives also led Chadwick to obtain the release of William Penney from the Admiralty, and William Marley from the Road Research Laboratory. Peierls and Fuchs worked on the hydrodynamics of the explosive lenses. Bethe considered Fuchs "one of the most valuable men in my division" and "one of the best theoretical physicists we had."

William Penney worked on means to assess the effects of a nuclear explosion, and wrote a paper on what height the bombs should be detonated at for maximum effect in attacks on Germany and Japan. He served as a member of the target committee established by Groves to select Japanese cities for atomic bombing, and on Tinian with Project Alberta as a special consultant. Along with Group Captain Leonard Cheshire, sent by Wilson as a British representative, he watched the bombing of Nagasaki from the observation plane Big Stink. He also formed part of the Manhattan Project's post-war scientific mission to Hiroshima and Nagasaki that assessed the extent of the damage caused by the bombs.

Bethe declared that:"For the work of the theoretical division of the Los Alamos Project during the war the collaboration of the British Mission was absolutely essential ... It is very difficult to say what would have happened under different conditions. However, at least, the work of the Theoretical Division would have been very much more difficult and very much less effective without the members of the British Mission, and it is not unlikely that our final weapon would have been considerably less efficient in this case."

From December 1945 on, members of the British Mission began returning home. Peierls left in January 1946. At the request of Norris Bradbury, who had replaced Oppenheimer as laboratory director, Fuchs remained until 15 June 1946. Eight British scientists, three from Los Alamos and five from the United Kingdom, participated in Operation Crossroads, the nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll in the Pacific. With the passage of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, known as the McMahon Act, all British government employees had to leave. Titterton was granted a special dispensation, and remained until 12 April 1947. The British Mission ended when he departed. Carson Mark remained, as he was a Canadian government employee. He remained at Los Alamos, becoming head of its Theoretical Division in 1947, a position he held until he retired in 1973. He became a United States citizen in the 1950s.

Feed materials
The Combined Development Trust was proposed by the Combined Policy Committee on 17 February 1944. The declaration of trust was signed by Churchill and Roosevelt on 13 June 1944. The trustees were approved at the Combined Policy Committee meeting on 19 September 1944. The United States trustees were Groves, who was elected chairman, geologist Charles K. Leith, and George L. Harrison. The British trustees were Sir Charles Hambro, the head of the British Raw Materials Mission in Washington, D.C., and Frank Lee from HM Treasury. Canada was represented by George C. Bateman, a deputy minister and member of the Canadian Combined Resources Board. Each of the three governments had its own raw materials resources staff, and the Combined Development Trust was a means of coordinating their efforts.

The role of the Combined Development Trust was to purchase or control the mineral resources needed by the Manhattan Project, and to avoid competition between the three. Britain had little need for uranium ores while the war continued, but was anxious to secure adequate supplies for its own nuclear weapons programme when it ended. Half the funding was to come from the United States and half from Britain and Canada. The initial $12.5 million was transferred to Groves from an account in the office of the United States Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr., that was not subject to the usual accounting auditing and oversight. By the time Groves resigned from the Trust at the end of 1947, he had deposited $37.5 million into an account he controlled at the Bankers Trust. Payments were then made from this account.

Britain took the lead in negotiations to reopen the Shinkolobwe mine in the Belgian Congo, the world's richest source of uranium ore, which had been flooded and closed, as 30 percent of the stock in Union Minière du Haut Katanga, the company that owned the mine, was controlled by British interests. Sir John Anderson and Ambassador John Winant hammered out a deal in May 1944 with Edgar Sengier, the director of Union Minière, and the Belgian government for the mine to be reopened and 1720 LT of ore to be purchased at $1.45 a pound. The Combined Development Trust also negotiated deals with Swedish companies to acquire ore from there. Oliphant approached the Australian High Commissioner in London, Sir Stanley Bruce, in August 1943 about uranium supplies from Australia, and Anderson made a direct request to the prime minister of Australia, John Curtin, during the latter's visit to Britain in May 1944 to initiate mineral exploration in Australia in places where uranium deposits were believed to exist. As well as uranium, the Combined Development Trust secured supplies of thorium from Brazil, Netherlands East Indies, Sweden and Portugal. At the time uranium was believed to be a rare mineral, and the more abundant thorium was seen as a possible alternative, as it could be irradiated to produce uranium-233, another isotope of uranium suitable for making atomic bombs.

Intelligence
In December 1943, Groves sent Robert R. Furman to Britain to establish a London Liaison Office for the Manhattan Project to coordinate scientific intelligence with the British government. Groves selected the head of the Manhattan District's security activities, Captain Horace K. Calvert, to head the London Liaison Office with the title of Assistant Military Attaché. He worked in cooperation with Lieutenant Commander Eric Welsh, the head of the Norwegian Section of MI6, and Michael Perrin from Tube Alloys. An Anglo-American intelligence committee was formed by Groves and Anderson in November 1944, consisting of Perrin, Welsh, Calvert, Furman and R. V. Jones.

At the urging of Groves and Furman, the Alsos Mission was created on 4 April 1944 under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Boris Pash to conduct intelligence in the field relating to the German nuclear energy project. The more experienced British considered creating a rival mission, but in the end agreed to participate in the Alsos Mission as a junior partner. In June 1945, Welsh reported that the German nuclear physicists captured by the Alsos Mission were in danger of being executed by the Americans, and Jones arranged for them to be moved to Farm Hall, a country house in Huntingdonshire used for training by MI6 and the Special Operations Executive (SOE). The house was bugged, and the conversations of the scientists were recorded.

Results
Groves appreciated the early British atomic research and the British scientists' contributions to the Manhattan Project, but stated that the United States would have succeeded without them. He considered British assistance "helpful but not vital", but acknowledged that "without active and continuing British interest, there probably would have been no atomic bomb to drop on Hiroshima." He considered Britain's key contributions to have been encouragement and support at the intergovernmental level, scientific aid, the production of powdered nickel in Wales, and preliminary studies and laboratory work.

Cooperation did not long survive the war. Roosevelt died on 12 April 1945, and the Hyde Park Agreement was not binding on subsequent administrations. In fact, it was physically lost. When Wilson raised the matter in a Combined Policy Committee meeting in June, the American copy could not be found. The British sent Stimson a photocopy on 18 July 1945. Even then, Groves questioned the document's authenticity until the American copy was located years later in the papers of Vice Admiral Wilson Brown, Jr., Roosevelt's naval aide, apparently misfiled by someone unaware of what Tube Alloys was, who thought it had something to do with naval guns.

Harry S. Truman, who had succeeded Roosevelt on the latter's death, Clement Attlee, who had replaced Churchill as prime minister in July 1945, Anderson and United States Secretary of State James F. Byrnes conferred while on a boat cruise on the Potomac River, and agreed to revise the Quebec Agreement. On 15 November 1945, Groves, Robert P. Patterson and George L. Harrison met a British delegation consisting of Anderson, Wilson, Malcolm MacDonald, Roger Makins and Denis Rickett to draw up a communiqué. They agreed to retain the Combined Policy Committee and the Combined Development Trust. The Quebec Agreement's requirement for "mutual consent" before using nuclear weapons was replaced with one for "prior consultation", and there was to be "full and effective cooperation in the field of atomic energy", but in the longer Memorandum of Intention, signed by Groves and Anderson, this was only "in the field of basic scientific research". Patterson took the communiqué to the White House, where Truman and Attlee signed it on 16 November 1945.

The next meeting of the Combined Policy Committee on 15 April 1946 produced no accord on collaboration, and resulted in an exchange of cables between Truman and Attlee. Truman cabled on 20 April that he did not see the communiqué he had signed as obligating the United States to assist Britain in designing, constructing and operating an atomic energy plant. Attlee's response on 6 June 1946 "did not mince words nor conceal his displeasure behind the nuances of diplomatic language." At issue was not just technical cooperation, which was fast disappearing, but the allocation of uranium ore. During the war this was of little concern, as Britain had not needed any ore, so all the production of the Congo mines and all the ore seized by the Alsos Mission had gone to the United States, but now it was also required by the British atomic project. Chadwick and Groves reached an agreement by which ore would be shared equally.

The McMahon Act, which was signed by Truman on 1 August 1946, and went into effect at midnight on 1 January 1947, ended technical cooperation. Its control of "restricted data" prevented the United States' allies from receiving any information. The remaining scientists were denied access to papers that they had written just days before. The terms of the Quebec Agreement remained secret, but senior members of Congress were horrified when they discovered that it gave the British a veto over the use of nuclear weapons. The McMahon Act fuelled resentment from British scientists and officials alike, and led directly to the British decision in January 1947 to develop its own nuclear weapons. In January 1948, Bush, James Fisk, Cockcroft and Mackenzie concluded an agreement known as the modus vivendi, that allowed for limited sharing of technical information between the United States, Britain and Canada.

As the Cold War set in, enthusiasm in the United States for an alliance with Britain cooled as well. A September 1949 poll found that 72 per cent of Americans agreed that the United States should not "share our atomic energy secrets with England". The reputation of the British Mission to Los Alamos was tarnished by the 1950 revelation that Fuchs was a Soviet atomic spy. It damaged the relationship between the United States and Britain, and provided ammunition for Congressional opponents of cooperation like Senator Bourke B. Hickenlooper.

British wartime participation in the Manhattan Project provided a substantial body of expertise that was crucial to the success of High Explosive Research, the United Kingdom's post-war nuclear weapons programme, although it was not without important gaps, such as in the field of plutonium metallurgy. The development of the independent British nuclear deterrent led to the Atomic Energy Act being amended in 1958, and to a resumption of the nuclear Special Relationship between America and Britain under the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement.

title: User:Jarodalien/sandbox


text:
Bhangala (disambiguation)

Bhangala is a village of Punjab, India.

Bhangala may also refer to:
 * Bhangala, Jalandhar, a village in Phillaur in Jalandhar district, India

title: Bhangala (disambiguation)


text:
Template:Attached KML/Minnesota State Highway 171

   Minnesota State Highway 171.kml   ff0000ff 5 		    ff0000ff 5 		    normal #line-1267FF-5  <Pair> highlight <styleUrl>#line-1267FF-50</styleUrl> </Pair> </StyleMap> <Placemark> Minnesota State Highway 171 <styleUrl>#line-1267FF-51</styleUrl> <LineString> 1 				-97.23787601356881,48.97370202148238,0 -97.23103464813894,48.97406393524951,0 -97.22657762345916,48.97428296106661,0 -97.22544665721368,48.97422903685744,0 -97.22456554461205,48.97406667634417,0 -97.22352571472329,48.9737262353872,0 -97.22258879500474,48.97328356508125,0 -97.22204231945526,48.97291633168091,0 -97.22096298444797,48.97190675134107,0 -97.2204066957467,48.97143884586166,0 -97.21988235200585,48.97112538692499,0 -97.21929137355204,48.97079887324357,0 -97.21796321257475,48.97037928585114,0 -97.21631864782297,48.97013210858992,0 -97.21084958502199,48.96947974925356,0 -97.21014133790855,48.96941258769576,0 -97.20933171503707,48.96936241484413,0 -97.20723846682162,48.96922886012659,0 -97.20638091716266,48.96919564862434,0 -97.2053075504402,48.96926283025642,0 -97.20428944449216,48.96944782928944,0 -97.20335268284021,48.96971875205723,0 -97.20211676862239,48.97025931653971,0 -97.20141931454268,48.97071837207427,0 -97.19977557531301,48.97215503650985,0 		</LineString> </Placemark> </Document>


text:
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tehepicness/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

The user keeps changing accounts to evade blocks:
 * 1) The user makes exactly the same edits—pointless typographical changes (most frequently removing spaces in infoboxes) that are not only useless, but often harmful. For example removing dashes makes the sentences lose their meaning.
 * 2) The user ignores all warnings on both user talk pages. For example repeated requests to stop changing date formats (again, a thing he keeps doing under both accounts).
 * 3) The user makes the same kind of personal attacks on his talk page, typographically and stylistically (e.g. vs. )
 * 4) Jason kurger got his level-4 warning, and then stopped editing on 7 September. AndreiTerbea created his account and started editing on 8 September. AndreiTerbea got blocked from editing on 17 September. Jason kurger then resumed editing on 18 September.

This is a WP:DUCK to me.—J. M. (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ plus:
 * is.
 * . Please move to Tehepicness.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ and closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * . Please move to Tehepicness.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ and closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

The duck is quacking into a megaphone again. Exactly the same edits (removing white space, e.g. vs., removing dashes and hyphens, e.g.  vs. , changing date formats and other typographical vandalism, e.g.  vs. , the same typographical and intellectual style in his own messages, e.g.  vs. ), the same warnings on his talk page, the same disregard for all warnings. There may be other sock puppets, too (see the previous report). And if there is an IP address or an IP range that could be blocked, that could help, too.—J. M. (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


text:
Artistic gymnastics at the 2006 Central American and Caribbean Games – Women's artistic individual all-around

The women's artistic individual all-around competition of the gymnastics events at the 2006 Central American and Caribbean Games was held on July 17–18 in Cartagena, Colombia.


text:
sumat

Pronoun

 * 1) * 1841, Charles Selby, Maximums & Speciments of William Muggins, Natural Philosopher and Citizen of the World, 313 (1859 ed.)
 * ‛Salem aleicum,’ says she; which means, How do you do, or sumat hequivalent to it.
 * ‛Salem aleicum,’ says she; which means, How do you do, or sumat hequivalent to it.

Noun

 * 1) sand finely ground rock

Verb

 * 1) to take after a bad trait or characteristic

Noun

 * 1) report

title: sumat


text:
Old soldiers never die

"Old soldiers never die" is an English language catchphrase, with the full version being "Old soldiers never die, they simply fade away". It is made from a stanza from the soldiers' folklore song Old Soldiers Never Die:

 * Old soldiers never die,
 * Never die, never die,
 * Old soldiers never die,
 * They simply fade away.

The song itself is a British Army's parody of the gospel song Kind Thoughts Can Never Die.

In the United States, the phrase was used by General Douglas MacArthur in his April 19, 1951 farewell address to the U.S. Congress (which has become known as the "Old Soldiers Never Die" speech): "... but I still remember the refrain of one of the most popular barrack ballads of that day which proclaimed most proudly that 'old soldiers never die; they just fade away.'

And like the old soldier of that ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty."

The phrase generated a host of joke snowclones, such as: In a 1980 interview with Barbara Walters on ABC's program 20/20, former president Richard Nixon paraphrased MacArthur and the catchphrase for himself by saying "Old politicians usually die, but they never fade away."
 * Old programmers never die, they just branch to a new address
 * Old policemen never die, they just cop out
 * Old pilots never die, they just go to a higher plane.
 * Old fishermen never die, they just smell that way.

In Sting's 2016 album "57th & 9th", the second single, “50,000”, contains the line of verse “Rock stars don't ever die, they only fade away” as a tribute to Prince, David Bowie, Glenn Frey, and Lemmy Kilmister.

The song was recorded by Bing Crosby during a broadcast of his radio show in 1951 and later released on Decca Records.

title: Old soldiers never die


text:
Talk:Tropical cyclone scales

Australian Catagory Colour
I felt that the Australian System should have their own colours. I decided to have a play around and this is what i came up with. Tell me what you think.

--Seddon69 17:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Just no. We don't particularly need this at all. You tried your best, nonetheless. ~ AC5230 (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Beaufort scale is off
According to all sources about the Beaufort scale (for instance https://www.rmets.org/weather-and-climate/observing/beaufort-scale), the scale is off in the Tropical cyclone classifications table. This should be the correct table:

As can be seen there is an overlap between a category 1 hurricane (saffir simpson scale) and 11 beaufort.

They are wrong because the beaufort scale corresponds to the 10-minute wind speed. Currently in the table the 1-minute wind speed is used to assign the beaufort scale. The 10-minute beaufort scale should be used.

CDPS scale?
Where's the CDPS scale, created 2016 by Devon Williams? I'd like an explanation of it. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that the scale would fall under WP:Fancruft, since it's not been mentioned in reliable sources and was created by Force13. However, I would like a second opinion pleaseJason Rees (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Literally nothing on it found by Googling. Doesn't seem like any reliable sources wrote about it. So I agree, we shouldn't put it in.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also assessing the same as Jasper Deng. The scale is not used in any regular capacity outside of a niche group of a tropical cyclone enthusiasts. It is well below the significance threshold of the other scales featured on the article, which are either used officially by meteorological centers or have received widespread and verifiable media coverage or reliable journal publication.  TheAustinMan (Talk·Works) 02:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also; I dunno how the heck F13 ranks CDPS compared to these other scales... ...so it wouldn't work much anyway (IMO).
 * ~ AC5230 (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Wind speeds converted incorrectly
Some numbers in the master table are converted incorrectly with Wikipedia's convert function. See discussion at Template_talk:Tropical_Cyclone_Classification Weathermatrix (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Categorization of JMA scale in comparison table
The categories Very Strong Typhoon and Violent Typhoon on the JMA scale shown on the bottom scale comparison table do not seemingly exist. Those categories are not shown on the scale chart in the JMA scale's section of the TC scales WP page and no other known source talks about these categories on the JMA scale. The categories have been on there for months. Is there need for concern regarding this? ~ AC5230 (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Science
If the windspeed weakens in tropical storm,what will be it's new category? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Scale coloring
I've noticed that the scale coloring has changed. What happened? If there's already something about this, I'd liked to know. Thanks. Mobius Gerig (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Hi, @Mobius Gerig, see, and the new scale's ensuing criticism at . Chlod (say hi!) 14:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone classification
FYI has been nominated for discussion at TfD. See the consensus-seeking discussion -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

comparisons across basins
Why 'Comparision across basins' section is deleted?? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The section was deleted in a discussion as after numerous complaints, it was felt that the data could not be made, to be as accurate as it needed to be.Jason Rees (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Australia and Fiji Section inaccuracy
According to the latest BoM update for a system (archived link), the system was a tropical low with sustained winds of 65 km/h. Per the scale in the article, that would be a category 1 cyclone, however, BoM marks it still as a “Tropical Low”. Scale is inaccurate per BoM. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You clearly have not read Australian region tropical cyclone which says "Within this region a tropical disturbance is classified as a tropical cyclone when it has 10-minute sustained wind speeds of at least 65 km/h (40 mph) that wrap halfway around the low level circulation centre" (emphasis mine). So it is necessary, but not sufficient, for a tropical low to have gale-force winds for it to be upgraded to a tropical cyclone. I'm removing your disputed tag as being baseless; a clarification edit might be needed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , I read that. My edit was about why the scale Template:Australian tropical cyclone intensity scale, says category 1 starts at 63 km/h. How is that not counter-productive? The article says a tropical low starts at 65 km/h, but the scale template says a category 1 cyclone starts at 63 km/h? That is the issue. The article point blank disagrees with itself. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the section again and you will find that it says that Tropical Low is below 63 km/h or 35 kts. The article also says that the gale force winds need to be near the centre before it is named because that's the requirement for the majority of the warning centres in RA V. Australia (BoM) is the only exception to this rule. Jason Rees (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tropical cyclone scales


text:
Dave D'Addio

Dave D'Addio (July 13, 1961 – May 29, 2017) was a football running back in the National Football League (NFL). He was selected by the Detroit Lions in the fourth round of the 1984 NFL Draft.

D'Addio lived in Irvington New Jersey, until 1968 when his family moved to Union Township. He played for the UHS Farmers.

He played college football at the University of Maryland.

College statistics

 * 1982: 60 carries for 272 yards and 3 touchdowns. 19 catches for 248 yards and one touchdown.
 * 1983: 46 carries for 213 yards and 5 touchdowns. 20 catches for 208 yards.

title: Dave D'Addio


text:
favola

Etymology
From, possibly taken as a semi-learned term. Compare the doublets and.

Noun

 * 1) fairy tale, fairy story, fable
 * 2) shaggy-dog story
 * 1) shaggy-dog story

title: favola


text:
Talk:Fay Bainter

Birthyear
Was Fay born in 1891 or 1893? There seems to be confusion between IMDB and Wikipedia again! Hotwine8 04:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Daniel Blum's "Great Stars of the American Stage" gives her birth date as December 7, 1892. This may be correct as she was alive and well when Blum wrote this book in 1952 and knew a lot of the famous stage personalities covered in the book on a personal basis. 1893 pops up a lot as well but that may be because she has a late year birthday and writers just round it off to the next year without checking. Im tending to go with Blum as he knew her and she would know her own birth date better than anyone, but Ill leave it for now. Koplimek (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bainter's tombstone
Fay Bainter's Tombstone -- Michael David 17:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fay Bainter


text:
Talk:Stu Klitenic

Untitled
I'm still new at this, so I'm not sure if I used the proper tag or not, but this article needs to either be rewritten or deleted, as it is not encyclopedia-quality, but instead a hit-piece. If there's a better template or tag to use in situations like this, by all means apply it -- and let me know what it is, please. Davidkevin 14:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Stu Klitenic


text:
Disciplina (album)

Disciplina (English: Discipline) is the debut studio album by Dominican urban artist El Alfa, released on August 11, 2017 by El Jefe Records. It contains 8 tracks of dembow and Latin Trap. It features guest verses from La Manta, Amenazzy, Bryant Mayers and La Manta. According to the artist, the title was chosen because perseverance is an essential part of success. It is his first studio album after a ten-year musical career.

Lyrical themes include sex, partying, and self-reflection. The intro track, "Un Consejo Para Mi Hijo", is dedicated to Alfa's son and expresses his wishes to have a bright future. La Manta, the first artist to be signed to Alfa's own label, appeared on two tracks on the album. The album debuted at number 45 on US Billboard Top Latin Albums. It was his first album to debut on the chart. On February 9, 2018, El Alfa released a follow-up titled Disciplina (Puerto Rico Edition).

title: Disciplina (album)


text:
In Love (Wynn Stewart album)

In Love is a studio album by American country artist Wynn Stewart and his backing band, The Tourists. It was released in November 1968 via Capitol Records and was produced by Ken Nelson. In Love was Stewart's fifth studio release in his recording career and consisted of 11 tracks. The album's title track became a major hit during the same time in both the United States and Canada.

Background and content
In Love was recorded in several sessions between 1967 and 1968. These sessions were held at the Capitol Recording Studio, located in Hollywood, California. The record was produced by Ken Nelson, who was Stewart's long time producer at the Capitol record company. A total of 11 tracks are included on the album. Six of the album's tracks were composed by Dale Noe. Noe had previously composed other material for Stewart, including his 1967 number one hit "It's Such a Pretty World Today." Unlike his previous releases, the album only included one self-written track by Stewart himself. In previous album releases, several Stewart-composed songs were included. Stewart had co-written the song "A Thousand Wonders" for this record. The collection also included a cover version of the 1942 patriotic tune "There's a Star-Spangled Banner Waving Somewhere."

Release and chart performance
In Love was released in November 1968 on Capitol Records. It was Stewart's fifth album release in his career and the fifth release for Capitol. His backing band, The Tourists, received equal billing on the album. The record was issued as a vinyl LP, containing six songs on side one and five songs on side two. Unlike his previous three studio albums, In Love did not reach any positions on the Billboard chart publications. This included the Top Country Albums list. However, its corresponding single was successful. The album's title track was issued as its only single. The song was released to radio in July 1968 via Capitol Records. After 11 weeks, the title track became a major hit, peaking at number 16 on the Billboard Hot Country Singles chart in October 1968. The track also became his second charting single on the Canadian RPM Country Songs chart, reaching number 20 in 1968.

Personnel
All credits are adapted from the liner notes of In Love.

Musical personnel
 * David Allen – drums
 * Jimmie Collins – steel guitar
 * Tommy Collins – guitar
 * Bobby George – guitar
 * Dennis Hromek – bass
 * Ralph Mooney – steel guitar
 * Bob Morris – bass
 * Dale Noe – guitar
 * Bob Pierce – piano
 * Helen Price – drums
 * Bobby Wayne – guitar
 * Wynn Stewart – lead vocals
 * Carl Walden – harmonica
 * Clarence White – guitar

Technical personnel
 * Ken Nelson – producer

title: In Love (Wynn Stewart album)


text:
Hou (Odder Municipality)

Hou or Hov is a town in Jutland, Denmark. It is located in Odder Municipality.

Etymology
The name is known from 1608 where the area was called Haa Havn, indicating the presence of a harbour even before the town existed.

In 2019 a vote among the citizens of Hou was initiated, in order to determine whether the official spelling of the town should be Hou or Hov. With 844 votes for Hou and 44 votes for Hov, the official spelling was determined to be Hou. Mayor of the municipality, Uffe Jensen, put up new signs with the new spelling later in the year.

History
The first residential building in Hou was built in 1837. The town grew up around the harbour, and in 1853 a granary was built on the harbour. A school was built in 1870. A ferry route between Hou and Aarhus began in 1873. In 1884 the Hads-Ning Hundreds' Railroad was established, connecting Hou to Odder and Aarhus. The Odder-Hou stretch of the Odder Line was shut down in 1977.

title: Hou (Odder Municipality)


text:
Talk:Shark Trust

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 April 2019 and 1 September 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Razlozo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Bigger and better
I am the WikiProject Shark founder, I have built up this stub to almost triple its size. I hope its better and more informative now. Lenny 08:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

confusion
this is a really badly written article - i am assuming the author's english is not up to scratch?

there are several sentences that do not make sense, and far too many spelling mistakes

when i have the time i may attempt a clean up of this article, however, it would be good if the author was to do this himself

--jpk 22:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)jonyboyjpk 22/09/06   23:34

 * I haved gone through the article and done a bit of editing, although i didn't have time to do a great deal. A lot of the former text were just statements (The trust is... The Trust does... etc.) that appeared to be from the website so i tried to put them into sentences a bit more. More work is needed though. chris_huh 23:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Reason sharks need conserving
Previously the article mentioned that 100 million sharks are killed by humans each year. I replaced this with "the populations of some shark species have been reduced to 2% of their original levels". Both statements come from the Shark Trust website. I think the latter option is better because it's relative, not absolute—it's not immediately intuitive to me whether 100 million shark kills across the globe per year would be sustainable. --Adrian J. Hunter 08:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shark Trust


text:
分身

Verb

 * 1) to handle more than one thing at a time; to divide one's attention

Noun

 * 1) doppelganger; avatar
 * 2)  thread; threading

Noun

 * 1) one of the bodies resulted from the split of another one into many parts
 * 2) parturition; delivery; childbirth
 * 3) an offspring; an offshoot
 * 4) an avatar or embodiment of someone in some medium; the results of this partition
 * 5)  a reincarnation
 * 6) an alter ego
 * 7) a doppelganger
 * 1)  a reincarnation
 * 2) an alter ego
 * 3) a doppelganger

title: 分身


text:
Talk:Dermot Murnaghan

Image issues
This article needs only one image. It currently has 3, all of which appear to be copyright violations. So many pictures causes the article to be fractured. Abc30 00:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Grammar
"In 2007, Murnaghan appeared on Chucklevision, where he was reading the news for something Barry Chuckle had appeared to upset Paul Chuckle."

The grammar at the end of this sentence doesn't seem to make sense, but I can't correct it as I don't know the plot of the show. Could someone take a look? Jetekus 21:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure that an appearance on 'Chucklevision' really merits a mention here anyway. It's a kids' show with little or no real plot other than the 2 main characters making idiots of themselves. SteveRamone 17:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I removed the sentence. Aside from the grammar, it didn't merit inclusion in the article.SteveRamone 17:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actor?
Does a brief cameo really warrant the 'Actor' label in the infobox?? –MDCollins (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

bees?
Does he really have bee keeping as a hobby? Someone can provide a source for this? --Enric Naval (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Eggheads
He has been replaced on Eggheads by Jeremy Vine recently--Gasmanandy (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 * It seems that Murnaghan will still present Eggheads but will work with Vine on a rotation basis. See with the relevant Guardian article and this thread. RedCoat10  •  talk  18:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversy
I'm not suggesting this be removed, and I certainly don't want to be accused of being a Sky News troll, but should this be revised to be more impartial? The supporting references don't really support the tone or the assertion that viewers complained about the incident. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dermot Murnaghan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005054900/http://www.kbjmgt.co.uk/clients/23-dermot-murnaghan to http://www.kbjmgt.co.uk/clients/23-dermot-murnaghan

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dermot Murnaghan


text:
Molyneux's problem

Molyneux's problem is a thought experiment in philosophy concerning immediate recovery from blindness. It was first formulated by William Molyneux, and notably referred to in John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689). The problem can be stated in brief, "if a man born blind can feel the differences between shapes such as spheres and cubes, could he, if given the ability to see, distinguish those objects by sight alone, in reference to the tactile schemata he already possessed?"

Molyneux and Locke
The question was originally posed to Locke by philosopher William Molyneux, whose wife was blind. It is known from the report of it in Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, which is reproduced here:"I shall here insert a problem of that very ingenious and studious promoter of real knowledge, the learned and worthy Mr. Molineux, which he was pleased to send me in a letter some months since; and it is this:—“Suppose a man born blind, and now adult, and taught by his touch to distinguish between a cube and a sphere of the same metal, and nighly of the same bigness, so as to tell, when he felt one and the other, which is the cube, which the sphere. Suppose then the cube and sphere placed on a table, and the blind man be made to see: quaere, whether by his sight, before he touched them, he could now distinguish and tell which is the globe, which the cube?” To which the acute and judicious proposer answers, “Not. For, though he has obtained the experience of how a globe, how a cube affects his touch, yet he has not yet obtained the experience, that what affects his touch so or so, must affect his sight so or so; or that a protuberant angle in the cube, that pressed his hand unequally, shall appear to his eye as it does in the cube.”—I agree with this thinking gentleman, whom I am proud to call my friend, in his answer to this problem; and am of opinion that the blind man, at first sight, would not be able with certainty to say which was the globe, which the cube, whilst he only saw them; though he could unerringly name them by his touch, and certainly distinguish them by the difference of their figures felt."

Before Locke
A similar problem was also addressed earlier in the 12th century by Ibn Tufail (Abubacer), in his philosophical novel, Hayy ibn Yaqdhan (Philosophus Autodidactus). This version focused on colors rather than shapes, and gave the opposite solution: "If you want a comparison that will make you clearly grasp the difference between the perception, such as it is understood by that sect [the Sufis] and the perception as others understand it, imagine a person born blind, endowed however with a happy natural temperament, with a lively and firm intelligence, a sure memory, a straight sprite, who grew up from the time he was an infant in a city where he never stopped learning, by means of the senses he did dispose of, to know the inhabitants individually, the numerous species of beings, living as well as non-living, there, the streets and sidestreets, the houses, the steps, in such a manner as to be able to cross the city without a guide, and to recognize immediately those he met; the colors alone would not be known to him except by the names they bore, and by certain definitions that designated them. Suppose that he had arrived at this point and suddenly, his eyes were opened, he recovered his view, and he crosses the entire city, making a tour of it. He would find no object different from the idea he had made of it; he would encounter nothing he didn’t recognize, he would find the colors conformable to the descriptions of them that had been given to him; and in this there would only be two new important things for him, one the consequence of the other: a clarity, a greater brightness, and a great voluptuousness."

Early modern period
In 1709, in §95 of An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision, George Berkeley also concluded that there was no necessary connection between a tactile world and a sight world—that a connection between them could be established only on the basis of experience.

Leibniz (German philosopher, 1646–1716) also discussed this problem, but derived a different answer. He suggested that the two sets of experience have one element in common, that is, extension. Hence it is possible to infer from one type of idea to another.

In 1749, Denis Diderot wrote Letter on the blind for the benefit of those who see as a criticism of our knowledge of ultimate reality.

Current research on human vision
One reason that Molyneux's Problem could be posed in the first place is the extreme dearth of human subjects who gain vision after extended congenital blindness. In 1971, Alberto Valvo estimated that fewer than twenty cases have been known in the last 1000 years.

In 2003, Pawan Sinha, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, set up a program in the framework of the Project Prakash and eventually had the opportunity to find five individuals who satisfied the requirements for an experiment aimed at answering Molyneux's question experimentally. Prior to treatment, the subjects (aged 8 to 17) were only able to discriminate between light and dark, with two of them also being able to determine the direction of a bright light. The surgical treatments took place between 2007 and 2010, and quickly brought the relevant subject from total congenital blindness to fully seeing. A carefully designed test was submitted to each subject within the next 48 hours. Based on its result, the experimenters concluded that the answer to Molyneux's problem is, in short, "no". Although after restoration of sight, the subjects could distinguish between objects visually almost as effectively as they would do by touch alone, they were unable to form the connection between an object perceived using the two different senses. The correlation was barely better than if the subjects had guessed. They had no innate ability to transfer their tactile shape knowledge to the visual domain. However, the experimenters could test three of the five subjects on later dates (5 days, 7 days, and 5 months after, respectively) and found that the performance in the touch-to-vision case improved significantly, reaching 80–90%.

Ostrovsky, et al., in 2006, studied a woman who gained sight at the age of 12 when she underwent surgery for dense bilateral congenital cataracts. They report that the subject could recognize family members by sight six months after surgery, but took up to a year to recognize most household objects purely by sight.

Regarding Molyneux's problem, the authors Asif A. Ghazanfar & Hjalmar K. Turesson (2008) have recently noted that there are not separate brain processes for motor outputs and individual sensory modalities, but rather that the brain uses all available context-specific information to act – that is, all information associated with a specific action. They suggest that this makes Molyneux's problem into an ill-posed question, from a neuroscientific perspective, since Molyneux does not suggest an action to be done with the cube and the globe.

Research on chicken vision
In 2024, chickens were reared from incubation and hatching in total darkness, then exposed in said darkness to objects of either smooth or bumpy textures for 24 hours. They were then tested on visual recognition of the objects as they first experienced light. Upon first sight, chicks that touched the smooth objects approached the smooth objects much more often than chicks that touched bumpy objects did.

title: Molyneux's problem


text:
Sun Zehao

Sun Zehao (, born 13 December 1995) is a Chinese professional ice hockey goaltender who currently plays for Kunlun Red Star in the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL).

Playing career
Sun Zehao began his career playing for Beijing Ice Hockey, in the Chinese Ice Hockey League in 2011. In 2013, he played one game for China Dragon in the Asia League. In 2014, he returned to the Chinese league with the amateur team from Chengde. Prior to the beginning of the 2017–18 season, Sun was signed to an amateur tryout contract with the Vancouver Canucks for two pre-season games in China. The Canucks did not wish to bring a 3rd goalie who would not see action, so they invited Sun to practice with them and be ready to be the back-up goalie in case of injury.

International play
Sun took part in the 2013 IIHF World U18 Championship Division III with China, when he was voted the best goaltender of the tournament, and at the 2015 IIHF World U20 Championship Division III. He also played with the Chinese student team at the 2015 Winter Universiade in Granada, Spain.

Sun first dressed for the men's team at the 2016 IIHF World Championship Division II as the backup goaltender. In 2017, he took over as the starter playing all five games for China. In addition, he represented his country at the 2017 Asian Winter Games in Sapporo, Japan.

title: Sun Zehao


text:
Portland Chinatown Museum

The Portland Chinatown Museum is a museum showcasing the Chinese immigrant experience, located in Portland, Oregon's Old Town Chinatown neighborhood, in the United States. The museum opened in 2018, with Jackie Peterson-Loomis serving as the executive director. Anna Truxes is the current executive director.

title: Portland Chinatown Museum


text:
Filmmaking Basics/Animatic Dialog Recording

{| cellpadding="20" cellspacing="5" style="width: 100%; background-color: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"
 * style="width: 60%; background-color: LightYellow; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" |

Recording the dialog for the Animatic

 * If you are able to record audio into your computer, please record the voices for our script. We need all the spoken words from this script so we can create an animatic.

 * To do this, you record each piece of dialog as a separate file. Then you send me the files by email.

What's an "Animatic"?

 * An animatic is a movie of the storyboards. This is used for timing our motion picture.  It also helps us judge if the movie will be a success.

 * To create an animatic, the storyboard, the film score, the dialog and the sound effects are put into an editing program to create a movie which we can show to investors. Later, when we record the voices for the animated version of this motion picture, the actors will watch the animatic to help understand the action and the timing of the dialog.

Why is an animatic important"

 * The animatic gives us the timing for the entire motion picture. From the animatic, we will be able to adjust the pace of the music and the dialog for the animated movie.  Therefore the animatic is very important for planning our motion picture.

Quality is important

 * The quality of the recorded dialog is very important. It does not have to be professional but it should be as good as you can do.

Equipment you need

 * To do this assigment, you will need to have a microphone connected to your computer and recording software to record a dramatic reading of the dialog.

 * And for high quality recording, you will need more. See details on the following pages.

 * style="width: 40%; background-color: AliceBlue; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px; height: 10px;" |

 * }

{| cellpadding="10" cellspacing="5" style="width: 99%; background-color: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"
 * style="width: 50%; background-color: LemonChiffon; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" |

The Next Page

 * Continue this lesson on the computer software needed for recording the dialog for the animatic.

 * }