Background.

The conflict in Aceh stems from several major factors including historical mistreatment, disagreements over Islamic law, discontent over the distribution of Aceh's natural resource wealth, and the increase in the numbers of Javanese people in Aceh.  During the era of Dutch colonisation in the 1800s Aceh was a centre of resistance against Dutch colonial rule. The Acehnese resisted Dutch forces. They were one of the last Indonesian people to succumb to colonial rule and only after a brutal 30-year campaign, the Aceh War of 1873–1903. When the Netherlands transferred sovereignty of their colonial territory, administration of Aceh was handed over to Indonesia and GAM claims that this was done without consultation with Acehnese authorities. Daud Bereueh mounted an armed rebellion that ended with Aceh being granted special status by President Sukarno. This special status gave Aceh control on religion, custom law and education.  Motivated by discovery of large gas reserves in Lhokseumawe and driven by inherent ethnic-chauvinism widespread amongst the Acehnese, a former Darul Islam "foreign minister", Hasan di Tiro established the Free Aceh Movement (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka) in December 1976. The small movement carried out its first attack on Mobil Oil engineers in 1977, killing one American engineer. Due to this incident, GAM came under the attention of central government who sent small units of counter-insurgency troops that successfully crushed the movement. Di Tiro was nearly killed and was forced to flee to Malaysia while all members of his "cabinet" were either killed or forced to flee abroad by 1979.

Guerrilla war.

Since its inception GAM has gone through three stages or three rises and falls. The first was at its birth in 1976 to the year 1979 when it was almost wiped out. The second rise and fall was in 1989 to the early 90s when it received funding and training from foreign countries. The third rise was a result of finally gaining widespread support throughout Aceh as a result of donations and extortion and a large group of potential soldiers who had lost relatives in the previous uprising.

GAM I.

At first the guerrilla war of GAM was quite unsuccessful. By 1977 the central government appeared to have entirely neutralised the group. The early GAM efforts were mainly directed at the local Exxon Mobil gas plant. Di Tiro had connections with the petroleum industry and even bid, via a tender process, on a contract to build a gas pipeline which was beaten by the gas giant Bechtel. The reason for this failure was a lack of popular support from both within Aceh and from international sources. President Suharto was favoured by countries such as America due to his anti communist policies during the Cold War period.

GAM II.

The group renewed its activities in the 1989, apparently with financial support from Libya and Iran, fielding around 1,000 soldiers. This training from overseas meant that GAM soldiers were much more organised and better trained than the previous insurgency. To counter this new threat Aceh was declared an "area of special military operations" (Daerah Operasi Militer) or DOM in 1989.Special counter- insurgency troops were sent in and Aceh was locked down. Villages that were suspected of harbouring GAM operatives were burnt down and family members of suspected militants were kidnapped and tortured. Amnesty International called the military response "shock therapy" and it is believed 7,000 human rights abuses took place during DOM. GAM forces have also been suspected of Human Rights abuses. Extra judicial executions of suspected military informants and targeting of civilian infrastructure such as schools have both been attributed to GAM operations.  In 1996 the Indonesian government announced the end of GAM., as the counter-insurgency operations had effectively destroyed GAM as a guerrilla force. Surviving GAM members were forced to hide in Malaysia.

GAM III.

The fall of Suharto in 1998 and the decision of his successor President Jusuf Habibie to withdraw troops from Aceh as part of democratic reform gave space for GAM to re-establish itself, recruiting youths by exploiting brutality stories of Indonesian military. Increasing violence beginning in 1999 by GAM rebels against government officials and Javanese residents, buoyed by massive weapons smuggling from Thailand by the GAM, led to an increase in military presence. Troop numbers are believed to have risen during the rule of Megawati Sukarnoputri. In 2001–02 the combination of military and police forces in Aceh had grown to about 30,000. In one year this number jumped to 50,000 operating in what the International Crisis group called, "a virtual legal vacuum". The security crackdowns during this time resulted in several thousand civilian deaths. The government launched a large 2003–04 Indonesian offensive in Aceh against the GAM in 2003 with some success.

Peace negotiations.

The leaders of GAM, Hasan di Tiro, and his chief deputy, Zaini Abdullah, and Malik Mahmud lived in exile in Stockholm, Sweden for most of the 1980s and 1990s. The group's main Indonesian spokesman was Abdullah Syafei'i Dimatang. In the late 1990s GAM began peace talks with Jakarta, brokered by the Swedish government.  In 1999 it was reported that the group had split into two factions, GAM (representing the original group) and the Free Aceh Movement Government Council (MP-GAM). This was denied by GAM spokespersons but was widely reported in the Indonesian media.  On December 2002, GAM and GoI signed a breakthrough Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (COHA) which only held for a few months before violations started occurring. The mediator in these negotiations, the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, did not have adequate monitoring and enforcing mechanisms to enact sanctions for violations.  In 2002–2004, the GAM was severely hit by a series of government offensives in which the organisation lost approximately 50% of its members including its commander, Abdullah Syafei'i Dimatang, who was killed in a military ambush on January 2002.  On Tuesday, 28 December 2004, in the aftermath of the devastation caused by a massive tsunami, GAM declared a ceasefire of hostilities to allow for aid to reach within the disputed area. In turn, the Indonesian government temporarily removed restrictions of northern Sumatra to allow for rescue efforts in that area.  Other Aceh separatist groups exist and there was some tension between them and GAM over tactics and GAM's monopoly of negotiations with the government.  On 27 February 2005, the Free Aceh Movement and the delegation of the Indonesian government started another round of peace talks in Vantaa, Finland, moderated by former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari. On 16 July 2005, the Indonesian Minister of Communication and GAM announced a peace deal to end the thirty-year insurgency.  The peace agreement was officially signed on 15 August 2005 in the Finnish Government Banquet Hall in Helsinki by chief Indonesian negotiator Hamid Awaluddin and GAM leader Malik Mahmud. President Ahtisaari was the witness of the peace treaty.  Under the terms of the agreement, both sides agreed to cease all hostilities immediately. GAM also agreed to disarm, while the Government pledged to withdraw all non-local military and police by the end of 2005. An Aceh Monitoring Mission was set up by the EU and ASEAN to oversee the process of disarmament and the reintegration into society of GAM members. A presidential decree granted amnesty to about five hundred former GAM members who were in exile in other countries, and unconditionally released about 1,400 members who had been jailed by the Government.  The Government agreed to facilitate the establishment of Aceh-based political parties; this had been one of the most contentious issues in previous negotiations. A "truth and reconciliation commission" will be organised. On the question of the uneven distribution of income, it was settled that seventy percent of the income from local natural resources will stay within Aceh.  On 27 December 2005, the leaders of the Free Aceh Movement announced that they had disbanded their military wing. The action, which took effect immediately, follows from earlier peace talks and the destruction of 840 weapons by international observers, Free Aceh movement commander Sofyan Daud told reporters, "The Aceh national army is now part of civil society, and will work to make the peace deal a success." As a sign of how the peace process was progressing the founder of Aceh's separatist rebel movement, Hasan di Tiro, returned to Indonesia on 11 October 2008 after nearly 30 years in exile.

2006 elections.

During the election of 11 December 2006, the Free Aceh Movement temporarily split into two factions each supporting its own candidate for governorship. One side supported Zaini Abdullah's brother, and the other side supported Irwandi Yusuf, a former GAM negotiator. Irwandi Yusuf got more support from the grass root level and won the election. The losing faction proceeded to bide its time, aiming to make a comeback in the next gubernatorial election in Aceh due at the end of Irwandi's five-year term in 2011. In the event, the gubernatorial election due to be held at the end of 2011 was delayed by procedural squabbling as different factions scrambled for advantage. The elections took place in April 2012.

2012 elections.

The 2012 election, held on 9 April, was largely a continuation of post-agreement rivalries between former GAM leaders, with Zaini Abdullah having returned from exile and entered into the contest for the governorship against Irwandi. Zaini Abdullah, with the strong support of the Aceh Party, won the election with a substantial majority.

The Free Aceh Movement ( or simply GAM,, also: Gěrakan Aceh Měrdeka) was a separatist group seeking independence for the Aceh region of Sumatra from Indonesia. GAM fought against Indonesian government forces in the Aceh insurgency from 1976 to 2005, during which over 15,000 lives are believed to have been lost.

Die Bewegung Freies Aceh (achinesisch "Gerakan Aceh Merdeka", kurz GAM), auch bekannt als Aceh Sumatra National Liberation Front (ASNLF), war eine bewaffnete Befreiungsbewegung in der Provinz Aceh im Norden Sumatras, die die Unabhängigkeit der Provinz von Indonesien anstrebte, bevor sie am 15. August 2005 in Helsinki ein Friedensabkommen mit der indonesischen Regierung unterzeichnete. Die indonesische Regierung nannte die Gruppe offiziell „"Bewegung zur Zerstörung der Sicherheit von Aceh"“.


Features.

The degenerative tissue damage caused by human prion diseases (CJD, GSS, and kuru) is characterised by four features: spongiform change, neuronal loss, astrocytosis, and amyloid plaque formation. These features are shared with prion diseases in animals, and the recognition of these similarities prompted the first attempts to transmit a human prion disease (kuru) to a primate in 1966, followed by CJD in 1968 and GSS in 1981. These neuropathological features have formed the basis of the histological diagnosis of human prion diseases for many years, although it was recognized that these changes are enormously variable both from case to case and within the central nervous system in individual cases.  The clinical signs in humans vary, but commonly include personality changes, psychiatric problems such as depression, lack of coordination, and/or an unsteady gait (ataxia). Patients also may experience involuntary jerking movements called myoclonus, unusual sensations, insomnia, confusion, or memory problems. In the later stages of the disease, patients have severe mental impairment (dementia) and lose the ability to move or speak.  Early neuropathological reports on human prion diseases suffered from a confusion of nomenclature, in which the significance of the diagnostic feature of spongiform change was occasionally overlooked. The subsequent demonstration that human prion diseases were transmissible reinforced the importance of spongiform change as a diagnostic feature, reflected in the use of the term "spongiform encephalopathy" for this group of disorders.  Prions appear to be most infectious when in direct contact with affected tissues. For example, Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease has been transmitted to patients taking injections of growth hormone harvested from human pituitary glands, from cadaver dura allografts and from instruments used for brain surgery (Brown, 2000) (prions can survive the "autoclave" sterilization process used for most surgical instruments). It is also believed that dietary consumption of affected animals can cause prions to accumulate slowly, especially when cannibalism or similar practices allow the proteins to accumulate over more than one generation. An example is kuru, which reached epidemic proportions in the mid-20th century in the Fore people of Papua New Guinea, who used to consume their dead as a funerary ritual. Laws in developed countries now ban the use of rendered ruminant proteins in ruminant feed as a precaution against the spread of prion infection in cattle and other ruminants.  There exists evidence that prion diseases may be transmissible by the airborne route.  Note that not all encephalopathies are caused by prions, as in the cases of PML (caused by the JC virus), CADASIL (caused by abnormal NOTCH3 protein activity), and Krabbe disease (caused by a deficiency of the enzyme galactosylceramidase). Progressive Spongiform Leukoencephalopathy (PSL)—which is a spongiform encephalopathy—is also probably not caused by a prion, although the adulterant that causes it among heroin smokers has not yet been identified. This, combined with the highly variable nature of prion disease pathology, is why a prion disease cannot be diagnosed based solely on a patient's symptoms.

Cause.

Genetics.

Mutations in the PRNP gene cause prion disease. Familial forms of prion disease are caused by inherited mutations in the PRNP gene. Only a small percentage of all cases of prion disease run in families, however. Most cases of prion disease are sporadic, which means they occur in people without any known risk factors or gene mutations. In rare circumstances, prion diseases also can be transmitted by exposure to prion-contaminated tissues or other biological materials obtained from individuals with prion disease.  The PRNP gene provides the instructions to make a protein called the prion protein (PrP). Under normal circumstances, this protein may be involved in transporting copper into cells. It may also be involved in protecting brain cells and helping them communicate. 24 Point-Mutations in this gene cause cells to produce an abnormal form of the prion protein, known as PrP. This abnormal protein builds up in the brain and destroys nerve cells, resulting in the signs and symptoms of prion disease.  Familial forms of prion disease are inherited in an autosomal dominant pattern, which means one copy of the altered gene in each cell is sufficient to cause the disorder. In most cases, an affected person inherits the altered gene from one affected parent.  In some people, familial forms of prion disease are caused by a new mutation in the PRNP gene. Although such people most likely do not have an affected parent, they can pass the genetic change to their children.

Protein-only hypothesis.

Protein could be the infectious agent, inducing its own replication by causing conformational change of normal cellular PrP into PrP. Evidence for this theory:

Multi-component hypothesis.

While not containing a nucleic acid genome, prions may be composed of more than just a protein. Purified PrP appears unable to convert to the infectious PrP form, unless other components are added, such as RNA and lipids. These other components, termed cofactors, may form part of the infectious prion, or they may serve as catalysts for the replication of a protein-only prion.

"Spiroplasma" hypothesis.

There is some disputed evidence for the role of bacteria of the "Spiroplasma" genus in the etiology of TSEs, primarily due to the work of Frank Bastian. The fact that PrP cannot be detected in about 10% of cases of CWD, while Bastian claims to have successfully cultured "Spiroplasma spp." from the brains of 100% of deer with CWD and sheep with scrapie, which were able to spread the disease to other ruminants in the absence of PrP, has led him and others to suspect that "Spiroplasma" infection may be the genuine cause of TSEs. Under this hypothesis PrP would merely be an imperfect marker of infection (with both sensitivity and NPV <1) either induced by "Spiroplasma" directly or by a defence mechanism of the host.  Other researchers have found no evidence for the "Spiroplasma" hypothesis of TSE causation. Bastian however attributes the inability to find "Spiroplasma" in 100% of cases to genetic variability. Bastian also stated that the authors of the hamster study used different primers for their PCR than he did, which could result in a false negative.

Viral hypothesis.

This hypothesis postulates that an as of yet undiscovered infectious viral agent is the cause of the disease. Evidence for this hypothesis is as follows:

Diagnosis.

There continues to be a very practical problem with diagnosis of prion diseases, including BSE and CJD. They have an incubation period of months to decades during which there are no symptoms, even though the pathway of converting the normal brain PrP protein into the toxic, disease-related PrP form has started. At present, there is virtually no way to detect PrP reliably except by examining the brain using neuropathological and immunohistochemical methods after death. Accumulation of the abnormally folded PrP form of the PrP protein is a characteristic of the disease, but it is present at very low levels in easily accessible body fluids like blood or urine. Researchers have tried to develop methods to measure PrP, but there are still no fully accepted methods for use in materials such as blood.  In 2010, a team from New York described detection of PrP even when initially present at only one part in a hundred billion (10) in brain tissue. The method combines amplification with a novel technology called Surround Optical Fiber Immunoassay (SOFIA) and some specific antibodies against PrP. After amplifying and then concentrating any PrP, the samples are labelled with a fluorescent dye using an antibody for specificity and then finally loaded into a micro-capillary tube. This tube is placed in a specially constructed apparatus so that it is totally surrounded by optical fibres to capture all light emitted once the dye is excited using a laser. The technique allowed detection of PrP after many fewer cycles of conversion than others have achieved, substantially reducing the possibility of artefacts, as well as speeding up the assay. The researchers also tested their method on blood samples from apparently healthy sheep that went on to develop scrapie. The animals’ brains were analysed once any symptoms became apparent. The researchers could therefore compare results from brain tissue and blood taken once the animals exhibited symptoms of the diseases, with blood obtained earlier in the animals’ lives, and from uninfected animals. The results showed very clearly that PrP could be detected in the blood of animals long before the symptoms appeared.

Epidemiology.

Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) are very rare but can reach epidemic proportions. It is very hard to map the spread of the disease due to the difficulty of identifying individual strains of the prions. This means that, if animals at one farm begin to show the disease after an outbreak on a nearby farm, it is very difficult to determine whether it is the same strain affecting both herds—suggesting transmission—or if the second outbreak came from a completely different source.  Classic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) was discovered in 1920. It occurs sporadically over the world but is very rare. It affects about one person per million each year. Typically, the cause is unknown for these cases. It has been found to be passed on genetically in some cases. 250 patients contracted the disease through iatrogenic transmission (from use of contaminated surgical equipment). This was before equipment sterilization was required in 1976, and there have been no other iatrogenic cases since then. In order to prevent the spread of infection, the World Health Organization created a guide to tell health care workers what to do when CJD appears and how to dispose of contaminated equipment. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have been keeping surveillance on CJD cases, particularly by looking at death certificate information.  Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a prion disease found in North America in deer and elk. The first case was identified as a fatal wasting syndrome in the 1960s. It was then recognized as a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy in 1978. Surveillance studies showed the endemic of CWD in free-ranging deer and elk spread in northeastern Colorado, southeastern Wyoming and western Nebraska. It was also discovered that CWD may have been present in a proportion of free-ranging animals decades before the initial recognition. In the United States, the discovery of CWD raised concerns about the transmission of this prion disease to humans. Many apparent cases of CJD were suspected transmission of CWD, however the evidence was lacking and not convincing.  In the 1980s and 1990s, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or "mad cow disease") spread in cattle at an epidemic rate. The total estimated number of cattle infected was approximately 750,000 between 1980 and 1996. This occurred because the cattle were fed processed remains of other cattle. Then human consumption of these infected cattle caused an outbreak of the human form CJD. There was a dramatic decline in BSE when feeding bans were put in place. On May 20, 2003, the first case of BSE was confirmed in North America. The source could not be clearly identified, but researchers suspect it came from imported BSE-infected cow meat. In the United States, the USDA created safeguards to minimize the risk of BSE exposure to humans.  Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) was discovered in 1996 in England. There is strong evidence to suggest that vCJD was caused by the same prion as bovine spongiform encephalopathy. A total of 231 cases of vCJD have been reported since it was first discovered. These cases have been found in a total of 12 countries with 178 in the United Kingdom, 27 in France, five in Spain, four in Ireland, four in the United States, three in the Netherlands, three in Italy, two in Portugal, two in Canada, and one each in Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Taiwan.

History.

In the 5th century BCE, Hippocrates described a disease like TSE in cattle and sheep, which he believed also occurred in man. Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus records cases of a disease with similar characteristics in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. In 1755, an outbreak of scrapie was discussed in the British House of Commons and may have been present in Britain for some time before that. Although there were unsupported claims in 1759 that the disease was contagious, in general it was thought to be due to inbreeding and countermeasures appeared to be successful. Early-20th-century experiments failed to show transmission of scrapie between animals, until extraordinary measures were taken such as the intra-ocular injection of infected nervous tissue. No direct link between scrapie and disease in man was suspected then or has been found since. TSE was first described in man by Alfons Maria Jakob in the 1921. Daniel Carleton Gajdusek's discovery that Kuru was transmitted by cannibalism accompanied by the finding of scrapie-like lesions in the brains of Kuru victims strongly suggested an infectious basis to TSE. A paradigm shift to a non-nucleic infectious entity was required when the results were validated with an explanation of how a prion protein might transmit spongiform encephalopathy. Not until 1988 was the neuropathology of spongiform encephalopathy properly described in cows. The alarming amplification of BSE in the British cattle herd heightened fear of transmission to humans and reinforced the belief in the infectious nature of TSE. This was confirmed with the identification of a Kuru-like disease, called new variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, in humans exposed to BSE. Although the infectious disease model of TSE has been questioned in favour of a prion transplantation model that explains why cannibalism favours transmission, the search for a viral agent is being continued in some laboratories.

Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) are a group of progressive, invariably fatal, conditions that are associated with prions and affect the brain (encephalopathies) and nervous system of many animals, including humans, cattle, and sheep. According to the most widespread hypothesis, they are transmitted by prions, though some other data suggest an involvement of a "Spiroplasma" infection. Mental and physical abilities deteriorate and many tiny holes appear in the cortex causing it to appear like a sponge when brain tissue obtained at autopsy is examined under a microscope. The disorders cause impairment of brain function, including memory changes, personality changes and problems with movement that worsen chronically.

Transmissible spongiforme Enzephalopathie (TSE) (deutsch: „Übertragbares schwammartiges Hirnleiden“) oder übertragbare spongiforme Enzephalopathie, genannt auch Prionkrankheit, ist die Bezeichnung für eine Reihe von Hirnerkrankungen (Enzephalopathie), bei denen es zu einer schwammartigen Veränderung des Gehirngewebes kommt. Erkrankungen finden sich sowohl bei Menschen als auch bei Tieren. Als Verursacher werden Prionen angenommen (daher auch der Name Prionerkrankung). Die TSE zählen zu den Proteinfehlfaltungserkrankungen.


Construction.

The United States Congress authorized the construction of "Texas", the second Navy ship to be named after that state, on 24 June 1910. Bids for "Texas" were accepted from 27 September to 1 December with the winning bid of $5,830,000—excluding the price of armor and armament—submitted by Newport News Shipbuilding. The contract was signed on 17 December and the plans were delivered to the building yard seven days later. "Texas" keel was laid down on 17 April 1911 at Newport News, Virginia.

Service history.

On 24 March 1914, "Texas" departed Norfolk Navy Yard and set a course for New York City, making an overnight stop at Tompkinsville, New York, on the night of 26 March. Entering New York Navy Yard on the next day, she spent the next three weeks there undergoing the installation of fire-control equipment.  During her stay in New York, President Woodrow Wilson ordered a number of ships of the Atlantic Fleet to Mexican waters in response to tension created when a detail of Mexican federal troops detained an American gunboat crew at Tampico. The problem was quickly resolved locally, but Rear Admiral Henry T. Mayo sought further redress by demanding an official disavowal of the act by the Huerta regime and a 21-gun salute to the American flag.  President Wilson saw in the incident an opportunity to put pressure on a government he felt was undemocratic. On 20 April, Wilson placed the matter before the United States Congress and sent orders to Rear Admiral Frank Friday Fletcher, commanding the naval force off the Mexican coast, instructing him to land a force at Veracruz and to seize the customs house there in retaliation for what is now known as the "Tampico Incident". That action was carried out on 21–22 April.  Due to the intensity of the situation, "Texas" put to sea on 13 May and headed directly to operational duty without benefit of the usual shakedown cruise and post-shakedown repair period. After a five-day stop at Hampton Roads from 14 to 19 May, she joined Rear Admiral Fletcher's force off Veracruz on 26 May. She remained in Mexican waters for just over two months, supporting the American forces ashore. On 8 August, she left Veracruz and set a course for Nipe Bay, Cuba, and from there steamed to New York, where she entered the Navy Yard on 21 August.  The battleship remained there until 6 September, when she returned to sea, joined the Atlantic Fleet, and settled into a schedule of normal fleet operations. In October, she returned to the Mexican coast. Later that month, "Texas" became station ship at Tuxpan, a duty that lasted until 4 November, when she steamed for Galveston, Texas. While at Galveston on 7 November, Texas Governor Oscar Colquitt presented the ship's silver service to Captain Grant. The Young Men's Business League of Waco, Texas, raised the $10,000 to purchase the silver.  "Texas" sailed for Tampico on 14 November and thereafter to Veracruz, where she remained for a month. The ship left Mexico on 20 December and set a course for New York. The battleship entered New York Navy Yard on 28 December and remained there undergoing repairs until 16 February 1915. On 25 May, "Texas", along with battleships,, and, rescued 230 passengers from the damaged Holland America Line passenger ship, which had been rammed by Norwegian-flagged fruit steamer "Joseph J. Cuneo". In gratitude, Holland America Line presented "Texas" with a model of a 17th-century warship, which is displayed with the wardroom silver as of 2014. In 1916, "Texas" became the first US battleship to mount anti-aircraft guns with the addition of two /50-caliber guns on platforms atop the boat cranes, and the first to control gunfire with directors and rangefinders, analog forerunners of today's computers.

Museum ship.

On 17 April 1947, the Battleship "Texas" Commission was established by the Texas Legislature to care for the ship. The $225,000 necessary to pay for towing her from Baltimore to San Jacinto was the Commission's first task. On 17 March 1948, "Texas" began her journey to her new anchorage along the busy Houston Ship Channel near the San Jacinto Monument, at San Jacinto State Park, arriving on 20 April, where she was turned over to the State of Texas the next day to serve as a permanent memorial. "Texas" sits just across from the monument at Battleground Park in the waters of the Port of Houston where she was ceremoniously decommissioned on the 21st, nine days later on 30 April 1948 her name was struck from the Naval Vessel Register. "Texas" was the first permanent battleship memorial museum in the US. was displayed as a floating museum in Portland, Oregon from 1925 to 1941 but was scrapped in 1956. When the battleship was presented to the State of Texas, she was commissioned as the flagship of the Texas Navy.

Battleship "Texas" Commission.

The funding produced by the Battleship "Texas" Commission was not up to the task of maintaining the ship. Consequently, years of neglect resulted in cracks and gaps in coated surfaces, water intrusion, and steel deterioration. Paint in interior spaces began to crack, then flake, exposing metal surfaces underneath, which began to rust. At the same time, pipes open to the sea ultimately failed, flooding various voids and bunkers. By 1968, the wooden main deck of the ship was so rotted that rainwater was leaking through the deck into the

Transfer to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

By 1983, concerns with the leadership of the Battleship "Texas" Commission led to the decision by the State Legislature to turn over control of the ship to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). The legislature abolished the commission effective 31 August 1983, and TPWD assumed operational control the next day. One of the first actions by TPWD was to hire a firm of naval architects to survey the ship in order to assess the

1988–1990 dry dock period.

On 13 December 1988, "Texas" was pulled from her berth with great difficulty over the course of six hours by six large tugboats to begin the trip from her berth to Todd Shipyards in Galveston, Texas. Once under tow in the Houston Ship Channel she started taking on water, with a serious breach just forward of the engine rooms. The crew had three pumps and two pumps in continuous service to combat the flooding. During the nine-plus hour transit, the ship's draft increased in the stern.  "Texas" entered the yard's floating drydock at approximately 22:30 on 13 December, at high tide with only to spare between her hull and the blocks she would sit on. She underwent a 14-month refit that sought to restore the ship to her

Dry berth project.

After many years of evaluating a wide range of alternative plans to address the ship's problems (as well as other issues at San Jacinto), TPWD, working with many of the stakeholders at the San Jacinto Battleground State Historic Site, adopted a Master Plan that called for placing "Texas" into a permanent dry berth. After the Master Plan was formally adopted by TPWD in 2004, the Texas Legislature was approached to secure appropriate funding. The Legislature allowed the voters of Texas to express their opinion and on 6

Leaks.

In June 2010, a leak on the starboard side of the ship caused "Texas" to sink two to three feet in her mooring. The leak was precipitated by a burned out pump, which allowed the ship to take on more water than usual. Consequently, a seam separation was pulled below the waterline creating a second leak. Once the leak was discovered, the broken pump was replaced. of water had to be pumped from the ship.

Commemoration.

"Texas" was the first and oldest of the seven US battleships that became permanent floating museums; the other battleships honored in this way are,,,,,, and. "Texas" is also one of the oldest surviving modern naval

Awards.

"Texas" earned awards for her service in the Tampico Incident, World War I, and World War II.

Media.

"Texas" has appeared in several films prior to and since her retirement. Her cinema debut, though brief, was in the final scene of the 1937 film "Boy of the Streets" starring Jackie Cooper and Maureen O'Conner. The 1966 Steve McQueen film "The Sand Pebbles" shot some scenes aboard the ship, but these were removed from the final cut of the movie and subsequently lost. In the 2001 film "Pearl Harbor", "Texas" stood in for the various battleships that were attacked on Dec. 7, 1941. Some of the ship's interiors were also used to portray the interior of the aircraft carrier later in the film. "Texas" also appears as herself in the 2006 films "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima"; in both movies the ship is depicted shelling Iwo Jima in preparation for the Marines' amphibious assault.  "Texas" was a central plot element in the 1985 science fiction book "The Ayes of Texas" by Daniel da Cruz, who served on the Texas in World War II.  "Texas" appeared as a playable multiplayer map in, taking place on the top deck. Despite the map's name, the visual appearance and layout does not resemble the real USS Texas at all.

USS "Texas" (BB-35), is a former United States Navy. She was launched on 18 May 1912 and commissioned on 12 March 1914.

Die USS "Texas" ist ein außer Dienst gestelltes Schlachtschiff der United States Navy und jetziges Museumsschiff. Sie war gemäß der damaligen Praxis als „capital ship“ nach einem US-Bundesstaat benannt. Als einziges Schwesterschiff der USS "New York" gehörte sie der "New York"-Klasse an.


Regulations.

FIA currently defines several categories of GT cars with the top two specifications being GT1, or Grand Touring Cars, and GT2, or Series Grand Touring Cars. Each category has an annual driver champion, team champion, and manufacturer champion. Both categories are based on production road car designs, which must be produced in a minimum quantity of 25 examples to qualify. Both types may undergo significant modifications from the road car they are based on, but GT1 allows the use of exotic materials, better aerodynamics, larger brakes, wider tyres and larger engine admission restrictors.  For the 2006 season, the FIA created a new class called GT3. GT3 cars are even closer to their production counterparts and are very simply racetrack prepared with the essentials (rollcages for safety, stripped interiors, race spec fuel tanks, etc.). All cars are performance balanced together via different weights, restrictors, tyre pressures etc. Prestigious motorsports makes such as Aston Martin, Chevrolet, Dodge, Lamborghini, Ascari and Maserati take part in FIA GT3 European Championship, a support series in some rounds of the main championship.  The FIA defines a GT car as "an open or closed automobile which has no more than one door on each side and a minimum of two seats situated one on each side of the longitudinal centre line of the car; these two seats must be crossed by the same transversal plane. This car must be able to be used perfectly legally on the open road, and adapted for racing on circuits or closed courses."  All races in the FIA GT Championship were of endurance type, a full race distance lasting a minimum of 500 km or a maximum of three hours, with the exception of the Spa 24 Hours, Istanbul 2 hours and the exhibition Mil Milhas Brasileiras, which is run over a thousand miles (1609 km) and was planned to be a round of the championship in 2007. However, with the release of the 2007 FIA GT Championship schedule and rules, the FIA GT series becomes more of a sprint race event, with all races being a maximum of 2 hours with the exception of the Spa 24 Hours.

History.

In 1997, due to increasing interest from manufacturers such as Mercedes-Benz, Porsche and Panoz, the FIA took over control of the expanding BPR Global GT Series, standardizing the race-length at 500 km instead of the usual four hours, liberalizing the technical regulations and leaving commercial exploitation in the hands of one of BPR's founders, Stéphane Ratel, who managed to get TV support from the pan-European TV station Eurosport. The new manufacturers built "homologation specials", racing-bred cars that took full advantage of the new rules, to build quasi-prototypes with very limited production runs of 25 cars. Chrysler, Lister and Marcos, not wanting to accompany the cost escalation, moved down to the GT2 class.  This proved to be the wisest move, as Mercedes completely dominated the new category and the other manufacturers pulled out after the end of the 1998 season. This left Chrysler's Viper to become the dominating car in the series, with the aging Porsche 993 GT2 and the Lister Storm providing a certain degree of competition.  However, there was no lower inexpensive category for amateur drivers, and this led to the creation of the N-GT class in 2000. While the manufacturer field in the main class blossomed, the new category became swamped with Porsches and Ferraris, but lower running costs meant both classes enjoyed a balanced number of entries. In order to boost the championship's status, the SRO added the 24 Hours of Spa, previously a touring car race, to the calendar, where it became the series' most important race. The FIA also banned official manufacturer involvement, although certain teams had preferential treatment, with Porsche establishing a "round robin" system.  After the end of the 2004 season, the FIA renamed the classes GT1 and GT2, and somewhat liberalized the GT1 regulations, allowing "supercars". While this was made to accommodate the Saleen S7, the biggest beneficiary was the purpose-built Maserati MC12, which led the FIA to impose aerodynamic limitations on the Italian car. However, thanks to a weight penalty system, the fight for the championship is protected from more domineering cars. The level of competition remains tight, with gentlemen drivers managing to fight for the wins with professional drivers, some of them with Formula One experience.  Following the 2009 season, the SRO announced that the FIA GT Championship's two categories, GT1 and GT2, would break off into separate series. The GT1 category became a world championship with rounds across the world. Cars which fit the GT1 class were eligible to race only in the FIA GT1 World Championship, as the ACO (organizer of the Le Mans 24 Hours) banned the cars from the event and all of its associated series. This meant that the category that once was eligible to race not only in the FIA GT, Le Mans Series and numerous national championships, was now only able to run in the new World Championship. A few GT1 were entered in the LMGT1 class at the 2010 24 Hours of Le Mans.  The GT1 cars continued to race in the World Championship in 2010 and 2011, but in 2012 the series switched exclusively to GT3 machinery due to shrinking car counts and the fact that most of the cars were ageing and no one was willing to build new models. This meant that the San Luis round of the 2011 season was the last ever time GT1 cars contested in international motorsport. The 2012 FIA GT1 season was contested with GT3 cars (yet retaining GT1 in series' title), but the series was finally cancelled after the year had concluded, being replaced by the FIA GT Series.  In 2010 the GT2 class was planned to have a separate championship having rounds held only in Europe, known as the FIA GT2 European Championship, but this series was cancelled. A lone GT2 event was held in 2010 at the Spa 24 Hours with the winners being awarded the FIA GT2 European Cup. This was the last ever time GT2-spec cars contested in SRO-sanctioned series.  A new Blancpain Endurance Series was announced for 2011 which re-established some of the endurance format of the former FIA GT Championship, although this series only utilised the FIA's GT3, GT4, and Supersports categories (GT2 was also planned to be in the series, but this was quickly folded as the interest level wasn't high). However, this series is not an FIA-sanctioned championship. In 2012 the series abandoned the GT4 class and moved to GT3 exclusively.

Champions.

As of the end of the 2009 season, Vitaphone Racing Team have won their fifth consecutive Teams' Championship in the GT1 category, while AF Corse earned their fourth consecutive title. Michael Bartels and Andrea Bertolini, both driving for Vitaphone, earned their third Drivers' Championship titles in the past four seasons. Richard Westbrook of Prospeed Competition won the GT2 Drivers' Championship. Chris Niarchos won the Citation Cup while Ferrari won the returning Manufacturers' Championship for the GT2 category.

The FIA GT Championship was a sports car racing series organized by the Stéphane Ratel Organisation (SRO) at the behest of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA). The championship was mostly concentrated in Europe, but throughout the years has visited other continents including Asia and South America. At the end of 2009, the championship was replaced by the FIA GT1 World Championship, which morphed into the FIA GT Series for 2013.

Die FIA-GT-Meisterschaft (GT steht für Gran Turismo) war eine Rennserie, in der seriennahe Supersportwagen und Sportwagen eingesetzt wurden. Die Rennserie wurde zwischen 1997 und 2009 ausgetragen, bevor eine Nachfolgerennserie unter dem Titel FIA-GT1-Weltmeisterschaft gegründet wurde. In den ersten Jahren wurde die FIA-GT weltweit ausgefahren, fokussierte sich jedoch später vor allem auf Europa mit einigen Läufen in Asien und Amerika. Dabei fand der Großteil der Rennen mit zwei verschiedenen Motorsportklassen statt. Die FIA vergab am Saisonende für Fahrer und Teams Meistertitel in den jeweiligen Klassen. 2013 wurde der Name FIA-GT erneut verwendet, die Serie hat jedoch ein anderes Konzept mit Fahrzeugen der Gruppe GT3.


Founding.

RSS was founded in 1925 by Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, a doctor in the city of Nagpur, British India.  Hedgewar was a political protege of B. S. Moonje, a Tilakite Congressman, Hindu Mahasabha politician and social activist from Nagpur. Moonje had sent Hedgewar to Calcutta to pursue his medical studies and to learn combat techniques from the secret revolutionary societies of the Bengalis. Hedgewar became a member of the Anushilan Samiti, an anti-British revolutionary group, getting into its inner circle. The secretive methods of these societies were eventually used by him in organising the RSS.  After returning to Nagpur, Hedgewar organised anti-British activities through the "Kranti Dal" (Party of Revolution) and participated in independence activist Tilak's Home Rule campaign in 1918. According to the official RSS history, he came to realise that revolutionary activities alone were not enough to overthrow the British. After reading V. D. Savarkar's "", published in Nagpur in 1923, and meeting Savarkar in the Ratnagiri prison in 1925, Hedgewar was extremely influenced by him, and he founded the RSS with the objective of strengthening Hindu society.  Hedgewar believed that a handful of British were able to rule over the vast country of India because Hindus were disunited, lacked valour ("pararkram") and lacked a civic character. He recruited energetic Hindu youth with revolutionary fervour, gave them

Motivations.

Scholars differ on Hedgewar's motivations for forming the RSS, especially because he never involved the RSS in fighting the British rule. Jaffrelot says that the RSS was intended to propagate the ideology of Hindutva and to provide "new physical strength" to the majority community. An alternative interpretation is that he formed it to fight the Indian Muslims.

Tilakite ideology.

After Tilak's demise in 1920, like other followers of Tilak in Nagpur, Hedgewar was opposed to some of the programmes adopted by Gandhi. Gandhi's stance on the Indian Muslim Khilafat issue was a cause for concern to Hedgewar, and so was the fact that the 'cow protection' was not on the Congress agenda. This led Hedgewar, along with other Tilakities, to part ways

Hindu-Muslim relations.

The decade of 1920s witnessed a significant deterioration in the relations between Hindus and Muslims. The Muslim masses were mobilised by the Khilafat movement, demanding the reinstatement of the Caliphate in Turkey, and Gandhi made an alliance with it for conducting his own Non-co-operation movement. Gandhi aimed to create Hindu-Muslim unity in forming the alliance. However, the alliance saw a "common enemy", not a "common enmity". When Gandhi called off the Non-co-operation movement due to outbreaks of violence, Muslims disagreed with his strategy. Once the movements failed, the mobilised Muslims turned their anger towards Hindus. The first major incident of religious violence was reportedly the Moplah rebellion in August 1921, it was widely narrated that the rebellion ended in large-scale violence against Hindu in Malabar. A cycle of inter-communal violence throughout India followed for several years. In 1923, there were riots in Nagpur, called

Stigmatisation and emulation.

Christophe Jaffrelot points out the theme of "stigmatisation and emulation" in the ideology of the RSS along with other Hindu nationalist movements such as the Arya Samaj and the Hindu Mahasabha. Muslims, Christians and the British were thought of as "foreign bodies" implanted in the Hindu nation, who

Hindu Mahasabha influence.

The Hindu Mahasabha, which was initially a special interest group within the Indian National Congress and later an independent party, was an important influence on the RSS, even though it is rarely acknowledged. In 1923, prominent Hindu leaders like Madan Mohan Malaviya met together on this platform and voiced their concerns on the 'division in the Hindu community'. In his presidential speech to Mahasabha, Malaviya stated: "Friendship could exist between equals. If the Hindus made themselves strong and the rowdy section among the Mahomedans were convinced they could not safely rob and dishonour Hindus, unity would be established on a stable basis." He wanted the activists 'to educate all boys and girls, establish "akharas" (gymnasiums), establish a volunteer corps to persuade people to comply

History.

Indian Independence Movement.

After the formation of the RSS, which portrays itself as a social movement, Hedgewar kept the organisation from having any direct affiliation with the political organisations then fighting British rule. RSS rejected Gandhi's willingness to co-operate with the Muslims.  In accordance with Hedgewar's tradition of keeping the RSS away from the Indian Independence movement, any political activity that could be construed as being anti-British was carefully avoided. According to the RSS biographer C.P. Bhishikar, Hedgewar talked only about Hindu organisations and avoided any direct comment

Attitude towards Jews.

During World War II, the RSS leaders admired Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Golwalkar allegedly took inspiration from Adolf Hitler's ideology of

Partition.

The Partition of India affected millions of Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims attempting to escape the violence and carnage that followed. During the partition, the RSS helped the Hindu refugees fleeing West Punjab; its activists also played an active role in the communal violence during Hindu-Muslim riots

First ban.

The first ban on the RSS was imposed in Punjab Province (British India) on 24 January 1947 by Malik Khizar Hayat Tiwana, the premier of the ruling

Opposition to the National Flag of India.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh initially did not recognise the Tricolor as the National Flag of India. The RSS-inspired publication, the "Organiser", demanded, in an editorial titled "National Flag", that the "Bhagwa Dhwaj" (Saffron Flag) be adopted as the National Flag of India. After the Tricolor was adopted as the National Flag by the Constituent Assembly of India on 22 July 1947, the "Organiser" viciously attacked the Tricolor and the Constituent Assembly's decision. In an article titled "Mystery behind the "Bhagwa Dhwaj"", the "Organiser" stated In an essay titled "Drifting and Drafting" published in "Bunch of Thoughts", Golwalkar lamented the choice of the Tricolor as the National Flag, and compared it to an intellectual vacuum/void. In his words, The RSS hoisted the National Flag

Opposition to the Constitution of India.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh initially did not recognise the Constitution of India, strongly criticising it because the Indian Constitution made no mention of "Manu's laws"from the ancient Hindu text "Manusmriti". When the Constituent Assembly finalised the constitution, the RSS mouthpiece, the "Organiser", complained in an editorial dated 30 November 1949: The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh did not stop its unrelenting attacks on

Second ban and acquittal.

Following Mahatma Gandhi's assassination in January 1948 by a former member of the RSS, Nathuram Godse, many prominent leaders of the RSS were arrested, and RSS as an organisation was banned on 4 February 1948. A Commission of Inquiry into Conspiracy to the murder of Gandhi was set, and its report was published by India's Ministry of Home Affairs in the year 1970. Accordingly, the Justice Kapur Commission noted that the "RSS as such were not responsible for the murder of Mahatma Gandhi, meaning thereby that one could not name the organisation as such as being responsible for that most diabolical crime, the murder of the apostle of peace. It has not been proved that they (the accused) were members of the RSS." However, the then Indian Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel had remarked that the "RSS men expressed joy and distributed sweets after Gandhi's death".  RSS leaders were acquitted of the conspiracy charge by the Supreme Court of India. Following his release in August 1948, Golwalkar wrote to Prime

Decolonisation of Dadra, Nagar Haveli, and Goa.

After India had achieved independence, the RSS was one of the socio-political organisations that supported and participated in movements to decolonise Dadra and Nagar Haveli, which at that time was ruled by Portugal. In early 1954 volunteers Raja Wakankar and Nana Kajrekar of the RSS visited the area round about Dadra, Nagar Haveli, and Daman several times to study the topography and get acquainted with locals who wanted the area to change from being a Portuguese colony to being an Indian union territory. In April 1954 the RSS formed a coalition with the National Movement Liberation Organisation (NMLO) and the Azad Gomantak Dal (AGD) for the annexation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli into the Republic of India. On the night of 21 July, United Front of Goans, a group working independently of the coalition, captured the Portuguese police station at

War-time activities.

During the Chinese war of 1962, the RSS provided active help to the civil administration. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was impressed with the help extended and allowed the RSS to field a contingent of 100 swayamsevaks in the 1963 Republic Day Parade.  At the time of the 1965 war with Pakistan, Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri invited the RSS Sarsanghchalak Madhav Sadashiv

Movement against the Emergency.

In 1975 the Indira Gandhi government proclaimed emergency rule in India, thereby suspending fundamental rights and curtailing the freedom of the press. This action was taken after the Supreme Court of India cancelled her election to the Indian Parliament on charges of malpractices in the election. Democratic institutions were suspended and prominent opposition leaders, including Gandhian Jayaprakash Narayan, were arrested whilst thousands of people were detained without any charges taken up against them. RSS, which was seen as being close to opposition leaders, and with its large organisational base was seen to have the capability of organising protests against the government, was also banned.  Deoras, the then chief of RSS, wrote letters to Indira Gandhi, promising her to extend the organisation's co-operation in return for the lifting of the ban, asserting that RSS had

Reception.

India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru had been vigilant towards RSS since he had taken charge. When Golwalkar wrote to Nehru asking for the lifting of the ban on RSS after Gandhi's assassination, Nehru replied that the government had proof that RSS activities were 'anti-national' by virtue of being 'communalist'. In his letter to the heads of provincial governments in December 1947, Nehru wrote that "we have a great deal of evidence to show that RSS is an organisation which is in the nature of a private army and which is definitely proceeding on the strictest Nazi lines, even following the techniques of the organisation".

Structure.

RSS does not have any formal membership. According to the official website, men and boys can become members by joining the nearest "shakha", which is the basic unit. Although the RSS claims not to keep membership records, it is estimated to have had 2.5 to 6.0million members in 2001.

Leadership and member positions.

There are the following

Shakhas.

The term "shakha" is Hindi for "branch". Most of the organisational work of the RSS is done through the co-ordination of the various "shakhas", or branches. These shakhas are run for one hour in public places. The number of "shakhas" increased from 8500 in 1975 to 11,000 in 1977, and became 20,000 by 1982. In 2004 more than 51,000 shakhas were run throughout India. The number of shakas had fallen by over 10,000 since the fall of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government in 2004. However, by mid-2014, the number had again increased to about 40,000 after the return of BJP to power in Delhi in the same year. This number stood at 51,335 in August 2015.  The shakhas conduct various activities for its volunteers such as

Uniform.

In October 2016, the RSS replaced the uniform of

Affiliated organisations.

Organisations that are inspired by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh's ideology refer to themselves as members of the "Sangh Parivar". In most cases, "pracharaks" (full-time volunteers of the RSS) were deputed to start up

Mission.

Golwalkar describes the mission of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh as the revitalisation of the Indian value system based on universalism and peace and prosperity to all. Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, the worldview that the whole world is one family, propounded by the ancient thinkers of India, is considered as one of the ideologies of the organisation.  But the immediate focus, the leaders believe, is on the Hindu renaissance, which would build an egalitarian society and a strong India that could propound this philosophy. Hence, the focus is on social reform, economic upliftment of the downtrodden, and the protection of the cultural diversity of the natives in India. The organisation says it aspires to unite all Hindus and build a strong India that can contribute to the welfare of the world. In the words of RSS ideologue and the second head of

Social service and reform.

Participation in land reforms.

The RSS volunteers participated in the Bhoodan movement organised by Gandhian leader Vinobha Bhave, who had met RSS leader Golwalkar in Meerut in November 1951. Golwalkar had been inspired by the movement that encouraged land reform through voluntary means. He pledged the support of

Reform in 'caste'.

The RSS has advocated the training of Dalits and other backward classes as temple high priests (a position traditionally reserved for Caste Brahmins and denied to lower castes). They argue that the social divisiveness of the caste system is responsible for the lack of adherence to Hindu values and traditions, and that reaching out to the lower castes in this manner will be a remedy to the problem. The RSS has also condemned upper-caste Hindus for preventing Dalits from worshipping at temples, saying that "even God will desert the temple in which Dalits cannot enter".  Jaffrelot says that "there is insufficient data available to carry out a statistical analysis of social origins of

Relief and rehabilitation.

The RSS was instrumental in relief efforts after the 1971 Orissa Cyclone, 1977 Andhra Pradesh Cyclone and in the 1984 Bhopal disaster. It assisted in relief efforts during the 2001 Gujarat earthquake, and helped rebuild villages. Approximately 35,000 RSS members in uniform were engaged in the relief efforts, and many of their critics acknowledged their role. An RSS-affiliated NGO, Seva Bharati, conducted relief operations in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Activities included building shelters for the victims and providing food, clothes, and medical necessities. The RSS assisted relief efforts during the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake and the subsequent tsunami. Seva Bharati also adopted 57 children (38 Muslims and 19 Hindus) from militancy

Criticisms and accusations.

Jaffrelot observes that although the RSS with its paramilitary style of functioning and its emphasis on discipline has sometimes been seen by some as "an Indian version of fascism", he argues that "RSS's ideology treats society as an organism with a secular spirit, which is implanted not so much in the race as in a socio-cultural system and which will be regenerated over the course of time by patient work at the grassroots". He writes that "ideology of the RSS did not develop a theory of the state and the race, a crucial element in European nationalisms: Nazism and Fascism" and that the RSS leaders were interested in culture as opposed to racial sameness.  The likening of the Sangh Parivar to fascism by Western critics has also been countered by Jyotirmaya Sharma, who labelled it as an attempt by them to "make sense of the growth of extremist politics and intolerance within their society", and that such "simplistic transference" has done great injustice to our knowledge of Hindu nationalist politics.  RSS has been criticised as an extremist organisation and as a paramilitary group. It has also been criticised when its members have participated in anti-Muslim violence; it has since formed in 1984, a militant wing called the Bajrang Dal. Along with Shiv Sena, the RSS has been involved in riots, often inciting and organising violence against Christians and Muslims.  According to released documents by WikiLeaks, Congress(I) party's general secretary Rahul Gandhi remarked to US Ambassador Timothy Roemer, at a luncheon hosted by Prime Minister of India at his residence in July 2009, that the RSS was a "bigger threat" to India than the Lashkar-e-Tayiba.

Involvement with riots.

The RSS has been censured for its involvement in communal riots. Human Rights Watch, a non-governmental organisation for human rights based in New York, has claimed that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council, VHP), the Bajrang Dal, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, and

Religious violence in Odisha.

Christian groups accuse the RSS alongside its close affiliates, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad

Involvement in the Babri Masjid demolition.

According to the 2009 report of the Liberhan Commission, the Sangh Parivar organised the destruction of the Babri Mosque. The Commission said: "The blame or the credit for the entire temple construction movement at Ayodhya must necessarily be attributed to Sangh Parivar." It also noted that the Sangh Parivar is an "extensive and widespread organic body" that encompasses organisations that address and bring together just about every type of social, professional,

Involvement in politics.

Several Sangh Parivar politicians such as Balraj Madhok in the 1960s and 1970s to the BJP leaders like L. K. Advani have complained about the RSS's interference in party politics. Though some former Hindu nationalists believed that Sangh should take part in politics, they failed to draw the RSS, which was intended to be a purely cultural movement, into the political arena until the 1950s. Savarkar tried to convince Hedgewar and later Golwalkar, to tie up with Hindu Mahasabha, but failed to do so.  Under pressure from other "swayamsevaks", Golwalkar gradually changed his mind after independence under unusual circumstances during the ban on RSS in 1948 after the assassination of Gandhi. After the first wave of arrests of RSS activists at that time, some of its members who had gone underground recommended that their movement be involved in politics, seeing that no political force was present to advocate the cause of RSS in parliament or anywhere else. One such member who significantly suggested this cause was K. R. Malkani, who wrote in 1949:  Golwalkar approved of Malkani's and others' views regarding the formation of a new party in 1950. Jaffrelot says that the death of Sardar Patel influenced this change since Golwalkar opined that Patel could have transformed the Congress party by emphasising its affinities with Hindu nationalism, while after Patel, Nehru became strong enough to impose his 'anti-communal' line within his party. Accordingly, Golwalkar met Syama Prasad Mukherjee and agreed for endorsing senior "swayamsevaks", who included Deendayal Upadhyaya, Balraj Madhok and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, to the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, a newly formed political party by Mukherjee. These men, who took their orders from RSS, captured power in the party after Mukherjee's death.  Balasaheb Deoras, who succeeded Golwalkar as the chief of RSS, got very much involved in politics. In 1965, when he was the general secretary of the RSS, he addressed the annual meeting of Jana Sangh, which is seen as an "unprecedented move" by an RSS dignitary that reflected his strong interest in politics and his will to make the movement play a larger part in the public sphere. Jaffrelot says that he exemplified the specific kind of swayamsevaks known as 'activists', giving expression to his leanings towards political activism by having the RSS support the JP Movement. The importance that RSS began to give to the electoral politics is demonstrated when its units ("shakhas") were made constituency-based in the early 1970s, from which the RSS shakhas began to involve directly in elections, not only of legislatures, but also of trade unions, student and cultural organisations.  As soon as the RSS men took over the Jana Sangh party, the Hindu traditionalists who previously joined the party because of S. P. Mukherjee were sidelined. The organisation of the party was restructured and all its organisational secretaries, who were the pillars of the party, came from the RSS, both at the district and state level. The party also took the vision of RSS in its mission, where its ultimate objective, in the long run, was the reform of society, but not the conquest of power, since the'state' was not viewed as a prominent institution. Hence the Jana Sangh initially remained reluctant to join any alliance that was not fully in harmony with its ideology. In 1962, Deendayal Upadhyaya, who was the party's chief, explained this approach by saying that "coalitions were bound to degenerate into a struggle for power by opportunist elements coming together in the interest of expediency". He wanted to build the party as an alternative party to the Congress and saw the elections as an "opportunity to educate the people on political issues and to challenge the right of the Congress to be in power". Jaffrelot says that this indifferent approach of party politics was in accordance with its lack of interest in the'state' and the wish to make it weaker, or more decentralised. After India's defeat in the 1962 Sino–Indian war, the RSS and other right-wing forces in India were strengthened since the leftist and centrist opinions, sometimes even Nehru himself, could then

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, abbreviated as RSS (IAST: "Rāṣṭrīya Svayamsevaka Saṅgha", IPA:, lit. "National Volunteer Organisation"), is an Indian right-wing, Hindu nationalist, paramilitary volunteer organisation. The RSS is the progenitor and leader of a large body of organisations called the Sangh Parivar (the "family of the RSS"), which have presence in all facets of the Indian society. RSS was founded on 27 September 1925. As of 2014, it has a membership of 5–6million.

Der Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh RSS (Hindi, m., राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ, rāṣṭrīya svayamsevak sangh, „Nationale Freiwilligenorganisation“) ist eine radikal-hinduistische bzw. faschistische, hierarchisch strukturierte Kaderorganisation. Er basiert auf den Prinzipien der Hindutva. Der RSS wurde 1925 durch Keshava Baliram Hedgewar gegründet und ist laut BBC „das größte Freiwilligenkorps der Welt“. Die RSS gewann seither Bedeutung und politischen Einfluss, der im Aufstieg der Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) seinen Höhepunkt fand, die als politischer Flügel der Sangh-Bewegung gilt.


Biography.

Diomede Falconio was born in Pescocostanzo as one of the five children of Donato Antonio Falconio, a goldsmith, and his wife Maria Giacinta Buccigrossi. He received the Sacrament of Confirmation on 5 September 1852, and entered the Order of Friars Minor, more commonly known as the Franciscans, on 2 September 1860. Upon entering, he also changed his baptismal name from Angelo Raffaele Gennaro to Diomede from Pescocostanzo. Falconio studied at the Franciscan convents of Magliano and Carpineto, making his first vows on 17 September 1861 and his perpetual vows on 12 October 1864.  In the autumn of 1865, he traveled to the United States, where he was ordained to the priesthood by Bishop John Timon, CM, on 4 January 1866, in Buffalo, New York. Falconio taught philosophy at St. Bonaventure's College and Seminary in Alleghany from 1865 to 1871, serving as its President from 1868 to 1869. After doing missionary work in Terra Nova, he received American citizenship. In 1867 he was made Secretary of the American Franciscan province of the Immaculate Conception.  Falconio served as administrator, chancellor, and vicar general of Harbor Grace between 1871 and 1882, and would have become its bishop had not the opposition of the Irish Benevolent Society to the appointment of an Italian bishop caused Falconio's superior to recall him to the United States. He performed missionary work in New York and Connecticut until 1883, whence he returned to Italy. From 1884 to 1889, he was the provincial of his religious order in the province of San Bernardino in Abruzzi. After becoming prosynodal examiner of the Archdiocese of L'Aquila, he was elected procurator general of the Franciscans in October 1889, and visitor general to the provinces of Naples and Apulia between 1889 and 1892.  On 11 July 1892, Falconio was appointed Bishop of Lacedonia by Pope Leo XIII. He received his episcopal consecration on the following 17 July from Cardinal Raffaele Monaco La Valletta, with Archbishops Antonio Grasselli, OFM Conv, and Tancredo Fausti serving as co-consecrators, in the church of S. Antonio da Padova in Via Merulana. Falconio was later named Archbishop of Acerenza-Matera on 29 November 1895, the first Apostolic Delegate to Canada on 3 August 1899, and Titular Archbishop of Larissa in Thessalia on 30 September of that year.  Falconio was appointed Apostolic Delegate to the United States on 30 September 1902. During his tenure, he dedicated himself to the spiriutal care of the linguistic minorities, providing spiritual assistance in their language and nominating bishops of the same ethnic origin or who at least spoke their language. Falconio was created Cardinal-Priest of Santa Maria in Aracoeli by Pope Pius X in the consistory of 27 November 1911, and opted to be promoted to Cardinal Bishop of Velletri on 25 May 1914. He was one of the cardinal electors who participated in the 1914 papal conclave, which selected Pope Benedict XV, who named Falconio Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Religious on 26 February 1916.  Falconio died in Rome on 8 February 1917. He is buried in the Franciscan church of his native Pescocostanzo.

Diomede Angelo Raffaele Gennaro Falconio, O.F.M. (20 September 1842 – 8 February 1917) was an Italian Cardinal of the Catholic Church. He served as Prefect of the Congregation for Religious from 1916 until his death, and was elevated to the cardinalate in 1911. He was Apostolic Delegate to the United States from 1902 to 1911.

Diomede Kardinal Falconio OFM (* 20. September 1842 in Pescocostanzo, Provinz L’Aquila, Italien; † 8. Februar 1917 in Rom) war Erzbischof von Acerenza e Matera, später Diplomat des Heiligen Stuhls und Kurienkardinal der römisch-katholischen Kirche.


Definition.

The prohibition of transferring between domains.

In Jewish tradition it is commonly said that "carrying" is forbidden on Shabbat. Specifically, "transferring between domains" () is considered one of the 39 categories of activity prohibited on Shabbat.  The halacha of Shabbat divides spaces into four categories:  A domain is defined as public or private based on its degree of enclosure, not its ownership. The rules here are complex, and expertise is needed to apply them.  On Shabbat, it is forbidden to transfer an object from one domain to another, including from one person's house to another adjacent house. The only exception is transferring to or from a neutral domain (which is rarely relevant).  In addition, it is also forbidden to transfer an object for a distance of 4 cubits (approximately 2 metres) within a public domain or "carmelit".  While biblical law prohibits carrying objects between private and fully public domains on Shabbat, rabbinic law extends this restriction to carrying between a private domain and a semi-public "carmelit" as a safeguard of the biblical law. The rabbinic prohibition of carrying between a private domain and a "carmelit" is relaxed whenever an eruv is in place.

"Eruv chatzerot".

The term eruv is a shortening of "eruv chatzerot", literally a "merger of [different] domains" (into a single domain). This makes carrying within the area enclosed by the eruv no different from carrying within a single private domain (such as a house owned by a single person), which is permitted. The eruv typically includes numerous private homes, as well as a semi-public courtyard whose ownership is shared by them. To enact the merger of the homes and courtyard into a single domain, all home owners as well as owners of the courtyard must pool together certain foodstuffs, which grants the area of the eruv the status of a single private domain. As a precondition for this merger, the area must be surrounded by a wall or fence.  In many cases (for example, within an apartment complex or walled city) the demarcation of the shared area consists of real walls or fences. Building walls may also be used, and in some cases so may a natural wall such as a river bank or steep hill.  Walls may include doors and windows. As such, the wall may even consist of a series of "doorframes" with almost no wall between them. Poles in the ground form the "doorposts" of the doorframe, and rope or wire between the poles forms the "lintel" of the doorframe. In modern cities, it is typical for the majority of an eruv to consist of such doorframes, using utility poles and wires.  When a "doorframe" is used as part of an eruv, it is required that the "lintel" rest on top of the "doorpost", rather than being attached to the side of the "doorpost". Since the "lintel" is frequently a utility wire which runs along the side of the utility pole, the pole cannot be used as "doorpost". In this case, an additional "doorpost", known in Hebrew as a "lechi" (pl. "lechai'in"), is attached to the side of the utility pole. This typically takes the form of a thin plastic pipe attached to the side of the utility pole, and the wire runs directly overhead of this pipe.  Within the walled area, a property transfer is needed to create the shared domain. This is formally effected today by having one resident give some "bread" to another resident to keep, to create a joint ownership of food for the whole community. This is usually done by the rabbi of the community to ensure that it is done correctly, and the bread is usually matzo to ensure that it will be edible and usable for a long time. (It is usually replaced once each year.) In the Talmud and other classic rabbinic sources, the term eruv refers to the bread itself.  A typical modern eruv encloses public streets as well as private houses, and thus requires agreement from the government authorities controlling those streets. Creating an eruv that involves public property requires a government entity to grant permission in order to be valid. This is often done by issuing a symbolic proclamation which has no weight in secular law (see Legal status).

Sources.

In the Bible, calls on Jews "not to bring any burden into the gates of this city", suggesting that carrying a "burden" "within" the city was permissible, even though the city consisted of numerous separate private domains. The commentary of Radak suggests that such carrying was permitted because Jerusalem had an eruv and its walls formed the boundary, so carrying within the city was permitted. This view that an entire city could have an eruv influenced later views that an eruv could encompass a "courtyard" covering a wide area.

Specific laws of eruv.

In general, authorities agree that eruvin are subject to certain restrictions. For example, they can be located in only certain places, and may not be of indefinite size. A prohibition against walking too far outside city boundaries ("techum", see Eruv techumin) limits the possible size of an eruv. Also, the eruv walls or doorways must be at least ten "tefachim" (about 1 meter) in height.  The laws of eruv differ depending on whether the eruv contains only private domains and "carmelit", or else public domains ("reshut harabim deoraita") as well. If public domains are not included, the eruv wall may include "doorways" constructed out of wire and posts, with no actual door in them. If public domains are included, the wall must be an actual wall – every "doorway" must have a door in it, and these doors must be closed each night. This situation was common in ancient walled cities, but is rare nowadays. So in practice, eruvin are only built in areas that do not include a public domain.  What constitutes a "public area" is debated. The strict opinion holds that any road more than 16 cubits wide is a public domain, while the lenient opinion holds that a public domain must have both 16 cubits of width and 600,000 people passing through the road on a single day. In practice, communities that build eruvin accept the lenient opinion. However, in a few large cities such as New York City, it is possible that more than 600,000 people pass through certain roads in a single day. This would prevent building an eruv there even according to the lenient opinion. This possibility is the source of debates in New York City over whether a particular eruv, or any eruv is valid. In addition, the size of an eruv can be limited by a number of practical considerations. For example, the requirement that the eruv boundary be thoroughly checked each week and any needed repairs made before sunset on Friday limits the area that can be practically covered by a manageable eruv. The sensitivity of utility and public works crews about disturbing eruv-related attachments when making repairs can vary widely. Political and institutional differences, or differences about the correct interpretation of the relevant Jewish law, can also result in separate areas maintained by separate organizations.

Checking the eruv.

The boundaries of an eruv must be checked regularly. If the boundary is not complete and contiguous in every element (i.e., one of the elements of the boundary is missing or broken), no valid eruv can exist that shabbat, and carrying remains prohibited. Eruv associations generally maintain hotlines or web sites informing communities of the status of the eruv on Friday afternoon.

Activities prohibited even within an eruv.

Though a valid eruv enables people to carry or move most items outdoors on Shabbat, all other Shabbat restrictions still apply. These prohibitions include:

Disagreements among Orthodox groups.

There exists disagreement between rabbis about some of the technical requirements of a valid eruv. Thus, there are instances where Orthodox rabbis dispute the validity of a particular eruv (and therefore instruct their followers not to use it), or even dispute whether any eruv can be built in a certain location.  One of the oldest halakhic disputes in the United States revolves around the issue of an eruv in Manhattan, New York. In 1905, Rabbi Yehoshua Seigel created an eruv on Manhattan's Lower East Side, bounded by seawalls which once protected the island as well as the Third Avenue El; however, some other rabbis ruled the eruv to be invalid.  In the 1950s, a proposal by Rabbi Menachem Mendel Kasher to establish an eruv in Manhattan gained the support of many prominent rabbis, including Rabbis Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, Dovid Lifshitz, and Ephraim Oshry, and the Kopishnitzer, Novominsker and Radziner Rebbes. Other authorities, such as Rabbis Aharon Kotler and Moshe Feinstein, raised objections, and a major controversy ensued. In the end, the opponents Agudas Horabonim issued a declaration opposing it.  In June 2007, the East Side portion of the internal Manhattan Eruv was completed, offering an eruv within Manhattan to Orthodox Jews living on the East, Upper East, and Upper West Sides. There are also two eruvin in Manhattan's Washington Heights neighborhood, one covering the Yeshiva University area and another that is part of Mount Sinai Jewish Center and covers the Fort Washington area.  Another ongoing dispute is the status of two inter-connected eruvin in Brooklyn: the Flatbush and Boro Park eruvin. The Boro Park eruv, from its initial construction, was rejected by most of the Hasidic community (though acceptance there has increased over time), and was rejected by most of the non-Hasidic "Lithuanian yeshiva" communities. The Flatbush eruv was originally built with the support of the Modern Orthodox community, and was later enhanced with the support of some local "non-Modern Orthodox" families. It was totally rejected by the many "Lithuanian yeshiva" communities led by the rosh yeshivas ("deans") of the large yeshivas Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin, Mir Yeshiva, and Yeshiva Torah Vodaas that are based in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn. In the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, there is some dispute over the making of an eruv, with Rabbi Zalman Leib Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rebbe of Williamsburg leading the opposition to an eruv.

Eruv in Conservative and Reform Judaism.

Although Conservative Judaism's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards enacted an exception to the general rules of Sabbath observance to permit driving to attend a synagogue, it otherwise formally requires the same rules of Shabbat observance as Orthodox Judaism with respect to carrying a burden. Therefore, Conservative Judaism's rabbinate requires the use of an eruv for ordinary carrying outside this exception. Compliance with the formal requirements varies. In general, Conservative authorities and organizations have not attempted to build or develop rules for eruvin distinct from ones established by Orthodox authorities and organizations.  Reform, Reconstructionist, and other more liberal branches of Judaism do not call for observance of the underlying traditional rules against carrying, and hence the issue of an eruv is not relevant.

Coping without an eruv.

Many of those living in areas without an eruv are accustomed to life without one and have adapted their Shabbat practices accordingly. However, those who live in a place that has an eruv and are visiting a place without one, or if the eruv is temporarily out of service (perhaps due to wind or snow damage), may have difficulty making adjustments. Equally, those with young children, certain medical complaints and certain disabilities often feel trapped during Shabbat.  Even without an eruv, there is no problem with wearing clothing outside, provided that it is normal clothing and being worn in its normal manner, as it is considered secondary to, and "part of," the person themselves. The same is true for most medical items that are attached to the body and can be considered secondary to it, such as a cast, a bandage, or eyeglasses.  Rabbinic authorities historically have differed about the use of a cane, wheelchair, or other similar devices by the less-able-bodied. Some have allowed their use even without an eruv and others have not. In recent years, however, the majority of poskim have leaned toward allowing these devices, since, if they were prohibited, disabled individuals might attempt to leave their homes on Shabbat without the device(s) and therefore risk serious injury.  Loose medicines may not be carried; most authorities have agreed that it is preferable that one who constantly needs medication remain at home rather than transgressing Shabbat by carrying medication. But, if such a person leaves home, then comes in need of medication, it is permissible under the laws of Pikuach nefesh to break Shabbat and bring the medication to the person. A small number of authorities in recent years have been permitting carrying the medication, however, since such a person may be tempted to leave home without it, and then his/her life may be endangered thereafter.  Many authorities allow the wearing of jewelry by women. As for a wristwatch, it could be seen either as an adornment (permitted to wear) or as a tool (forbidden to carry); therefore opinions are divided on whether men may wear wristwatches.  In communities without an eruv, it is customary to create belts, bracelets, necklaces, or similar wearable objects incorporating housekeys so that the keys can be worn rather than carried when going outdoors. To be validly "worn" rather than "carried", the key needs to be an integral part of the belt, bracelet, or other item rather than simply attached to it. It may be either an adornment if worn in a manner visible to others or a component needed to keep the wearable object fastened. Special "shabbos belts" and similar items that incorporate this property are sold in religious stores.  A tallit may be worn while walking to/from the synagogue, as it is considered clothing. Prayer books and other books may not be carried; either they must be brought to the synagogue prior to Shabbat or else the congregation's prayer books must be used.

Communities with eruvin.

In Israel, almost every Jewish community is enclosed by an eruv. Outside Israel, there are over 150 community eruvin, as well as thousands of private ones enclosing only a few homes, or linking a synagogue to one or more nearby homes. Most major cities in North America have at least one, often surrounding only the Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods rather than the entire city. Outside North America, there are eruvin in Antwerp; Amsterdam; Bury, Greater Manchester (Whitefield); Gibraltar; Johannesburg; London; Melbourne; Perth; Rio de Janeiro; Strasbourg; Sydney; Venice and Vienna.

Controversies.

The installation of eruvin has been a matter of contention in many neighbourhoods around the world, with notable examples including the London Borough of Barnet; Outremont, Quebec; Tenafly, New Jersey; Agoura Hills, California; Westhampton Beach, New York; and Bergen County, New Jersey.  As the property-owner is the owner of the public streets, sidewalks and the utility poles on which symbolic boundaries are to be strung, some authorities have interpreted Jewish law as requiring the local government to participate in the process as one of the property owners by agreeing to the creation of the eruv, and to give permission for the construction of a symbolic boundary on its property. In addition, because municipal law and the rules of utility companies, in general, prohibit third parties from stringing attachments to utility poles and wires, the creation of an eruv has often necessitated obtaining permissions, easements, and exceptions to various local ordinances. These requirements that government give active permission for an eruv have given rise to both political and legal controversy.

Potential harm to birds.

In Oak Park, California, three hawks may have been injured by an eruv. However, there have been no reports of bird injuries associated with any other eruv.

Demographic changes.

Jewish people who are not in favor of an eruv may feel that after an eruv is created they live in a symbolically segregated community. "It's like social engineering," said Arnold Sheiffer, founder of the opposition group Jewish People for the Betterment of Westhampton Beach. "We [the Jewish people] fought like hell to get out of the ghetto and now they want to create that again. The opposition in the village here is very, very high."

Legal status.

In the United States, legal controversies about an eruv in a community often focus on provisions of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which addresses relations between government and religion. Opponents of an eruv typically take the view that the government participation in the eruv process necessary to approve its construction violates the First Amendment's prohibition of governmental establishment of religion. Proponents take the view that it constitutes a constitutionally permissible accommodation of religion rather than an establishment. Proponents have also argued that the Free Exercise Clause affirmatively requires government acceptance, on the grounds that government interference with or failure to accommodate an eruv constitutes discrimination against or inhibition of the constitutional right of free exercise of religion.  In the 2002 decision on "Tenafly Eruv Association v. Borough of Tenafly", Judge Ambro, writing for the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals, held that Eruv Association members had no intrinsic right to add attachments to telephone poles on Borough property and that the borough, if it wished, could enact a general, neutral ordinance against all attachments to utility poles that could be enforced against the eruv. However, Judge Ambro held that in this case, the Borough had not enacted a genuinely general or neutral ordinance because it permitted a wide variety of attachments to utility poles for non-religious purposes, including posting signs and other items. Because it permitted attachments to utility poles for secular purposes, the court held, it could not selectively exclude attachments for religious purposes. The United States Supreme Court declined to hear the case. It was subsequently cited as precedent by a number of other federal courts deciding disputes between an eruv association and a local government.  In Outremont, a neighbourhood in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, the city adopted a policy of removing eruv wires. In 2001, the Hasidic community obtained an injunction preventing such action by the city authorities. Between 2015 and 2018, there were ongoing issues with eruv markings extended on utility poles in a section of New Jersey. The adjoining municipalities of Mahwah, Upper Saddle River and Montvale, all border the state line on the other side of which is Rockland County, New York, where there are large communities of Orthodox Jews. After some eruvin were extended into Bergen County, allowing travel in the area, the municipalities took action in 2017 to dismantle the lechi markings. The matter was taken to court, and in January 2018 the presiding judge in the lawsuits made it clear he felt the municipalities did not have a strong case, and urged them to settle. The three municipalities have settled with the eruv association, allowing the eruv borders to remain in New Jersey, reimbursed the association's legal fees, received agreement from the association to adjust the color of the lechi mounted on local utility poles, and agreed to work through a few remaining route details.  In general, state law has dealt with whether and to what extent government can permit or assist the erection and maintenance of boundary demarcations on public property. It has not dealt with the nature of the aggregation agreement or recognized an eruv as having legal effect or as implementing a meaningful change in real property ownership or tenancy. For purposes of accident liability, trespass, insurance, and other secular matters occurring on Shabbat, state law treats the properties within an eruv as continuing to be separate parcels.

Other forms of eruv.

The term eruv is also used to refer to other, unrelated concepts in halakha. These include the "eruv techumin" which enables one to travel beyond the normal travel restrictions on Shabbat or holidays, and the "eruv tavshilin" which enables one to cook for Shabbat on a holiday which immediately precedes that Shabbat.

"Eruv techumin".

An "eruv techumin" (Hebrew: עירוב תחומין "mixing of borders") for traveling enables a traditionally observant Jew to travel by foot on Shabbat or a Jewish holiday beyond the 2,000-cubit (one biblical mile) limit imposed by rabbinic restriction.

"Eruv tavshilin".

An "eruv tavshilin" () is made in the home on the eve of a holiday with a work prohibition, if the holiday happens to fall on Friday. Since food cannot be cooked on Shabbat, the only way to eat freshly cooked food on Shabbat is to cook it on Friday, which in this case is a holiday. The "eruv tavshilin" allows this cooking to be done in a way that does not violate the holiday work restrictions.

External links.

General  Textual resources

An eruv (;,, also transliterated as eiruv or erub, plural: eruvin ) is a ritual halakhic enclosure made for the purpose of allowing activities which are normally prohibited on Shabbat (due to the prohibition of "hotzaah mereshut lereshut"), specifically: carrying objects from a private domain to a semi-public domain ("carmelit"), and transporting objects four cubits or more within a semi-public domain. The enclosure is made within some Jewish communities, especially Orthodox Jewish communities.

Eruv () (Erub, Eruw Chazeroth, Sabbatgrenze, Sabbatzaun), bezeichnet drei Verfahren, die in der Halacha bestimmte Aktivitäten erlauben, die nach den jüdischen Gesetzen ansonsten verboten sind. Meist ist damit ein Eruv für das Tragen gemeint, daneben existieren aber auch ein Eruv für das Kochen () und der Eruv für das Reisen ().


Methodology.

Autopackage was designed for installing binary, or pre-compiled, versions of non-core applications such as word processors, web browsers, and personal computer games, rather than core libraries and applications such as operating system shells. Concept of autopackage was to "improve" Linux to a desktop platform, with stable binary interfaces comparable to Windows and MacOS.  Autopackage is not intended to provide installation of core applications and libraries for compatibility reasons. Using Autopackage to distribute non-core libraries is something of a thorny issue. On the one hand distributing them via Autopackage allows installation on a greater range of systems, on the other hand there can be conflicts with native package dependencies.  Autopackage is intended as a complementary system to a distribution's usual packaging system, such as RPM and deb. Unlike these formats, Autopackage verifies dependencies by checking for the presence of deployed files, rather than querying a database of installed packages. This simplifies the design requirements for autopackage by relying on available resources, rather than necessitating tracking all the package choices of all targeted distributions.  Programs that use autopackage must also be relocatable, meaning they must be installable to varying directories with a single binary. This enables an autopackage to be installed by a non-root user in the user's home directory.

Package format.

Autopackage packages are indicated by the.package extension. They are executable bash scripts, and can be installed by running them. Files in an Autopackage archive are not easily extracted by anything other than Autopackage itself as the internal format must be parsed in order to determine file layout and other issues.  Autopackage programs are installed to hard-coded system paths, which may conflict with existing packages installed by other means, thus leading to corruption. This can usually be remedied by uninstalling an older version of a package being installed with Autopackage.  The Autopackage files can also be installed and removed using the Listaller toolset. Listaller simply includes the Autopackage packages into its own package container format and handles Autopackage like any other Listaller package file.

Autopackage is a free computer package management system aimed at making it simple to create a package that can be installed on all Linux distributions, created by Mike Hearn around 2002.

Autopackage war ein alternatives Linux-Softwareinstallationssystem. Ihr Zweck war eine einfache Installation von Software, unabhängig von der verwendeten Linux-Distribution. Sie sollte sowohl Nutzern als auch Entwicklern das Leben erleichtern, indem sie es ermöglicht, nur ein einziges Paket zu erzeugen, das sich vom Nutzer auf jedem beliebigen Linux-System mit einem Klick installieren und auch wieder löschen lässt. Durch die mögliche direkte Verbreitung von Software hat der Anwendungsanbieter mehr Kontrolle über Produktupgradezyklen. Es wurde von etablierten Open-Source-Projekten wie AbiWord, Inkscape oder Gajim erfolgreich eingesetzt.