User talk:ArnoldReinhold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Vernam cipher[edit]

Moved to Talk:Vernam cipher

Multilicensing[edit]

I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Multi-licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License versions 1.0 and 2.0
I agree to multi-license my text contributions, unless otherwise stated, under Wikipedia's copyright terms and the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license version 1.0 and version 2.0. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions under the Creative Commons terms, please check the CC dual-license and Multi-licensing guides.

The above also applies to my contributions to articles on transportation topics.

Minor edits multi-licensed into the public domain
I agree to multi-license my eligible text contributions marked as minor edits, unless otherwise stated, under Wikipedia's copyright terms and into the public domain. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my minor edit contributions in the public domain, please check the multi-licensing guide.

1460 redirect[edit]

Changing the redirect was a better fix. Thanks

Martin Meehan[edit]

Your return to the Martin Meehan discussion page and the one sentence matter would be appreciated.

TUSC token 7d41a0a631ba136cc7b630b8075bb5f4[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

TUSC token fc72bc76192deefa51770d12f0af6fc0[edit]

I am now owner of a TUSC account

Disambiguation link notification for December 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited EdDSA, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nonce (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of computing hardware, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social Security (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed.--agr (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Johnson–Nyquist noise may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • good approximations at frequencies below about 80 [[gigahertz]] ([[Extremely high frequency|EFH]])). In the most general case, which includes up to optical frequencies, the power [[spectral density]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Keypunch, Punched Card[edit]

It would be really, really, great if you could somehow define both Punched Card and Keypunch as Unit Record articles. The trivial details re Jacquard, Korsakov, etc., only confuse/distract without doing any real service for those topics and should be moved to Jacquard, Korsakov, etc. articles. Thanks, 99.65.176.161 (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to B-modes may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • CMBpol.htm Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization: The Next Key Toward the Origin of the Universe], 2003, Yuki D. Takahashi</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed--agr (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Consider unblocking me or commenting my RFC/U[edit]

Dear ArnoldReinhold, excuse me for IP-based block evading at your page, but I've been left no choice to communicate with my fellow editors. I am going to ask you to consider unblocking me. I've been blocked for close to two years on a charge of sockpuppetry. I simply didn't do it. I cleanstarted (WP:CLEANSTART) for privacy reasons. You use your real name here and I suppose you're comfortable with that. At times online, I've come into contact with argumentative sorts, even "creepers," that are fond of Googling their adversaries and finding them on social networks and so forth, posting what they find to make their targets uncomfortable or perhaps embarrassed (say, by a picture from Facebook that was only intended for friends). You made a different call, but I wanted a Wikipedia account in which the snoopy sniffers could not so easily track me off Wikipedia. My former account was vulnerable to that, so that was why I switched to this: Colton Cosmic. Anyhow, Timotheus Canens without warning, diffs, or discussion, permanently blocked me as a sockpuppet. Somewhat insultingly I find, he merely gave me a link to "WP:ILLEGIT." After that what seems to me to be an immense volume of blockamaniacs started following me around, suspicion-mongering and haranguing and so forth. They sabotage any effort I make to be unblocked. Most recently at my RFC/U: [1]. That tells the whole long terrible story of Colton Cosmic, if you've got 15 minutes to spare. My long-time critics plastered a lot of negative comments there. Do not assess those "outside viewpoints" necessarily as people who routinely participate in RFC/Us, rather it is my habitual critics that watchlisted my talkpage over my objections and followed me to the RFC/U to criticize me some more.

Arnold, I don't know if it was actually what prompted Timotheus, but I did slip up on civility and say to Nomoskedasticity that he or she was a provocateur whose Wikipedia activity consisted of tattling on editors for this and that at WP:AN/ANI and racking up an high personal score of victims. While in substance I think there's some truth to that, there may or may not be another more constructive side to Nomo. and I shouldn't have spoken so sharply. Fair enough. But an instance of inordinately sharp criticism doesn't mean I should be blocked forever. Which was exactly what Wormthatturned told me in email, he said my remark showed conclusively that I am WP:NOTHERE "not here to build an encyclopedia." With no apparent consideration to my constructive edits and articles I created he seeks to distill my Wikipedia participation to a single edit where I stepped over WP:CIV line: [2] (the "provocateur" part). What's not evident there is the backstory: I had a couple days earlier read Youreallycan complain of being wikihounded by Nomo. for a time period of no less than two years, partly explained here: [3]. Youreallycan made a "please just leave me alone" plea that had a plaintive quality to it. And then there a day or whatever later, is Nomo. calling for Youreallycan to be blocked at WP:AN/ANI. I viewed myself, right or wrong, as confronting a cyberbully.

Anyhow, why'd I come to you? I picked a name randomly from the list of administrators, well I actually meant to pick one from under "B" but for some reason I clicked you. I then checked that you were recently active. That's about it. I did look at your homepage that you link, though perhaps we might have common interests but I didn't notice any. You're Jewish, I'm not. It seems like a fascinatingly complex religion to me. I get Hebrew National hotdogs, haha! I like kosher foods because to me that means "rules" and I like those that make the food I eat to have rules in preparing it. On a darker note for some reason I wanted several months ago to find out what a "mamzer" is, so I explored that aspect of Judaism briefly. I don't know if I care for the rules governing mamzers as much, they seem kind of harsh. What else? Your interests in old computers we sort of share. I am more interested in computers of the vintage where they resembled what they are today: computer, keyboard, and monitor. Atari 800 and so forth.

I'm running too long again. Sorry for putting all this verbiage on your talkpage. If you'll unblock me, great, but you'll get flak from those editors and administrators that view me as a menace. Honestly, they make me feel like Hannibal Lecter sometimes, and I'm like "why?" If defending me is too much of an undertaking, no offense taken of course, but do consider leaving a viewpoint at the RFC/U. This is Colton Cosmic.

Disambiguation link notification for March 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page B-mode (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed--agr (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Solar maximum may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • was still rising as of March 2014.<ref>http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-index-graphics/wolfjmms.php</ref>]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

fixed--agr (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Reform Judaism (North America) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • the rest in the United States.<ref>[http://www.pardesdayschools.org/schools/ PARDeS Member Schools]]</ref>
  • Dana Evan, Contemporary Debates in American Reform Judaism. New York and London: Routledge, 2001).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hunts Point Cooperative Market may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • June 25, 2012, Fred Dreier, DNAinfo.com</ref><ref>[https://www.dot.ny.gov/recovery/sponsors/tiger/repository/NYCEDC%20HPTPM%20Application.pdf Freight

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


Heartbleed[edit]

Hi Arnold,
Thanks for your contributions to the Heartbleed article. Following this edit, the Behavior section ended up with the following, which remains almost intact today (emphasis mine):

The problem was compounded by OpenSSL's decision to write its own version of the C dynamic memory allocation routines. As a result, the oversized memory buffer returned to the requestor was likely to contain data from memory blocks that had been previously requested and freed by SSL. Such memory blocks may contain sensitive data sent by users or even the private keys used by SSL. In addition, by using its own memory management routines, SSL bypassed mitigation measures in many operating systems that might have detected or neutralized the bug.

There has been some debate about this. Was it intentional that the result shows both of the bold sentences, rather than just the last? And if so, what was the intended meaning of the first sentence? What is meant by "was likely as a result"? Is it that custom memory management made the disclosed data potentially sensitive (as opposed to never sensitive), or that it multiplied the probability of the disclosed data being sensitive? --Chealer (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was intentional. The fact that OpenSSL maintains its own memory pool means that Heartbleed is most likely to reveal data from previous SSL/TLS operations rather than whatever else was going on in the computer at the time, as would be the case if OpenSSL used the memory pool maintained by the operating system.--13:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. In that case, would it be possible to explain why that is, or to link to a source discussing the topic? --Chealer (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
It's nothing complicated. When OpenSSL starts up, it grabs a big chunk of memory from the operating system that will be its own memory pool. That can have anything in it at first, but over time, as OpenSSL allocates and frees chunks of memory from that pool, it will fill with OpenSSL data, and that is what the Heartbleed bug is more likely to send back to the attacker.--agr (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks. Are you aware of a reference confirming that OpenSSL's custom memory management works this way? --Chealer (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Try http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/heartbleed-vs-mallocconf If your not familiar with malloc and free, any good text on C. --agr (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not overly familiar with standard routines, but for now my question is about OpenSSL's custom memory management. Do you know a reference we could use to show readers that OpenSSL simply grabs a big chunk of memory from the operating system when it starts up that will be its own memory pool? --Chealer (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Ultimately, all memory is assigned by the operating system. There is no other place a program like OpenSSL can get memory. The only question is whether OpenSSL returns memory to the operating system when it is done with it or, instead, keeps it for later reuse. According to Theo de Raadt at http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/211963. OpenSSL tries to do the later in its standard configuration. You can see the source code, with the entire comment he refers to at https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/ssl/s3_both.c, starting at line 599. I am not sure if OpenSSL grabs one chunk of memory at the beginning or just keeps a list of the memory blocks it acquires for later reuse, without freeing them back to the OS. I suspect the latter from my read of the source code just now. What I wrote in our article does not make either claim. --agr (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand that memory has to come from the OS. There are basically 2 questions for me: does OpenSSL actually request all its memory when it starts, or can it request more at runtime? And in the latter case, can it release some of memory when it stops using it? My reading of the code you pointed makes me think the answer to both is yes, but I can't afford a proper examination.
I'd agree the article doesn't make either claim. However, saying that the probability of the disclosed data being sensitive was multiplied as the result of OpenSSL's custom memory management implies something about that management.
If we can't describe OpenSSL's custom memory management, could we instead directly source that this management multiplied the probability of the disclosed data being sensitive? --Chealer (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Good question. I've responded at Talk:Heartbleed.--agr (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Swift (Apple programming language), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Garbage collection and Python (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Swift (programming language)[edit]

I'm afraid you have misunderstood WP:DDAB; that applies when there are two similar terms each having no disambiguator (i.e. no disambiguating language in parenthesis following the name. The example at WP:DDAB is Montgomery and Montgomery County (not Montgomery (county), which would be merged into Montgomery per WP:INCOMPDAB). We have an entire subproject dedicated to identifying and merging in WP:INCOMPDAB pages, so sooner or later this one will be merged. Any potential confusion arising from this merger can be dispelled by creating a section at Swift under the header ==Programming languages== and redirecting the INCOMPDAB title there. However, in investigating the origin of this page, I see that the page Swift (programming language) was moved to Swift (Apple programming language) without the required move discussion for a controversial move, and can be undone per WP:BRD; I will implement this immediately. bd2412 T 13:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Switching the Apple version back to Swift (programming language) solves the problem for me.--agr (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Good. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
You might consider adding an explanatory note at Talk:Swift_(programming_language)#The_two_swifts_and_the_encyclopedic_neutrality.--agr (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States v. Davis (2014), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fourth Amendment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed.--agr (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Pseudorandom number generator[edit]

I like most of the changes that you made [4], but there was one change that puzzled me. The one change is replacing "procedural generation" by "electronic game". Procedural generation is more specific, and so seemed better to me. What was your reason for that change?  TheSeven (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

There are dozens of applications of PRNGs that could be mentioned. Procedural generation seemed like a very narrow example to me. Electronic game is a much broader topic. I don't feel strongly about this if you want to add it back, perhaps not in the lede.--agr (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Scrypt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Colin Percival]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Railex may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • refrigerated train services were announced in 2013, the Green Express, from llTampa, Florida]] to [[Kingsbury, Indiana]], operated by CSX and the Tampa Port Authority, and the TransCold Express

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed--agr (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of mathematical symbols by subject, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Continuum (mathematics) and Root (mathematics). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed--agr (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ten years![edit]

I created this account ten years ago today. My first article was Frieden Flexowriter, which has grown quite a bit since I created it on that day. (I made some other edits as an IP before that.) Thanks to all for a rewarding 10 years.--agr (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary Act of 1871[edit]

It's become quite notable given it's primary contribution to current SCOTUS cases dealing with Hobby Lobby and Citizen's United, (and various other cases I'm finding from searches) that it deserves it's own article. What debate went on in the country and congress in 1870 as they tried to decide what the word "person" meant in the 1868 14th amendment? How did corporation get to be included in the definition of person then? Alatari (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not a legal historian, and have no information about what happened in 1870, but this source http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/hobby-lobby-and-the-dictionary-act suggests that it was purely administrative and I would not be surprised if there were no debate. If you think about it, most laws are restrictive, "no person shall..." or "each person must..." so the Dictionary Act merely makes it clear that such laws also apply to corporations. Note that there is a big difference between Hobby Lobby and Citizen's United. The later deals with First Amendment constitutional issues and the Dictionary Act is not mentioned anywhere in that Supreme Court decision. In Hobby Lobby the court is interpreting an act of Congress, the RFRA, so the Dictionary Act came into play because Congress said that is how the word person is to be understood unless context suggests otherwise. The dissent argued for there indeed being a difference in context, but the majority disagreed. But as I read it, I don't think the Dictionary Act was central to the majority's ruling. I think their main argument is that that there is nothing in RFRA that says a group of individuals lose their right under RFRA when they decide to incorporate as a for-profit (as opposed to a non-profit, which both sides agree would be covered). The best the dissent could come up with is that the RFRA was intended to restore the law prior to Employment Division v. Smith and there were no cases giving religious freedom to for-profits prior to Smith. Again, the majority did not buy this, but it had nothing to do with the Dictionary Act. An article on the Dictionary Act might still be warranted, if you can find enough sources.--agr (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I did some more reading after posting this comment to your page and understand better how the 1st amendment, covering news organizations, had lent protection to corporations and so the precedent for Citizen's is as old as the Bill of Rights. What I still don't understand is what changed in 1870 to allow a widening of these rights by defining person as a corporation. I've searched for another 50 minutes and haven't found the author or sponsor of the Dictionary Act. There's a lot of information about on the use of the Dictionary Act in cases. This article from SLU Law School: THE UNEASY RELATIONSHIP OF HOBBY LOBBY, CONESTOGA WOOD, THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, AND THE CORPORATE PERSON: HOW A HISTORICAL MYTH CONTINUES TO BEDEVIL THE LEGAL SYSTEM - MALCOLM J. HARKINS III*[5] is an interesting read and maybe Harkins would know more about the DA-1871's creation. Alatari (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure the Dictionary Act has any bearing on First Amendment or any other Constitutional rights. The Act's preamble, 1 USC 1 says "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress...", nothing about the meaning of the Constitution. And the Supreme Court made it clear in City of Boerne v. Flores that Congress does not have the power to significantly widen or narrow constitutional rights. --agr (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The Dictionary Act widened the meaning of the 14th amendment by defining person to include corporations. It has no bearing on the First. Alatari (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, the Dictionary Act only applies to acts of Congress, not the Constitution. And I'm not so sure the Act expanded the definition of person as opposed to codifying an existing understanding. We'd need reliable sources to substantiate any such claim.--agr (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm still searching for sources about the creation of the Act and later commentary about it. I've contacted a lawyer from SLU for help. Alatari (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, Malcolm J. Harkins III, J.D. who wrote the an article dealing with Hobby Lobby heavily referencing the Dictionary Act[6] called and explained what he understood of it's creation but wasn't relevant to his article. Before 1871 all statutes had their own definition section and in that time it was all hand written and could amount to hundreds of hours of extra work writing out each definition section. A commission was formed to gather up the previous definitions and create a single compiled version. So the Dictionary Act is a compromise of various prior statute definition sections hashed out by committee. Obviously not all earlier statute's definitions were in agreement. It was composed of some important law makers but I don't have a source for it yet. Harkins said the earlier statutes were revised by pulling their dictionary sections. So yes, the person=corporation was evolving many years before the Dictionary Act which would overlap with the Corporate personhood article. That article could then include more information prior to 1871 (it's got a few very early and most after 1886) as the statutes before Dictionary Act including person=corporation must have been numerous. Harkin mentioned one about cigar sales in D.C. area but couldn't remember the exact name. A section on the compilation of the Dictionary Act maybe suitable in Corporate personhood but if all prior statutes have been amended with pulling their dictionary sections it'll be near impossible (without seeing scanned in original documents) to figure out which statutes from 1790 to 1871 helped develop the personhood concept and hard to tell which were notable other than the ones that are already in that article.
The Dictionary Act has been a fall back for hundreds of appellate and SCOTUS rulings and now is referenced in several notable news sources after Hobby Lobby so it passes WP:Notable if just for a few paragraphs. Harkin was in the SCOTUS gallery when the Hobby Lobby decision was happening. He made mention of amending the Dictionary Act or Religious Freedom Restoration Act as discussions for future actions. Alatari (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we already have a Title 1 of the United States Code article, which includes the Dictionary Act as chapter 1. It might be worth adding a history section to that article. Note that only a handful of terms are defined in the Dictionary Act and it by no means eliminated definition sections in other laws, which are still quite common.--agr (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited City of Boerne v. Flores, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fourteenth Amendment. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed--agr (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Mathematics/Sandbox[edit]

Talk:Mathematics/Sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Mathematics/Sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Mathematics/Sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Shared use paths[edit]

Based on the new article you created, I reclassified the Milton Keynes redway system as a shared use path rather than a cycleway - but now you have added a rider about 'not the same'. Could you clarify? Why does it matter? Wp:duck and all that! And what about the Netherlands, which has a lot of shared off-carriageway paths? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I used the term "exclusive" to distinguish cycleways that are bicycle only. It is only a first cut. Feel free to clarify things further and add more material, especially on a per country basis, if you have it. I think there is a lot to be said, more than a section in Cycling infrastructure.--agr (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understood 'exclusive' but not 'US v UK definitions of "shared" not the same'. I wondered why you thought it significant? It would help if I could read the Cheshire.gov.UK document but it seems unreachable. I can't find a design spec for the Milton Keynes redways either - I've emailed to ask where it is but not holding my breath before the schools go back.
And just to add some spice to the mix, have you seen Peachtree City, Georgia#The City? How to categorise that??
Yes, the new article is a good start. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, Cycling in the Netherlands says that shared paths are very rare so on my brief trip there either I saw one of the rare examples or more likely I'm suffering from false memory syndrome :-) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we move this discussion to Talk:Shared use path? If you could repeat your comments there, I'll respond there.--agr (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Loretta A. Preska may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Paramount Pictures Corp, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, February 19, 1998]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Plugboard may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Other plugboards controlled card reading and punching, the printer and the console typewriter.<ref>[http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/ibm/305_ramac/22-6264-1_305_RAMAC_Manual_of_Operation_Apr57.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Port Jersey may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Board Approves Major Redevelopment Of Greenville Yard To Improve Cargo Movement In The Port], Port Authority Press Release Number 190-2014, Sep 17, 2014</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to New York New Jersey Rail, LLC may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Board Approves Major Redevelopment Of Greenville Yard To Improve Cargo Movement In The Port], Port Authority Press Release Number 190-2014, Sep 17, 2014</ref><ref>[http://www.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rail freight transportation in New York City and Long Island may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Board Approves Major Redevelopment Of Greenville Yard To Improve Cargo Movement In The Port], Port Authority Press Release Number 190-2014, Sep 17, 2014</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • are undergoing digital processing before being submitted to NASA's [[Planetary Data System]].<ref>[http://www.moonviews.com/2014/02/ LOIRP Moon Views, February 2014</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What was the RAMAC price and capacity?[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hard_disk_drive#An_End_To_The_RAMAC_Price_Duologue. Please help end the duologue on capacity and price of the IBM RAMAC Model 350 disk file. Thanks. Tom94022 (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the capacity of a CD-ROM[edit]

Hi Arnold So my counter question, here, so as to not further gum up the HDD talk page is, What is the capacity of a 650 MB CD-ROM?

From a data interface viewpoint it is channel bit serial just like the 350. At some point the analog signal is converted to channel bits and then further up the data channel to characters and then finally verified, 6 bit characters in the 350 and 8 bit bytes in the CD-ROM. The information below is extracted from The New Papyrus regarding the CD-ROM

The CD-ROM records in blocks of 2048 data bytes. To the 2048 data bytes the controller adds 304 bytes of gap and check bytes for a total of 2352 channel bytes per data block. It then encodes them using an 8-bit to 14-bit code to which it adds 2 merging bits so that each channel byte is in fact recorded as 2 encoded channel bytes. The net result is for each 2048 block of data bytes = 16,384 data bits there are 2352*16 = 37,632 channel bits, a ratio of 2.3 channel bits to 1 data bit. Note that each data byte is represented by 16 channel bits; as I follow your reasoning, there is nothing that stops one from replacing those 16 channel bits with two data bytes.

A 650 MB CD-ROM has precisely 333,000 blocks of 2048 data bytes but if I were to use some of the gap or check bits for data I could store as much as 1.4 GB on the medium - so why can't I say the CD-ROM is 1.4 GB? Or better yet, go into the business of making drives with controllers that do so, for BlueRay of course? Tom94022 (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tom,
The interface between your CD-ROM drive and the computer only presents up to 650 MB to the computer. If there were a "raw mode" in the controller that let you access the gap or check bits, then yes it would arguably have higher capacity and likely someone would have found an application for that, maybe storing surveillance video where an occasional dropout might be a fair trade off for greater capacity. In the case of the 305 RAMAC system, the 350 disk drive presented a 7-bit data path to the CPU; the 350 neither knew nor cared that one of those bits was a parity bit. Hooked to another machine it could have stored 7 bits of data, and apparently the IBM 650 version used those 7 bits to store biquinary digits. Again, I'm not saying this is the only way to look at the 350's capacity, only that it is a legitimate viewpoint.--agr (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Arnold
I'm pretty sure the 350 presented a bit serial interface to its controller just like the ST506, but let me check. Tom94022 (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Figures 84 and 85 of the IBM's CE manual show a single write bit in and a single read bit out, a bit serial interface just like most drives until the 1990s. I've asked my friends at the RAMAC Restoration project to confirm but I'm pretty sure that's the way it was. Actually I think the whole machine was bit serial to keep hardware cost down, but I could be wrong on this point.
I could buy a BluRay mechanism and do my own data channel controller operating on the "raw" mode coming in/out of the single head. So should I go out and raise money based upon your assurances that I can freely substitute data bits for channel bits? :-)
I agree that the 355 probably used 7 channel bits to represent the equivalent of 4 data bits which means it was less efficient than the 350 channel code and therefore had a lower equivalent information content, other wise known as capacity, 3 MB vs 3.75 MB. You can always put a lesser amount of information into a channel than its known capacity, but not more with out running the risk of exceeding the channels capacity and loosing information. But this is at this point original research. Tom94022 (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The data coming off a BlueRay read/write head is an analog stream requiring a very substantial amount of processing to recover a digital data. The signal coming off an 350 cable connectors, as I understand it, is a digital bit stream that would be trivial to interface to a modern computer. That is the difference. The 355 example shows the the basic drive is agnostic as to the format of the bits it is storing. If you want to talk information content, the 350 is only storing characters from an alphabet of 48 symbols. That is only 5.61 bits per character, not 6. So from a Shannon information content point of view, the capacity of the 350 is equivalent to 3.49 million octets, not 3.75MB. Again there is no one right answer here.--agr (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


The data coming off the RAMAC read/write head is an analog stream requiring a very substantial amount of processing by 1956 standards to recover digital data; u might want to read "A Self-Clocking System for Information Transfer" L.D. Seader, IBM JRD, April 1957, which has sketches of the analog and digital signals. To my eye they don't look a lot different than today's signals - just way lower frequency. The signal out of the BlueRay channel is at one point a digital bit stream that would be trivial to interface to any computer. There is no difference other than time differences in technology and that in the BluRay case the digital bit stream is not exposed - it is there and is just a pair of wires!
I'm pretty sure Shannon would not understand 0.61 bit. I do agree with you that at the drive interface it is not possible to distinguish one bit from another, but that is only true in the absence of format information. IBM tells us their format includes 6 data bits and elsewhere they tell us the 6 data bits map to 48 states leaving 16 undefined states. The fact that states are undefined does not mean they are not available and therefore the information content remains 6 bits. There is probably some information theory law of conservation that states something like the information content of a state space is that minimum number of bits whose number of states exceed the number of valid states in the state space. That's how channel encoding works, regardless of whether it is a disk recording channel or a communications channel. Tom94022 (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The information content of a state space is not the minimum number of bits whose number of states exceed the number of valid states in the state space. Shannon defines it as the base-2 logarithm of the number of valid states in the state space. (Log2(48) = 5.58496250072... so it's 5.58 bits per IBM 305 character, not 5.61, my bad). In the case of the IBM 650, each decimal digit is log2(10)=3.321928... bits. I'll let Shannon speak for himself. He explains measuring information as a fractional number of bits at the bottom of page 1 of http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf --agr (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
My bad too. Thanks for the lesson on information theory (error admitted above). I won't bother to read the Shannon since IBM put no constraint on the use of the 6 data bits at the interface to the 350 the information content of the 350 is 30 million unconstrained bits = 3.75 MB. If IBM sold the 350 to an OEM, he/she using the 350 in accordance with IBMs implicit specifications would have unconstrained use of the 6 data bits/character available at the interface. The fact that IBM then constrained a character's use in the 305 could be interpreted to mean the 350 as used by IBM on the 305 was only a 3.49 MB drive (on an information theory basis). Note the parenthesis - IBM never said this so it is qualified for understanding! This is very interesting original research, not usable in Wikipedia, but further indication of the obvious factual inaccuracy of any number other than 3.75. The same analysis applied to the 355 gives an IT capacity of 2.49 MB, not 3 MB on a 4 bit/digit basis (the minimum practical number of bits/digit) nor 5.25 MB (7 channel bits/digit). Again note how each capacity value is qualified. To paraphrase Voltaire's purported statement, we need to define our terms to have a meaningful conversation. If you would publish this research in a reliable source then I would be happy to add it as footnotes to the 305 and 650 articles where the constraint applied.
BTW, since as I understand it fractional bits do not exist maybe it is some sort of information entropy requirement that the number of bits necessary and sufficient to define a state space of M states is the smallest n where M <= 2n. but maybe not :-). That's the way an engineer would do it but maybe a scientist could figure out a way to use the unused states :-).
Thanks, this has been very useful in helping me clearly understand why 3.75 is the only usable value in Wikipedia which I will shortly explain on the HDD Talk page, so before replying here, please give me time to boil it down there. And I withdraw the CD-ROM question :=)! Tom94022 (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shelter-half may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • English]] '''pup-tent'''), is a simple kind of [[tent]] designed to provide temporary shelter (and/or concealment. Two sheets of canvas or a similar material (the halves) are fastened together

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

copyright[edit]

Hello, one of the pictures that you took (punch-card) had a satisfiable level of quality that I would be so glad to share it inside my book. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card#mediaviewer/File:IBM1130CopyCard.agr.jpg If there is any copyright issues then you can inform me during next few days. Thanks again for your work, Lt. Ghasemi 88.226.93.94 (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Salsa20, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)