Polynomial evaluation and long division.

Given the polynomial  where formula_5 are constant coefficients, the problem is to evaluate the polynomial at a specific value formula_6 of formula_7  For this, a new sequence of constants is defined recursively as follows:  Then formula_9 is the value of formula_10.  To see why this works, the polynomial can be written in the form  Thus, by iteratively substituting the formula_12 into the expression,  Now, it can be proven that; This expression constitutes Horner's practical application, as it offers a very quick way of determining the outcome of; with b (which is equal to p(x)) being the division's remainder, as is demonstrated by the examples below. if x is a root of p(x), then b = 0 (meaning the remainder is 0), which means you can factor p(x) with (x-x).<br> As to finding the consecutive b-values, you start with determining b, which is simply equal to a. You then work your way down to the other b's, using the formula; till you arrive at b.

Examples.

Evaluate formula_17 for formula_18  We use synthetic division as follows:  The entries in the third row are the sum of those in the first two. Each entry in the second row is the product of the "x"-value (3 in this example) with the third-row entry immediately to the left. The entries in the first row are the coefficients of the polynomial to be evaluated. Then the remainder of formula_19 on division by formula_20 is 5.  But by the polynomial remainder theorem, we know that the remainder is formula_21. Thus formula_22  In this example, if formula_23 we can see that formula_24, the entries in the third row. So, synthetic division is based on Horner's method.  As a consequence of the polynomial remainder theorem, the entries in the third row are the coefficients of the second-degree polynomial, the quotient of formula_19 on division by formula_26. The remainder is 5. This makes Horner's method useful for polynomial long division.  Divide formula_27 by formula_28:  The quotient is formula_29.  Let formula_30 and formula_31. Divide formula_32 by formula_33 using Horner's method. The third row is the sum of the first two rows, divided by 2. Each entry in the second row is the product of 1 with the third-row entry to the left. The answer is

Efficiency.

Evaluation using the monomial form of a degree-"n" polynomial requires at most "n" additions and ("n" + "n")/2 multiplications, if powers are calculated by repeated multiplication and each monomial is evaluated individually. (This can be reduced to "n" additions and 2"n" − 1 multiplications by evaluating the powers of "x" iteratively.) If numerical data are represented in terms of digits (or bits), then the naive algorithm also entails storing approximately 2"n" times the number of bits of "x" (the evaluated polynomial has approximate magnitude "x", and one must also store "x" itself). By contrast, Horner's method requires only "n" additions and "n" multiplications, and its storage requirements are only "n" times the number of bits of "x". Alternatively, Horner's method can be computed with "n" fused multiply–adds. Horner's method can also be extended to evaluate the first "k" derivatives of the polynomial with "kn" additions and multiplications.  Horner's method is optimal, in the sense that any algorithm to evaluate an arbitrary polynomial must use at least as many operations. Alexander Ostrowski proved in 1954 that the number of additions required is minimal. Victor Pan proved in 1966 that the number of multiplications is minimal. However, when "x" is a matrix, Horner's method is not optimal.  This assumes that the polynomial is evaluated in monomial form and no preconditioning of the representation is allowed, which makes sense if the polynomial is evaluated only once. However, if preconditioning is allowed and the polynomial is to be evaluated many times, then faster algorithms are possible. They involve a transformation of the representation of the polynomial. In general, a degree-"n" polynomial can be evaluated using only +2 multiplications and "n" additions.

Parallel evaluation.

A disadvantage of Horner's rule is that all of the operations are sequentially dependent, so it is not possible to take advantage of instruction level parallelism on modern computers. In most applications where the efficiency of polynomial evaluation matters, many low-order polynomials are evaluated simultaneously (for each pixel or polygon in computer graphics, or for each grid square in a numerical simulation), so it is not necessary to find parallelism within a single polynomial evaluation.  If, however, one is evaluating a single polynomial of very high order, it may be useful to break it up as follows:  More generally, the summation can be broken into "k" parts: where the inner summations may be evaluated using separate parallel instances of Horner's method. This requires slightly more operations than the basic Horner's method, but allows "k"-way SIMD execution of most of them.

Application to floating-point multiplication and division.

Horner's method is a fast, code-efficient method for multiplication and division of binary numbers on a microcontroller with no hardware multiplier. One of the binary numbers to be multiplied is represented as a trivial polynomial, where (using the above notation) formula_37, and formula_38. Then, "x" (or "x" to some power) is repeatedly factored out. In this binary numeral system (base 2), formula_38, so powers of 2 are repeatedly factored out.

Example.

For example, to find the product of two numbers (0.15625) and "m":

Method.

To find the product of two binary numbers "d" and "m":

Derivation.

In general, for a binary number with bit values (formula_41) the product is At this stage in the algorithm, it is required that terms with zero-valued coefficients are dropped, so that only binary coefficients equal to one are counted, thus the problem of multiplication or division by zero is not an issue, despite this implication in the factored equation:  The denominators all equal one (or the term is absent), so this reduces to or equivalently (as consistent with the "method" described above)  In binary (base-2) math, multiplication by a power of 2 is merely a register shift operation. Thus, multiplying by 2 is calculated in base-2 by an arithmetic shift. The factor (2) is a right arithmetic shift, a (0) results in no operation (since 2 = 1 is the multiplicative identity element), and a (2) results in a left arithmetic shift. The multiplication product can now be quickly calculated using only arithmetic shift operations, addition and subtraction.  The method is particularly fast on processors supporting a single-instruction shift-and-addition-accumulate. Compared to a C floating-point library, Horner's method sacrifices some accuracy, however it is nominally 13 times faster (16 times faster when the "canonical signed digit" (CSD) form is used) and uses only 20% of the code space.

Another Application.

Horner's method can be used to convert between different positional numeral systems – in which case "x" is the base of the number system, and the "a" coefficients are the digits of the base-"x" representation of a given number – and can also be used if "x" is a matrix, in which case the gain in computational efficiency is even greater. In fact, when "x" is a matrix, further acceleration is possible which exploits the structure of matrix multiplication, and only formula_46 instead of "n" multiplies are needed (at the expense of requiring more storage) using the 1973 method of Paterson and Stockmeyer.

Polynomial root finding.

Using the long division algorithm in combination with Newton's method, it is possible to approximate the real roots of a polynomial. The algorithm works as follows. Given a polynomial formula_47 of degree formula_2 with zeros formula_49 make some initial guess formula_50 such that formula_51. Now iterate the following two steps:  These two steps are repeated until all real zeros are found for the polynomial. If the approximated zeros are not precise enough, the obtained values can be used as initial guesses for Newton's method but using the full polynomial rather than the reduced polynomials.

Example.

Consider the polynomial  which can be expanded to  From the above we know that the largest root of this polynomial is 7 so we are able to make an initial guess of 8. Using Newton's method the first zero of 7 is found as shown in black in the figure to the right. Next formula_61 is divided by formula_62 to obtain  which is drawn in red in the figure to the right. Newton's method is used to find the largest zero of this polynomial with an initial guess of 7. The largest zero of this polynomial which corresponds to the second largest zero of the original polynomial is found at 3 and is circled in red. The degree 5 polynomial is now divided by formula_64 to obtain  which is shown in yellow. The zero for this polynomial is found at 2 again using Newton's method and is circled in yellow. Horner's method is now used to obtain  which is shown in green and found to have a zero at −3. This polynomial is further reduced to  which is shown in blue and yields a zero of −5. The final root of the original polynomial may be found by either using the final zero as an initial guess for Newton's method, or by reducing formula_68 and solving the linear equation. As can be seen, the expected roots of −8, −5, −3, 2, 3, and 7 were found.

Divided difference of a polynomial.

Horner's method can be modified to compute the divided difference formula_69 Given the polynomial (as before)  proceed as follows  At completion, we have This computation of the divided difference is subject to less round-off error than evaluating formula_61 and formula_74 separately, particularly when formula_75. Substituting formula_76 in this method gives formula_77, the derivative of formula_61.

History.

Horner's paper, titled "A new method of solving numerical equations of all orders, by continuous approximation", was read before the Royal Society of London, at its meeting on July 1, 1819, with Davies Gilbert, Vice-President and Treasurer, in the chair; this was the final meeting of the session before the Society adjourned for its Summer recess. When a sequel was read before the Society in 1823, it was again at the final meeting of the session. On both occasions, papers by James Ivory, FRS, were also read. In 1819, it was Horner's paper that got through to publication in the "Philosophical Transactions". later in the year, Ivory's paper falling by the way, despite Ivory being a Fellow; in 1823, when a total of ten papers were read, fortunes as regards publication, were reversed. Gilbert, who had strong connections with the West of England and may have had social contact with Horner, resident as Horner was in Bristol and Bath, published his own survey of Horner-type methods earlier in 1823.  Horner's paper in Part II of "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London" for 1819 was warmly and expansively welcomed by a reviewer in the issue of "The Monthly Review: or, Literary Journal" for April, 1820; in comparison, a technical paper by Charles Babbage is dismissed curtly in this review. However, the reviewer noted that another, similar method had also recently been published by the architect and mathematical expositor, Peter Nicholson. This theme is developed in a further review of some of Nicholson's books in the issue of "The Monthly Review" for December, 1820, which in turn ends with notice of the appearance of a booklet by Theophilus Holdred, from whom Nicholson acknowledges he obtained the gist of his approach in the first place, although claiming to have improved upon it. The sequence of reviews is concluded in the issue of "The Monthly Review" for September, 1821, with the reviewer concluding that whereas Holdred was the first person to discover a direct and general practical solution of numerical equations, he had not reduced it to its simplest form by the time of Horner's publication, and saying that had Holdred published forty years earlier when he first discovered his method, his contribution could be more easily recognized. The reviewer is exceptionally well-informed, even having cited Horner's preparatory correspondence with Peter Barlow in 1818, seeking work of Budan. The Bodlean Library, Oxford has the Editor's annotated copy of "The Monthly Review" from which it is clear that the most active reviewer in mathematics in 1814 and 1815 (the last years for which this information has been published) was none other than Peter Barlow, one of the foremost specialists on approximation theory of the period, suggesting that it was Barlow, who wrote this sequence of reviews. As it also happened, Henry Atkinson, of Newcastle, devised a similar approximation scheme in 1809; he had consulted his fellow Geordie, Charles Hutton, another specialist and a senior colleague of Barlow at the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, only to be advised that, while his work was publishable, it was unlikely to have much impact. J. R. Young, writing in the mid-1830s, concluded that Holdred's first method replicated Atkinson's while his improved method was only added to Holdred's booklet some months after its first appearance in 1820, when Horner's paper was already in circulation.  The feature of Horner's writing that most distinguishes it from his English contemporaries is the way he draws on the Continental literature, notably the work of Arbogast. The advocacy, as well as the detraction, of Horner's Method has this as an unspoken subtext. Quite how he gained that familiarity has not been determined. Horner is known to have made a close reading of John Bonneycastle's book on algebra. Bonneycastle recognizes that Arbogast has the general, combinatorial expression for the reversion of series, a project going back at least to Newton. But Bonneycastle's main purpose in mentioning Arbogast is not to praise him, but to observe that Arbogast's notation is incompatible with the approach he adopts. The gap in Horner's reading was the work of Paolo Ruffini, except that, as far as awareness of Ruffini goes, citations of Ruffini's work by authors, including medical authors, in "Philosophical Transactions" speak volumes, as there are none — Ruffini's name only appears in 1814, recording a work he donated to the Royal Society. Ruffini might have done better if his work had appeared in French, as had Malfatti's Problem in the reformulation of Joseph Diez Gergonne, or had he written in French, as had, a source quoted by Bonneycastle on series reversion. (Today, Cagnoli is in the Italian Wikipedia, as shown, but has yet to make it into either French or English.)  Fuller showed that the method in Horner's 1819 paper differs from what afterwards became known as "Horner's method" and that in consequence the priority for this method should go to Holdred (1920). This view may be compared with the remarks concerning the works of Horner and Holdred in the previous paragraph. Fuller also takes aim at Augustus De Morgan. Precocious though Augustus de Morgan was, he was not the reviewer for "The Monthly Review", while several others — Thomas Stephens Davies, J. R. Young, Stephen Fenwick, T. T. Wilkinson — wrote Horner firmly into their records, not least Horner, as he published extensively up until the year of his death in 1837. His paper in 1819 was one that would have been difficult to miss. In contrast, the only other mathematical sighting of Holdred is a single named contribution to "The Gentleman's Mathematical Companion", an answer to a problem.  It is questionable to what extent it was De Morgan's advocacy of Horner's priority in discovery that led to "Horner's method" being so called in textbooks, but it is true that those suggesting this tend to know of Horner largely through intermediaries, of whom De Morgan made himself a prime example. However, this method "qua" method was known long before Horner. In reverse chronological order, Horner's method was already known to:  However, this observation on its own masks significant differences in conception and also, as noted with Ruffini's work, issues of accessibility.  Qin Jiushao, in his "Shu Shu Jiu Zhang" ("Mathematical Treatise in Nine Sections"; 1247), presents a portfolio of methods of Horner-type for solving polynomial equations, which was based on earlier works of the 11th century Song dynasty mathematician Jia Xian; for example, one method is specifically suited to bi-quintics, of which Qin gives an instance, in keeping with the then Chinese custom of case studies. The first person writing in English to note the connection with Horner's method was Alexander Wylie, writing in "The North China Herald" in 1852; perhaps conflating and misconstruing different Chinese phrases, Wylie calls the method "Harmoniously Alternating Evolution" (which does not agree with his Chinese, "linglong kaifang", not that at that date he uses pinyin), working the case of one of Qin's quartics and giving, for comparison, the working with Horner's method. Yoshio Mikami in "Development of Mathematics in China and Japan" published in Leipzig in 1913, gave a detailed description of Qin's method, using the quartic illustrated to the above right in a worked example; he wrote:  However, as Mikami is also aware, it was "not altogether impossible" that a related work, "Si Yuan Yu Jian" ("Jade Mirror of the Four Unknowns; 1303)" by Zhu Shijie might make the shorter journey across to Japan, but seemingly it never did, although another work of Zhu, "Suan Xue Qi Meng", had a seminal influence on the development of traditional mathematics in the Edo period, starting in the mid-1600s. Ulrich Libbrecht (at the time teaching in school, but subsequently a professor of comparative philosophy) gave a detailed description in his doctoral thesis of Qin's method, he concluded: "It is obvious that this procedure is a Chinese invention... the method was not known in India". He said, Fibonacci probably learned of it from Arabs, who perhaps borrowed from the Chinese. Here, the problems is that there is no more evidence for this speculation than there is of the method being known in India. Of course, the extraction of square and cube roots along similar lines is already discussed by Liu Hui in connection with Problems IV.16 and 22 in "Jiu Zhang Suan Shu", while Wang Xiaotong in the 7th century supposes his readers can solve cubics by an approximation method described in his book Jigu Suanjing.

In mathematics, the term Horner's rule (or Horner's method, Horner's scheme etc) refers to a method for approximating the roots of polynomials that was described by William George Horner in 1819. It gave a convenient way for implementing the Newton–Raphson method for polynomials that was suitable for efficient hand calculation and was widely used until computers came into general use in about 1970.

秦九韶算法是中国南宋时期的数学家秦九韶表述求解一元高次多项式的值的算法——正负开方术。它也可以配合牛顿法用来求解一元高次多项式的根。


Early life.

Childhood: 1959–1976.

Steven Patrick Morrissey was born on 22 May 1959 at Park Hospital in Davyhulme, Lancashire. His parents, Elizabeth ("née" Dwyer) and Peter Morrissey, were working-class Irish Catholics who had emigrated to Manchester from Dublin with his only sibling, elder sister Jacqueline, a year before his birth. Morrissey claims he was named after American actor Steve Cochran, although he may instead have been named in honour of his father's brother who died in infancy, "Patrick Steven Morrissey". His earliest home was a council house at 17 Harper Street in the Hulme area of

Early bands and published books: 1977–1981.

Having left formal education, Morrissey proceeded through a series of jobs, as a clerk for the civil service and then the Inland Revenue, as a salesperson in a record store, and as a hospital porter, before abandoning employment and claiming unemployment benefits. He used much of the money from these jobs to purchase tickets for gigs, attending performances by Talking Heads, the Ramones, and Blondie. He regularly attended concerts, having a particular interest in the alternative and post-punk music scene. Having met the guitarist Billy Duffy in November 1977, Morrissey agreed to become the vocalist for Duffy's punk band the Nosebleeds. Morrissey co-wrote a number of songs with the band—"Peppermint Heaven", "I Get Nervous" and "I Think I'm Ready for the Electric Chair"—and performed with them in support slots for Jilted John and then Magazine. The band soon disbanded.  After the Nosebleeds' break-up, Morrissey followed Duffy to join Slaughter & the Dogs,

The Smiths.

Establishing the Smiths: 1982–1984.

In August 1978, Morrissey was briefly introduced to the 14-year old Johnny Marr by mutual acquaintances at a Patti Smith gig held at Manchester's Apollo Theatre. Several years later, in May 1982, Marr turned up on the doorstep of Morrissey's house, there to ask Morrissey if he was interested in co-founding a band. Marr had been impressed that Morrissey had authored a book on the New York Dolls, and was inspired to turn up on his doorstep following the example of Jerry Leiber, who had formed his working partnership with Mike Stoller after turning up at the latter's door. According to Morrissey: "We got on absolutely famously. We were very similar in drive." The next day, Morrissey phoned Marr to confirm that he would be interested in forming a band with him. Steve Pomfret—who

The Smiths' growing success: 1984–1987.

In 1984, the band released two non-album singles: "Heaven Knows I'm Miserable Now" (their first UK top-ten hit) and "William, It Was Really Nothing". The year ended with the compilation album "Hatful of Hollow". This collected singles, B-sides and the versions of songs that had been recorded throughout the previous year for the Peel and Jensen shows. Early in 1985, the band released their second album, "Meat Is Murder", which was their only studio album to top the UK charts. The single-only release "Shakespeare's Sister" reached number 26 on the UK

Solo career.

Early solo work: 1988–1991.

Several months before the Smiths dissolved, Morrissey enlisted Stephen Street as his personal producer and new songwriting partner, with whom he could begin his solo career. By September 1987, he had begun work on his first solo album, "Viva Hate", at Wool Hall Studios near Bath; it was recorded with the musicians Vini Reilly and Andrew Paresi. Rather than featuring pre-existing images of celebrities, as the Smiths' album and single covers had done, the cover sleeve of "Viva Hate" featured a photograph of Morrissey taken by Anton Corbijn. In February 1988, EMI released the first single from this album, "Suedehead", which reached number 5 on the British singles chart, a higher position than any Smiths' single had achieved. The second single from the album, "Everyday Is Like Sunday", was released in June and reached number 9. The album reached number 1 on

Changing image: 1992–1995.

In July 1992, Morrissey released the album "Your Arsenal", which peaked at number 2 in the album chart. It was the final release from producer Mick Ronson; Morrissey related that working with Ronson had been "the greatest privilege of my life". "Your Arsenal" reflected Morrissey's lament for what he regarded as the decline of British culture in the face of increasing Americanisation. He told one interviewer that "everything is informed by American culture—everyone under fifty speaks American—and that's sad. We once had a strong identity and now that's gone completely". A number of the tracks on the album, most notably "Certain People I Know" and "The National Front Disco", dealt with the lives and experiences of tough, working-class youths. "Your Arsenal" was critically well received, and

Move to Los Angeles: 1995–2003.

After his contract with EMI expired, Morrissey signed to RCA. On this label he recorded his next album, "Southpaw Grammar", at the Miraval Studios in southern France before releasing it in August 1995. Its cover art featured an image of the boxer Kenny Lane. It reached number 4 in the UK album charts, but made little impact compared to its two predecessors. In September 1995, Morrissey served as the support act for the European leg of Bowie's Outside Tour. Backstage at the Aberdeen gig, Morrissey was taken ill and taken

Comeback: 2004–2010.

In 2003, Morrissey signed to Sanctuary Records, where he was given the defunct reggae label Attack Records to use for his next project. Produced by Jerry Finn and recorded in both Los Angeles and Berkshire, Morrissey's seventh solo album was "You Are the Quarry"; it was released in May 2004. The album's cover art featured an image of Morrissey carrying a machine gun. It peaked at number 2 on the UK album chart and number 11 on the U.S. Billboard album chart. The first single, "Irish Blood, English Heart", reached number 3 in the UK singles chart, the highest ranked single of his career. Promoting the album, he made appearances on both "Top of the Pops" and "Later with Jools Holland", and gave his first television interview in 17 years on "Friday Night with Jonathan Ross"; Morrissey was visibly uncomfortable with Jonathan Ross' questions. He also

Further albums and literary work: 2010–present.

In April 2011, EMI issued a new compilation, "Very Best of Morrissey", for which the singer had chosen the track list and artwork. In March 2011, Morrissey took Ron Laffitte as his mananger. In June and July 2011, Morrissey played a UK tour; during his 2011 performance at Glastonbury Festival, Morrissey criticised UK Prime Minister David Cameron for attempting to prevent a ban on wild animals performing in circuses, calling him a "silly twit". This was followed by several dates elsewhere in Europe. Morrissey's 2012 tour started in South America and continued through Asia and North America. Morrissey played concerts in Belgium, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Portugal, England, and Scotland. In late September, while visiting Strand Bookstore in Manhattan, he saved an elderly lady who had fainted beside him. Between January and March 2013, Morrissey toured 32 North American cities, beginning in Greenvale, New York

Vocal and lyrical style.

Lyrics.

Mark Simpson characterised Morrissey as "the anti-pop idol", representing "the last, greatest and most gravely worrying product of an era when pop music was all there was". Music journalist and biographer Johnny Rogan stated that Morrissey's œuvre seems based on "endlessly re-examining a lost, painful past". Morrissey's lyrics have been described as "dramatic, bleak, funny vignettes about doomed relationships, lonely nightclubs, the burden of the past and the prison of the home". According to Mark Simpson, there is a common feeling that his music's emphasis on the sadness of life is depressing.  His lyrics are characterised by their usage of black humour, self-deprecation, and the pop vernacular. Many of his lyrics avoid mentioning the gender of the narrator, and thus provide both male and female listeners with multiple points of identification. Simpson felt that his lyrics often highlighted "the essential absurdity of gender". Discussing the Smiths' lyrics in 1992, Stringer highlighted that they placed great emphasis on the concept of Englishness, but added that unlike the contemporary Two-Tone and

Performance style.

Morrissey's vocals have been cited as having a particularly distinctive quality. Simpson believed that Morrissey's work embodied and personified that of the "Northern Women", speaking in styles of vernacular language that would be common to many women living in northern England. In this he was strongly influenced by the Northern singer Cilla Black, who had a successful career as a pop music singer in the 1960s, as well as Viv Nicholson, who similarly earned fame during that decade. Other female singers from that decade who have been cited as an influence on Morrissey have been the Scottish Lulu, and the Essexer Sandie Shaw. However, Stringer noted that rather than expressly singing in a Mancunian working-class accent, Morrissey adopted a "very clipped, precise enunciation" and sang

Personal life.

Throughout his career, Morrissey has retained an intensely private personal life. A longtime resident of Los Angeles, he also maintains homes in Italy, Switzerland, and the UK. In 2017, Los Angeles declared 10 November "Morrissey Day". Friends refer to him as "Morrissey", and he dislikes the nickname "Moz", telling one interviewer that "it's like something you'd squirt on the kitchen floor".  Stringer characterised Morrissey as a man with various contradictory traits, being "an ordinary, working-class 'anti-star' who nevertheless loves to hog the spotlight, a nice man who says the nastiest things about other people, a shy man who is also an outrageous narcissist". He further suggested that part of Morrissey's appeal was that he conveyed the image of a "cultivated English gentleman (and being every inch the typically English 'gent' he is perfectly representative of that type's loathing for cant and hypocrisy, and his fragile, quasi-gay sexuality)". Similarly, Morrissey biographer David Bret described him as being "quintessentially English", while Simpson termed him a Little Englander. During the 1980s, interviewer Paul Morley stated that Morrissey "sets out to be a decent man and he succeeds because that is what he is". Eddie Sanderson, who interviewed Morrissey for "The Mail on Sunday" in 1992, said that "underneath all the rock star flim-flam, Morrissey is actually a very nice chap, excellent company, perfectly willing and able to talk about any subject one cared to throw at him". Having photographed him in 2004, Mischa Richter described Morrissey as "genuinely lovely".  Morrissey is known for his criticism of the British music press, royalty, politicians and people who eat meat. According to Bret, his "withering attacks" on those he disliked are typically delivered in a "laid-back" manner. He is a lapsed Catholic and has criticised the Catholic Church. In 1991, he said that he believed in an afterlife. He is a cousin of Irish footballer Robbie Keane and once said, "To watch [Keane] on the pitch—pacing like a lion, as weightless as an astronaut, is pure therapy." He is also a fan of boxing. He has described suffering from clinical depression, for which he has pursued professional help.

Animal rights advocacy.

A vocal advocate of animal welfare and animal rights issues, Morrissey has been a vegetarian since the age of 11. He has explained his vegetarianism by saying that "if you love animals, obviously it doesn't make sense to hurt them". Morrissey announced in 2015 that he is a vegan. He spoke of difficulties transitioning from vegetarianism to veganism. In a 2018 interview, Morrissey stated that he "refuse[s] to eat anything that had a mother" but has always had difficulties with food, stating that he only eats bread, potatoes, pasta, and nuts despite the increasing availability of more varied vegan food than ever before.  Morrissey is a supporter of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). In recognition of his support, PETA honoured him with the Linda McCartney Memorial Award at their 25th Anniversary Gala on 10 September 2005.

Sexuality.

Morrissey's sexuality has been the subject of much speculation and coverage in the British press during his career, with claims varyingly being made that he was celibate, a frustrated heterosexual, or bisexual. In a 1980 letter he described both himself and his girlfriend as bisexual, although adding that he "hate[d] sex". The "Encyclopædia Britannica" states that he created a "compellingly conflicted persona (loudly proclaimed celibacy offset by coy hints of closeted homosexuality)" which has "made him a peculiar heartthrob". Speculation was further fuelled by the frequent references to gay subculture and slang in his lyrics. In 2006 Liz Hoggard from "The Independent" said: "Only 15 years after homosexuality had been decriminalised, his lyrics flirted with every kind of gay subculture."  During his years with the Smiths, Morrissey professed to being celibate, which stood out at a time when much of pop music was dominated by visible sexuality. Marr said in a 1984 interview that Morrissey "doesn't participate in sex at the moment and hasn't done so for a while". Repeatedly, interviewers asked Morrissey

Political opinions.

British politics.

In an academic paper on the Smiths, Julian Stringer characterised the band as "one of Britain's most overtly political groups", while Andrew Warns termed them the "most anti-capitalist of bands". Simon Goddard described Morrissey as being "pro-working class, anti-elite and anti-institution. That includes all political parties, parliament itself, all public schools, Oxbridge, the Catholic church, the monarchy, the EU, the BBC, the broadsheet press and the music press. Because his comments are not consistent with any one political agenda it confuses people, especially on the left. If anything, he's a professional refusenik."  Morrissey has exhibited

American politics.

At a Dublin concert in June 2004, Morrissey commented on the death of Ronald Reagan, saying that he would have preferred if George W. Bush had died instead. During a January 2008 concert, Morrissey remarked "God Bless Barack Obama" and criticised Hillary Clinton, naming her "Billary Clinton". However, in 2015 he accused Obama of not doing enough to tackle police brutality, stating he could not "see him doing anything at all for the black community except warning them that they must respect the security forces." He endorsed Clinton in the 2016 United States presidential election, although later criticised her as "the face and voice of pooled money" and praised Bernie Sanders as "sane and intelligent", accusing the US media of paying insufficient attention to his campaign. Morrissey denigrated Donald Trump as "Donald Thump" and accused him of not having any sympathy for the victims of the Orlando nightclub shooting. When asked in a 2017 interview if he would push a button that would kill Trump if given the opportunity, he responded that he "would, for the safety of the human race." He later said the United States Secret Service questioned him over his comments on Trump.

Reception, legacy, and influence.

David Bret has characterised him as an artist who divides opinion among those who love him and those who loathe him, with little space for compromise between the two. The press termed him the "Pope of Mope".

Fandom.

Simpson stated that Morrissey had a global fan following that was unrivalled in its devotion to the singer, characterising this as "the kind of devotion that only dead stars command" normally. Morrissey's fans have been described as being among the most dedicated of pop and rock fans. Music magazine "NME" considers Morrissey to be "one of the most influential artists ever", while "The Independent" says, "Most pop stars have to be dead before they reach the iconic status he has reached in his lifetime." According to Bret, Morrissey's fanbase "religiously followed his every pitfall and triumph". Simpson highlighted an example during the US leg of Morrissey's 1996 "Maladjusted" tour in which young men asked the singer to sign autograph their necks, which they subsequently had permanently tattooed into their skin. Rogan compared Morrissey to Wilde's character Dorian Gray "in reverse; while he slowly ages, his audience remains young". Rogan also noted

Influence.

Morrissey is routinely referred to as an influential artist, both in his solo career and with the Smiths. The BBC has referred to him as "one of the most influential figures in the history of British pop", and "NME" named the Smiths the "most influential artist ever" in a 2002 poll, even topping the Beatles. "Rolling Stone", naming him one of the greatest singers of all time in a 2014 poll, noted that his "rejection of convention" in his vocal style and lyrics is the reason "why he redefined the sound of British rock for the past quarter-century". Morrissey's enduring influence has been ascribed to his wit, the "infinite capacity for interpretation" in his lyrics, and his appeal to the "constant navel gazing, reflection, solipsism" of generations of "disenfranchised youth", offering unusually intimate "companionship" to broad demographics. Paul A. Woods described Morrissey as "Britain's unlikeliest rock 'n' roll star in

Awards and nominations.

Brit Awards  GAFFA Awards  Grammy Awards  Ivor Novello Awards  Lunas del

Personnel.

Current members

Steven Patrick Morrissey (; born 22 May 1959), known mononymously as Morrissey, is an English singer, songwriter, and author. He came to prominence as the frontman of the rock band the Smiths, which was active from 1982 to 1987. Since then, he has pursued a successful solo career. Morrissey's music is characterised by his baritone voice and distinctive lyrics with recurring themes of emotional isolation, sexual longing, self-deprecating and black humour, and anti-establishment stances.

史蒂芬·派崔克·莫里西(英语:Steven Patrick Morrissey,1959年-5月22日),常简称莫里西(Morrissey),英国创作歌手,1980年代担任另类摇滚乐团史密斯合唱团(The Smiths)主唱与作词家成名,乐团在英国极之成功,惜于1987年解散,其后莫里西开始他的单飞生涯,成绩依旧斐然。莫里西公认为独立音乐的重要革新者,英国音乐杂志《NME》曾称他「史上其中一位最具影响力的音乐家」,《独立报》则表示「大多数流行歌手死后才能达到他现有标志性的地位」。美国音乐评论网站Pitchfork Media曾称他为「西方流行文化二十年来其中一位特出人物」


Background.

Ramesses XI was once thought to be the son of Ramesses X by Queen Tyti who was a King's Mother, King's Wife and King's Daughter in her titles. However, recent scholarly research into certain copies of parts of the Harris papyrus (or Papyrus BM EA 10052)--made by Anthony Harris—which discusses a harem conspiracy against Ramesses III reveals that Tyti was rather a queen of pharaoh Ramesses III instead. Hence, Ramesses XI's mother was not Tyti and although he could have been a son of his predecessor, this is not established either. Ramesses XI is believed to have married "Tentamun", the daughter of Nebseny, with whom he is assumed to have fathered Duathathor-Henuttawy—the future wife of the high priest Pinedjem I. Ramesses XI may have had another daughter named Tentamun who became king Smendes' future wife in the next dynasty.  Sometime during his reign, the High Priest of Amun, Amenhotep, was ousted from office by Pinehesy, the Viceroy of Kush who for some time took control of the Thebais. Although this “suppression of the High Priest of Amun” used to be dated quite early in the reign (prior to year 9 of the reign), recently the "communis opinio" has changed to the view that it took place only shortly before the start of the Whm Mswt or Renaissance, an era which was inaugurated in regnal Year 19, probably to stress the return of normal conditions following the "coup" of Pinehesy.

The whm-mswt era.

Ramesses XI's reign is notable for a large number of important papyri that have been discovered, including the "Adoption Papyrus", which mentions regnal years 1 and 18 of his reign; "Pap. B.M. 10052", "Pap. Mayer A", "Pap. B.M. 10403" and "Pap. B.M. 10383" (the last four containing the accounts of tomb-robbery trials conducted during the first two years of the Whm Mswt); "Pap. Ambras" (containing a list of documents which were repurchased in year 6 of the Whm Mswt, after having been stolen from some temple archive, most probably during the chaotic period of the suppression of the High Priest of Amun Amenhotep); the "Turin Taxation Papyrus", of an unspecified year 12; Pap. B.M. 10068, which includes on its verso two lists, called the "House-list" (from an unspecified year 12) and the Srmt-list (undated, but slightly later than the "Houselist"); Pap. B.M. 9997, of an unspecified year 14 and 15; and an entire series of "Late Ramesside Letters" written by -among others- the scribes of the Necropolis Dhutmose, Butehamun, and the High Priest Piankh. Late Ramesside Letter no. 9 establishes that the Whm Mswt period lasted into a 10th year (which more or less equates year 28 proper of Ramesses XI).  Ad Thijs, in a GM 173 paper, notes that the "House-list", which is anonymously dated to Year 12 of Ramesses XI (i.e., the document was compiled in either Year 12 of the pre-Renaissance period or during the "Whm Mswt" era itself), mentions two officials: the Chief Doorkeeper Pnufer, and the Chief Warehouseman Dhutemhab. These individuals were recorded as only an ordinary Doorkeeper and Warehouseman in "Papyri BM 10403" and "BM 10052" respectively, which are explicitly dated to Year 1 and 2 of the "Whm Mswt" period. This would suggest at first glance that the Year 12 "House-list" postdates these two documents and was created in Year 12 of the "Whm Mswt" era instead (or Regnal Year 30 proper of Ramesses XI), which would account for these two individuals' promotions. Thijs proceeds to use several anonymous Year 14 and 15 dates in another papyrus, "BM 9997", to argue that Ramesses XI lived at least into his 32nd and 33rd Regnal Years (or Years 14 and 15 of the "Whm Mswt"). This document mentions a certain Sermont, who was only titled an ordinary "Medjay" (Nubian 'policeman') in the Year 12 "House-list" but is called "Chief of the Medjay" in "Papyrus BM 9997". Sermont's promotion would thus mean that "BM 9997" postdates the "House-list Papyrus" and must be placed late in the Renaissance period. If true, then Ramesses XI should have survived into his 33rd Regnal Year or Year 15 of the "Whm Mswt" era before dying.  However, one could argue that there are occasional inconsistencies in the description of an individual's precise title even within the same source document itself: Whereas Papyrus Mayer A several times mentions a “Dhuthope, Chief Doorkeeper of the temple of Amun”, in col. 5, line 15 this same individual is clearly presented as a mere “Doorkeeper”, which would strongly weaken Thijs’ case. On the other hand, as Goelet notes with regard to this last entry: "“instead of recounting the usual beatings and confessions, the record simply states: ‘There was brought the doorkeeper Djehuty-hotep’”". Since there are no further details added, which is an anomaly within the papyrus, this suggests that the pertinent entry was abandoned by the scribe, perhaps because he realised that he had made a mistake. Nevertheless, Thijs' case for a Year 33 proper for Ramesses XI should be treated with caution. Since there are two attested promotions of individuals in 2 separate papyri, however, there is a possibility that Ramesses XI did live into his 33rd regnal Year.  Thijs in his GM 173 paper, also demonstrated that the "House-list" and the Turin Taxation papyrus were close in time to each other since both documents mention a year 12 date and name certain individuals such as the chief of the Medjay Nesamun, the herdsman Penhasi and the fisherman Kadore. Due to this connection, Thijs argued that the Taxation Papyrus also belonged to the whm-mswt era. However, this would imply that in year 12 of the whm-mswt the viceroy Pinehesy returned to office to supervise in the collection of taxes in the Theban area, after he had become an enemy of the state earlier in the era, due to his role in temporarily suppressing the High Priest Amenhotep. In P. BM 10383 2, 4-5 (from year 2 of the whm-mswt, although the era is not explicitly mentioned in the heading) a certain Peison states that, sometime earlier, Pinehesy suppressed his (viz., Peison's) superior, which is taken by most Egyptologists as a reference to Pinehesy ousting the High Priest Amenhotep. Pinehesy was subsequently designated as an enemy in several papyri from year 1 and 2 of the whm-mswt (equalling year 19 and 20 proper of Ramesses XI) where his name was consistently associated "by the nDs [or] (‘bad’) bird as its determinative" in these papyri.  How exactly the anarchic period of the Suppression was ended and who ultimately forced Pinehesy out of Thebes is unknown, due to a lack of explicit sources. However, it seems that Pinehesy retreated to Nubia and succeeded in maintaining some sort of powerbase there for over a decade. In year 10 of the whm-mswt the then general and High Priest Piankh goes on an expedition to Nubia to "meet Pinehesy". Although it is often postulated that it was the aim of this campaign to fight the former Viceroy, this is by no means certain. The sources are actually ambiguous on this point and the political climate may well have changed over the years. There is some evidence that at this time Piankh may no longer have been a loyal servant of Ramesses XI, which allows for the possibility that he was secretly negotiating with Pinehesy, possibly even plotting against the reigning king. E. Wente wrote: "One has the impression that the viceroy and his Nubian troops were loyalists, for the remarks made by his opponent Piankh in letter No. 301 are quite disparaging of the pharaoh, Ramesses XI." In this letter, better known as LRL no. 21, Piankh remarks:  In the same letter and two others (LRL no. 34 and no. 35) Piankh gives the order to the Scribe of the Necropolis Tjaroy (=Dhutmose), the lady Nodjmet and a certain Payshuuben to secretly arrest and question two Medjay policemen about certain things they had apparently said:  Whereas Piankh would probably have had the authority to have people executed, it is noteworthy that his correspondents are explicitly urged to keep the matter secret. It has been argued that, given Piankh's supreme position at the time, the secrecy can only have concerned the king. If this is correct, it follows that the political situation of the time must have been very complex, with Piankh possibly acting on some hidden agenda. Unfortunately, due to the very limited nature of the sources, the exact relationships between the three main protagonists, Piankh, Pinehesy and Ramesses XI remain far from clear. Some scholars believe that the Nubian campaign was part of an ongoing power struggle between the High Priest of Amun and the Viceroy of Kush However, it is equally possible that Piankh came to the rescue of Pinehesy against some common enemy. The verb often translated as "to attack (Pinehesy)" only means "to meet/ to go to". In fact, neither the aim of the expedition nor its outcome are beyond doubt. The issue is further complicated by the ongoing debate about [1] the order of High Priests (either Herihor before Piankh or Piankh before Herihor) and [2] the correct ascription (either to the pre-Renaissance period or to the whm-mswt itself) of several documents from the reign of Ramesses XI.  At present, Thijs' suggestion that Pinehesy was apparently rehabilitated by Ramesses XI in year 11 or 12 of the whm-mswt has only been explicitly accepted by the Egyptologist A. Dodson.

Length of reign.

Neither the length of the Renaissance nor the ascription of certain documents from the reign of Ramesses XI are beyond dispute. At present, Thijs' proposal that Papyrus BM 10054 dates to the Whm-Mswt has been confirmed by other scholars such as Von Beckerath and Annie Gasse—the latter in a JEA 87 (2001) paper which studied several newly discovered fragments belonging to this document. Consequently, it would appear that Ramesses XI's highest undisputed date is presently Year 11 of the Whm-Mswt (or Year 29 proper) of his reign, when Piankh's Nubian campaign terminated which means that the pharaoh had a minimum reign of 29 years when he died—-which can perhaps be extended to 30 years due to the "gap between the beginning of Dynasty 21 and the reign of Ramesses XI." with 33 years being hypothetical. Krauss and Warburton specifically write that due to the existence of this time gap,  Aidan Dodson, however, allows for a 'year 15' of the Whm-Mswt on the basis of P. BM 9997.  Either during the reign of Ramesses XI or shortly afterwards, the village of Deir El Medina was abandoned, apparently because the Royal Necropolis was shifted northward to Tanis and there was no further need for their services at Thebes.

Late New Kingdom chronology of Ramesses XI.

The conventional Egyptian chronology view is that Ramesses XI had an independent reign of between 29 and 30 or 33 full years between Ramesses X and Smendes before dying. Shortly before his death, he transferred Egypt's political capital to Tanis where he died and was buried by Smendes who succeeded him but only ruled Lower Egypt while Herihor ruled Upper Egypt as the High Priest of Egypt at Thebes. Thijs' separate proposal that the first 17 years of Ramesses XI's reign were entirely contemporary with the reigns of Ramesses IX (Years 5-19) and Ramesses X (Years 1-3) is not currently accepted by most Egyptologists except Aidan Dodson in his 2012 book "Afterglow of Empire".

Burial.

Sometime during this troubled period, Ramesses XI died under unknown circumstances. While he had a tomb prepared for himself in the Valley of the Kings (KV4), it was left unfinished and only partly decorated since Ramesses XI instead arranged to have himself buried away from Thebes, possibly near Memphis. This pharaoh's tomb, however, includes some unusual features, including four rectangular, rather than square, pillars in its burial chamber and an extremely deep central burial shaft– at over 30 feet or 10 metres long– which was perhaps designed as an additional security device to prevent tomb robbery. During the 21st dynasty, under the reign of the High Priest of Thebes, Pinedjem I, Ramesses XI's tomb was used as a workshop for processing funerary materials from the burials of Hatshepsut, Thutmose III and perhaps Thutmose I. Ramesses XI's tomb has stood open since antiquity and was used as a dwelling by the Copts.  Since Ramesses XI had himself buried in Lower Egypt, Smendes rose to the kingship of Egypt, based on the well known custom that he who buried the king inherited the throne. Since Smendes buried Ramesses XI, he could legally assume the crown of Egypt and inaugurate the 21st Dynasty from his hometown at Tanis, even if he did not control Middle and Upper Egypt, which were now effectively in the hands of the High Priests of Amun at Thebes.

Menmaatre Ramesses XI (also written Ramses and Rameses) reigned from 1107 BC to 1078 BC or 1077 BC and was the tenth and final pharaoh of the Twentieth dynasty of Egypt and as such, was the last king of the New Kingdom period. He ruled Egypt for at least 29 years although some Egyptologists think he could have ruled for as long as 30. The latter figure would be up to 2 years beyond this king's highest known date of Year 10 of the "Whm Mswt" era or Year 28 of his reign. One scholar, Ad Thijs, has suggested that Ramesses XI could even have reigned as long as 33 years.

拉美西斯十一世(英语:Ramesses XI)古埃及新王国时期第二十王朝的末代法老。(约公元前1107年—约公元前1077年在位),在位时期阿蒙神祭司和努比亚总督多次激战,阿蒙神高级祭司倒台,社会四分五裂,王室庙宇和陵墓不断遭到洗劫。他的陵墓也因此施工中断并未使用。公元前1085年,军官赫里霍尔重建社会秩序,成为阿蒙神的高级祭司,同时攫取了全部王室和朝政头衔。拉美西斯十一世死后,第二十王朝结束。埃及进入第三中间期。


Overview.

At the Sixth Congress of the Comintern in 1928, the end of capitalist stability and the beginning of the "Third Period" was proclaimed. The end of capitalism, accompanied with a working class revolution, was expected and social democracy was identified as the main enemy of the communists. This Comintern's theory had roots in Grigory Zinoviev's argument that international social democracy is a wing of fascism. This view was accepted by Joseph Stalin who described fascism and social democracy as "twin brothers", arguing that fascism depends on the active support of the social democracy and that the social democracy depends on the active support of fascism. After it was declared at the Sixth Congress, the theory of social fascism became accepted by the world communist movement.  The new direction was closely linked to the internal politics of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). After a faction fight inside that party following the death of Vladimir Lenin in 1924, the victorious group around Stalin shifted decisively to the left, advocating the end of the mixed economy New Economic Policy and declaring an intensification of the class struggle inside the Soviet Union. An atmosphere of revolutionary fervour was created that saw any enemy of the ruling group around Stalin denounced as "wreckers" and "traitors" and this attitude was translated on to the international stage where both social democrats and communist dissidents were denounced as fascists.  At the same time, under leadership of German chancellor Hermann Müller the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) agreed with anti-communist parties that Stalinists are fascists. This led to mutual hostility between social democrats and communists, which were additionally intensified in 1929 when Berlin's police (under control of the SPD government) shot down communist workers demonstrating on May Day in what became called Blutmai (Berlin's Bloody May). This and the repressive legislation against the communists that followed served as further evidence to communists that social democrats were indeed "social fascists". In 1929 the KPD's paramilitary organisation, the Roter Frontkämpferbund ("Alliance of Red Front-Fighters"), was banned as extremist by the governing social democrats. A KPD resolution described the "social fascists" [social democrats] as the "main pillar of the dictatorship of Capital." In 1931, in Prussia—the largest state of Germany—the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), which referred to the Nazis as "working people's comrades", united with them in unsuccessful attempt to bring down the state government of SPD by means of a Landtag referendum. In 1931, uUnder the leadership of Ernst Thälmann, the KPD internally used the slogan "" – strongly believing that a united front against Nazis was not needed and that the workers would change their opinion and recognize that Nazism—unlike communism—did not offer a true way out of Germany's difficulties (see also Wilhelm Hoegner and Walter Kolbenhoff.  German communists continued to deny any essential difference between Nazism and social democracy even after elections in 1933. After Adolf Hitler's Nazis came to power in Germany, the KPD was outlawed and thousands of its members were arrested, including Thälmann. Following these events, the Comintern did a complete turn on the question of alliance with social democrats and the theory of "social fascism" was abandoned. At the Seventh Congress of the Comintern in 1935, Georgi Dimitrov outlined the new policy of the "popular front" in his address "For the Unity of the Working Class Against Fascism". The "popular front" did not stop the conclusion of the Nazi-Soviet Non-aggression Pact.  Theodore Draper argued that "the so-called theory of social fascism and the practice based on it constituted one of the chief factors contributing to the victory of German fascism in January 1933."

Leon Trotsky's criticism.

Leon Trotsky argued against the accusations of "social fascism" and in the "Bulletin of the Opposition" of March 1932 declared: "Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank... And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory". However, Trotsky said in the same essay that any cooperation with the social democrats was only tactical and temporary and that in the final analysis the social democracy would have to be defeated and subverted by the revolutionary faction: The front must now be directed against fascism. And this common front of direct struggle against fascism, embracing the entire proletariat, must be utilized in the struggle against the Social Democracy, directed as a flank attack, but no less effective for all that... No common platform with the Social Democracy, or with the leaders of the German trade unions, no common publications, banners, placards! March separately, but strike together! Agree only how to strike, whom to strike, and when to strike! Such an agreement can be concluded even with the devil himself... No retraction of our criticism of the Social Democracy. No forgetting of all that has been. The whole historical reckoning, including the reckoning for Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, will be presented at the proper time, just as the Russian Bolsheviks finally presented a general reckoning to the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries for the baiting, calumny, imprisonment and murder of workers, soldiers, and peasants.

Social fascism was a theory supported by the Communist International (Comintern) and affiliated communist parties during the early 1930s which held that social democracy was a variant of fascism because it stood in the way of a dictatorship of the proletariat, in addition to a shared corporatist economic model.

社会法西斯主义(;)是共产国际在1930年代早期持有的一种理论。它认为社会民主主义是法西斯主义的变种,在资本主义经济崩溃和无产阶级激进化的第三时期中,阻碍了无产阶级革命。


Detailed information.

As defined in RFC 791, the maximum packet length of an IPv4 packet including the IP header is 65,535 (2 − 1) bytes, a limitation presented by the use of a 16-bit wide IP header field that describes the total packet length.  The underlying Data Link Layer almost always poses limits to the maximum frame size (See MTU). In Ethernet, this is typically 1500 bytes. In such a case, a large IP packet is split across multiple IP packets (also known as IP fragments), so that each IP fragment will match the imposed limit. The receiver of the IP fragments will reassemble them into the complete IP packet and continue processing it as usual.  When fragmentation is performed, each IP fragment needs to carry information about which part of the original IP packet it contains. This information is kept in the Fragment Offset field, in the IP header. The field is 13 bits long, and contains the offset of the data in the current IP fragment, in the original IP packet. The offset is given in units of 8 bytes. This allows a maximum offset of 65,528 ((2-1)*8). Then when adding 20 bytes of IP header, the maximum will be 65,548 bytes, which exceeds the maximum frame size. This means that an IP fragment with the maximum offset should have data no larger than 7 bytes, or else it would exceed the limit of the maximum packet length. A malicious user can send an IP fragment with the maximum offset and with much more data than 8 bytes (as large as the physical layer allows it to be).  When the receiver assembles all IP fragments, it will end up with an IP packet which is larger than 65,535 bytes. This may possibly overflow memory buffers which the receiver allocated for the packet, and can cause various problems.  As is evident from the description above, the problem has nothing to do with ICMP, which is used only as payload, big enough to exploit the problem. It is a problem in the reassembly process of IP fragments, which may contain any type of protocol (TCP, UDP, IGMP, etc.).  The correction of the problem is to add checks in the reassembly process. The check for each incoming IP fragment makes sure that the sum of "Fragment Offset" and "Total length" fields in the IP header of each IP fragment is smaller or equal to 65,535. If the sum is greater, then the packet is invalid, and the IP fragment is ignored. This check is performed by some firewalls, to protect hosts that do not have the bug fixed. Another fix for the problem is using a memory buffer larger than 65,535 bytes for the re-assembly of the packet. (This is essentially a breaking of the specification, since it adds support for packets larger than those allowed.)

Ping of death in IPv6.

In 2013, an IPv6 version of the ping of death vulnerability was discovered in Microsoft Windows. Windows TCP/IP stack didn't handle memory allocation correctly when processing incoming malformed ICMPv6 packets, which could cause remote denial of service. This vulnerability was fixed in MS13-065 in August 2013. The CVE-ID for this vulnerability is.

A ping of death is a type of attack on a computer system that involves sending a malformed or otherwise malicious ping to a computer.

死亡之Ping,(英文:ping of death, POD),是一种向目标电脑发送错误封包的或恶意的ping指令的攻击方式。通常,一次ping大小为32字节(若考虑IP标头则为84字节)。在当时,大部分电脑无法处理大于IPv4最大封包大小(65,535字节)的ping封包。因此发送这样大小的ping可以令目标电脑崩溃。


In ethics.

In ethics when discussing behavior and morality, an individual is said to possess the virtue of integrity if the individual's actions are based upon an internally consistent framework of principles. These principles should uniformly adhere to sound logical axioms or postulates. One can describe a person as having ethical integrity to the extent that the individual's actions, beliefs, methods, measures and principles all derive from a single core group of values. An individual must therefore be flexible and willing to adjust these values to maintain consistency when these values are challenged—such as when an expected test result is not congruent with all observed outcomes. Because such flexibility is a form of accountability, it is regarded as a moral responsibility as well as a virtue.  An individual value system provides a framework within which the individual acts in ways which are consistent and expected. Integrity can be seen as the state or condition of having such a framework, and acting congruently within the given framework.  One essential aspect of a consistent framework is its avoidance of any unwarranted (arbitrary) exceptions for a particular person or group—especially the person or group that holds the framework. In law, this principle of universal application requires that even those in positions of official power can be subjected to the same laws as pertain to their fellow citizens. In personal ethics, this principle requires that one should not act according to any rule that one would not wish to see universally followed. For example, one should not steal unless one would want to live in a world in which everyone was a thief. The philosopher Immanuel Kant formally described the principle of universal application in his categorical imperative.  The concept of integrity implies a wholeness, a comprehensive corpus of beliefs, often referred to as a worldview. This concept of wholeness emphasizes honesty and authenticity, requiring that one act at all times in accordance with the individual's chosen worldview.  Ethical integrity is not synonymous with the good, as Zuckert and Zuckert show about Ted Bundy:

Political integrity.

Integrity is important for politicians because they are chosen, appointed, or elected to serve society. To be able to serve, politicians are given power to make, execute, or control policy. They have the power to influence something or someone. There is, however, a risk that politicians will not use this power to serve society. Aristotle said that because rulers have power they will be tempted to use it for personal gain. It is important that politicians withstand this temptation, and that requires integrity.  In the book "The Servant of the People", Muel Kaptein describes that integrity starts with that politicians should know what their position entails, because integrity is related to their position. Integrity also demands knowledge and compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the written and unwritten rules. Integrity is also acting consistently not only with what is generally accepted as moral, what others think, but primarily with what is ethical, what politicians should do based on reasonable arguments.  Furthermore, integrity is not just about why a politician acts in a certain way, but also about who the politician is. Questions about a person’s integrity cast doubt not only on their intentions but also on the source of those intentions, the person’s character. So integrity is about having the right ethical virtues that become visible in a pattern of behavior.  Important virtues of politicians are faithfulness, humility. and accountability. Furthermore, they should be authentic and a role model. Aristotle identified Dignity ("megalopsuchia", variously translated as proper pride, greatness of soul and magnanimity) as the crown of the virtues, distinguishing it from vanity, temperance, and humility.

In the philosophy of law.

Dworkin argues that moral principles that people hold dear are often wrong, even to the extent that certain crimes are acceptable if one's principles are skewed enough. To discover and apply these principles, courts interpret the legal data (legislation, cases etc.) with a view to articulating an interpretation that best explains and justifies past legal practice. All interpretation must follow, Dworkin argues, from the notion of "law as integrity" to make sense.  Out of the idea that law is 'interpretive' in this way, Dworkin argues that in every situation where people's legal rights are controversial, the best interpretation involves the right answer thesis, the thesis that there exists a right answer as a matter of law that the judge must discover. Dworkin opposes the notion that judges have a discretion in such difficult cases.  Dworkin's model of legal principles is also connected with Hart's notion of the Rule of Recognition. Dworkin rejects Hart's conception of a master rule in every legal system that identifies valid laws, on the basis that this would entail that the process of identifying law must be uncontroversial, whereas (Dworkin argues) people have legal rights even in cases where the correct legal outcome is open to reasonable dispute. Dworkin moves away from positivism's separation of law and morality, since constructive interpretation implicates moral judgments in every decision about what the law is.

Psychological/work-selection tests.

The procedures known as "integrity tests" or (more confrontationally) as "honesty tests" aim to identify prospective employees who may hide perceived negative or derogatory aspects of their past, such as a criminal conviction, or drug abuse. Identifying unsuitable candidates can save the employer from problems that might otherwise arise during their term of employment. Integrity tests make certain assumptions, specifically:  The claim that such tests can detect "fake" answers plays a crucial role in detecting people who have low integrity. Naive respondents really believe this pretense and behave accordingly, reporting some of their past deviance and their thoughts about the deviance of others, fearing that if they do not answer truthfully their untrue answers will reveal their "low integrity". These respondents believe that the more candid they are in their answers, the higher their "integrity score" will be.

Other integrities.

Disciplines and fields with an interest in integrity include philosophy of action, philosophy of medicine, mathematics, the mind, cognition, consciousness, materials science, structural engineering, and politics. Popular psychology identifies personal integrity, professional integrity, artistic integrity, and intellectual integrity.  For example, a scientific investigation shouldn't determine the outcome in advance of the actual results. As an example of a breach of this principle, Public Health England, a UK Government agency, recently stated that they upheld a line of government policy in advance of the outcome of a study that they had commissioned.  The concept of integrity may also feature in business contexts that go beyond the issues of employee/employer honesty and ethical behavior, notably in marketing or branding contexts. The "integrity" of a brand is regarded by some as a desirable outcome for companies seeking to maintain a consistent, unambiguous position in the mind of their audience. This integrity of brand includes consistent messaging and often includes using a set of graphics standards to maintain visual integrity in marketing communications. Kaptein and Wempe have developed a theory of corporate integrity including criteria for businesses dealing with moral dilemmas.  Another use of the term, "integrity" appears in the work of Michael Jensen and Werner Erhard in their academic paper, "Integrity: A Positive Model that Incorporates the Normative Phenomenon of Morality, Ethics, and Legality". In this paper the authors explore a new model of integrity as the state of being whole and complete, unbroken, unimpaired, sound, and in perfect condition. They posit a new model of integrity that provides access to increased performance for individuals, groups, organizations, and societies. Their model "reveals the causal link between integrity and increased performance, quality of life, and value-creation for all entities, and provides access to that causal link." According to Muel Kaptein, integrity is not a one-dimensional concept. In his book he presents a multifaceted perspective of integrity. Integrity relates to, for example, compliance to the rules as well as to social expectations, with morality as well as ethics, and with actions as well as attitude.  Electronic signals are said to have integrity when there is no corruption of information between one domain and another, such as from a disk drive to a computer display. Such integrity is a fundamental principle of information assurance. Corrupted information is untrustworthy, yet uncorrupted information is of value.

Integrity is the practice of being honest and showing a consistent and uncompromising adherence to strong moral and ethical principles and values. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can stand in opposition to hypocrisy, in that judging with the standards of integrity involves regarding internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding within themselves apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs. The word "integrity" evolved from the Latin adjective "integer", meaning "whole" or "complete". In this context, integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character. As such, one may judge that others "have integrity" to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold.

诚信是人的核心价值,承诺思想行动一致;「诚」是诚实,「信」是有责任心、信用。相反的,无诚信者是伪君子或真小人。有关诚信,在古今各地都有谈及,包括伦理学、宗教、专业操守、人事管理及政治学《君王论》。


Background.

Part V of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles had imposed severe restrictions on the size and capacities of Germany's armed forces. Germany was allowed no submarines, no naval aviation, and only six obsolete pre-dreadnought battleships; the total naval forces allowed to the Germans were six heavy cruisers of no more than 10,000 tons displacement, six light cruisers of no more than 6,000 tons displacement, twelve destroyers of no more than 800 tonnes displacement and twelve torpedo boats.  Through the interwar years, German opinion had protested these restrictions as harsh and unjust, and demanded that either all the other states of Europe disarm down to German levels, or Germany be allowed to rearm to the level of all the other European states. In the UK, where after 1919 guilt was felt

London Naval Conference.

Equally important as one of the origins of the Treaty were the deep cuts made to the Royal Navy after the Washington Naval Conference of 1921–22 and the London Naval Conference 1930. The cuts imposed by the two conferences, combined with the effects of the Great Depression, caused the collapse of much of the UK's shipbuilding industry in the early 1930s. That seriously hindered efforts at British naval rearmament later in the decade, leading the Admiralty to value treaties with quantitative and qualitative limitations on potential enemies as the best way of ensuring the UK's sea supremacy. Maiolo argues that it

World Disarmament Conference.

In February 1932, the World Disarmament Conference opened in Geneva, Switzerland. Among the more hotly-debated issues at the conference was the German demand for "Gleichberechtigung" ("equality of armaments", abolishing Part V of Versailles) as opposed to the French demand for "sécurité" ("security"), maintaining Part V. The UK attempted to play the "honest broker" and sought to seek a compromise between the French claim to "sécurité" and the German claim to "Gleichberechtigung", which in practice meant backing the German claim to rearm beyond Part V, but not allowing the Germans to rearm enough to threaten France. Several of the UK's compromise proposals along these lines

Adolf Hitler.

During the 1920s, Hitler's thinking on foreign policy went through a dramatic change. At the beginning of his political career Hitler was hostile to the UK, considering it an enemy of the "Reich". However, after the UK opposed the French occupation of the Ruhr in 1923, he came to rank the UK as a potential ally. In "Mein Kampf", and even more in its sequel, "Zweites Buch", Hitler strongly criticised the pre-1914 German government for embarking on a naval and colonial challenge to the British Empire, and in Hitler's view, needlessly antagonizing the UK. In Hitler's view, the UK was a fellow "Aryan" power, whose friendship could be won by a German "renunciation" of naval and colonial ambitions against the UK. In return for such a "renunciation", Hitler expected an Anglo-German alliance directed at France and the Soviet Union, and the UK's support for the German efforts to acquire "Lebensraum" in Eastern Europe. As the first step towards the Anglo-German alliance, Hitler had written in "Mein Kampf" of his intention to seek a "sea pact", by which Germany would "renounce" any naval challenge against the UK.  In January 1933, Hitler became the German chancellor. The new government in Germany had inherited a strong negotiating position at Geneva from the previous government of General Kurt von Schleicher. The German strategy was to make idealistic offers of limited rearmament, out of the expectation that all such offers would be rejected by the French, allowing Germany to go on ultimately with the maximum rearmament. The ultra-nationalism of the Nazi regime had alarmed the French, who put the most minimal possible interpretation of German "theoretical equality" in armaments, and thereby played into the German strategy. In October 1933, the Germans again walked out of the conference, stating that everyone else should either disarm to the Versailles level, or allow Germany to rearm beyond Versailles. Though the Germans never had any serious interest in accepting any of the UK's various compromise proposals, in London, the German walk-out was widely, if erroneously, blamed on French "intransigence". The UK Government was left with

U-boat construction.

Though every government of the Weimar Republic had violated Part V of Versailles, in 1933 and 1934, the Nazi government had become more flagrant and open in violating Part V. In 1933, the Germans started to build their first U-boats since World War I, and in April 1935, launched their first U-boats. On 25 April 1935, the UK's naval attaché to Germany, Captain Gerard Muirhead-Gould was officially informed by Captain Leopold Bürkner of the "Reichsmarine" that Germany had laid down twelve 250 ton U-boats at Kiel. On 29 April 1935, the Foreign Secretary Sir John Simon informed the British House of Commons that Germany was now building U-boats. On 2 May 1935, the Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald told the House of his government's intention to reach a naval pact to regulate the future growth of the German Navy. In a more general sense, because of the UK's championing of German "theoretical equality" at the World Disarmament Conference, London was in a weak moral position to oppose the German violations. The German response to the UK's complaints about violations of Part V were that they were merely unilaterally exercising rights the UK's delegation at Geneva were prepared to concede to the "Reich". In March 1934, a British Foreign Office memo stated "Part V of the Treaty of

Talks.

In early March 1935, talks intended to discuss the scale and extent of German rearmament in Berlin between Hitler and Simon were postponed when Hitler took offence at a UK Government White Paper that justified a higher defence budget under the grounds that Germany was violating the Versailles Treaty, and he claimed to have contracted a "cold". In the interval between Hitler "recovering" and Simon's visit, the German government took the chance for formally rejecting all the clauses of Versailles relating to disarmament on the land and air. In the 1930s, the UK Government was obsessed with the idea of a German bombing attack destroying London and so placed a great deal of value on reaching an air pact outlawing bombing. The idea of a naval agreement was felt to be a useful stepping stone to an air pact. On 26 March 1935, during one of his meetings with Simon, and his deputy Anthony Eden, Hitler stated his intention to reject the naval disarmament section of Versailles but was prepared to discuss a treaty regulating the scale of German naval rearmament. On 21 May 1935, Hitler in a speech in Berlin formally offered to discuss a treaty offering a German Navy that was to operate forever on a 35:100 naval ratio. During his "peace speech" of 21 May, Hitler disavowed any intention of engaging in a pre-1914 style naval race with the UK, and he stated: "The German "Reich" government recognises of itself the overwhelming importance for existence and thereby the justification of dominance at sea to protect the British Empire, just as, on the other hand, we are determined to do everything necessary in protection of our own continental existence and freedom". For Hitler, his speech illustrated the "quid pro quo" of an Anglo-German alliance, the UK's acceptance of German mastery of Continental Europe in exchange for German acceptance of the UK's mastery over the seas.  On 22 May 1935, the British Cabinet voted for formally taking up Hitler's offers of 21 May as soon as possible. Sir Eric Phipps, the UK's ambassador in Berlin, advised London that no chance at a naval agreement with Germany should be lost "owing

Text.

"Exchange of Notes between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the German Government regarding the Limitation of Naval Armaments-London, 18 June 1935.  Sir Samuel Hoare to Herr von Ribbentrop Your Excellency, Foreign Office, June 18, 1935  During the last few days the representatives of the German Government and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have been engaged in conversations, the primary purpose of which has been to prepare the way for the holding of a general conference on the subject of the limitation of naval armaments. I have now much pleasure in notifying your Excellency of the formal acceptance by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of the proposal of the German Government discussed at those conversations that the future strength of the German navy in relation to the aggregate naval strength of the Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations should be in the proportion of 35:100. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom regard this proposal as a contribution of the greatest importance to the cause of future naval limitation. They further believe that the agreement which they have now reached with the German government, and which they regard as a permanent and definite agreement as from to-day between the two Governments, will facilitate the conclusion of a general agreement on the subject of naval limitation between all the naval Powers of the world.  2. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom also agree with the explanations which were furnished by the German representatives in the course of the recent discussions in London as the method of application of this principle. These explanations may be summarised as follows:-  (a) The ratio of 35:100 is to be a permanent relationship, i.e. the total tonnage of the German fleet shall never exceed a percentage of 35 of the aggregate tonnage of the naval forces, as defined by treaty, of the Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, or, if there should in the future, be no treaty limitations of the Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.  (b) If any future general treaty of naval limitation should not adopt the method of limitation by agreed ratios between the fleets of different Powers, the German Government will not insist on the incorporation of the ratio mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraph in such future general treaty, provided that the method therein adopted for the future limitation of naval armaments is such as to give Germany full guarantees that this ratio can be maintained.  (c) Germany will adhere to the ratio 35:100 in all circumstances, e.g. the ratio will not be affected by the construction of other Powers. If the general equilibrium of naval armaments, as normally maintained in the past, should be violently upset by any abnormal and exceptional construction by other Powers, the German Government reserve the right to invite His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to examine the new situation thus created.  (d)The German Government favour, the matter of limitation of naval armaments, that system which divides naval vessels into categories, fixing the maximum tonnage and/or armament for vessels in each category,

French reaction.

The Naval Pact was signed in London on 18 June 1935 without the UK Government consulting with France and Italy, or, later, informing them of the secret agreements which stipulated that the Germans could build in certain categories more powerful warships than any of the three Western nations then possessed. The French regarded this as treachery. They saw it as

Impact.

Because of the lengthy period needed to construct warships and the short duration of the agreement its impact was limited. It was estimated by both German and British naval experts that the earliest year that Germany could reach the 35% limit was 1942. In practice, lack of shipbuilding space, design problems, shortages of skilled workers, and the scarcity of foreign exchange to purchase necessary raw materials slowed the rebuilding of the German Navy. A lack of steel and non-ferrous metals caused by the "Kriegsmarine" being third in terms of German rearmament priorities, behind the Heer and the Luftwaffe, led to the "Kriegsmarine" (as the German Navy had been renamed in 1935) being still far from the 35% limit when Hitler denounced the agreement in 1939.  The requirement for the "Kriegsmarine" to divide its 35% tonnage ratio by warship categories had the effect of forcing the Germans to build a symmetrical "balanced fleet" shipbuilding program that reflected the UK's priorities. Since the Royal Navy's leadership thought that the "balanced fleet" would be the easiest German fleet to defeat and a German "guerre-de-course" fleet the most dangerous, the agreement brought the UK considerable strategic benefits. Above all, since the Royal Navy did not build "pocket battleships", Chatfield valued the end of the "Panzerschiff" building.  When the "Kriegsmarine" began planning for a war with the UK in May 1938, the "Kriegsmarine's" senior operations officer, Commander Hellmuth Heye, concluded the best strategy for the "Kriegsmarine" was a "Kreuzerkrieg" fleet of U-boats, light cruisers and "Panzerschiff" operating in tandem. He was critical of the existing building priorities dictated by the agreement since there was no realistic possibility of a German "balanced fleet" defeating the Royal Navy. In response, senior German naval officers started to advocate a switch to a "Kreuzerkrieg" type fleet that would pursue a "guerre-de-course" strategy of attacking the British Merchant Marine, but they were overruled by Hitler, who insisted on the prestige of Germany building a "balanced fleet". Such a fleet would attempt a Mahanian strategy of winning maritime supremacy by a decisive battle with the Royal Navy in the North Sea. Historians such as Joseph Maiolo, Geoffrey Till and the authors of the "Kriegsmarine" Official History have agreed with Chatfield's contention that a "Kreuzerkrieg" fleet offered Germany the best chance for damaging the UK's power and that the UK benefited strategically by ensuring that such a fleet was not built in the 1930s. In the field of Anglo-German relations, the agreement had considerable importance. The UK expressed hope, as Craigie informed Ribbentrop, that it "was designed to facilitate further agreements within a wider framework and there was no further thought behind it". In addition, the UK viewed it as a "yardstick" for measuring German intentions towards the UK. Hitler regarded it as marking the beginning of an Anglo-German alliance and was much annoyed when this did not result.  By 1937, Hitler started to increase both the

Munich agreement and denunciation.

At the conference in Munich that led to the Munich Agreement in September 1938, Hitler informed Neville Chamberlain that if the UK's policy was "to make it clear in certain circumstances" that the UK might be intervening in a mainland European war, the political preconditions for the agreement no longer existed, and Germany should denounce it. This led to Chamberlain including mention of it in the Anglo-German Declaration of 30 September 1938. By the late 1930s, Hitler's disillusionment with the UK's led to German foreign policy taking increasing anti-UK course. An important sign of Hitler's changed perceptions about the UK was his decision in January 1939 to give first priority to the "Kriegsmarine" in allocations of money, skilled workers and raw materials and to launch Plan Z to build a colossal "Kriegsmarine" of 10 battleships, 16 "pocket battleships", 8 aircraft carriers, 5 heavy cruisers, 36 light cruisers and 249 U-boats by 1944 purposed to crush the Royal Navy. Since the fleet envisioned in the Z Plan was considerably larger than allowed by the 35:100 ratio in the agreement, it was inevitable that Germany would renounce it. Over the winter of 1938–39, it became clearer to London that the Germans no longer intended to abide by the agreement, which played a role in straining Anglo-German relations. Reports received in October 1938 that the Germans were considering denouncing the agreement were used by Halifax in Cabinet discussions for the need for a tougher policy with the "Reich". The German statement of 9 December 1938 of intending to build to 100% ratio allowed in submarines by the agreement and to the limits in heavy cruisers led to a speech by Chamberlain before the correspondents of the German News Agency in London that warned of the "futility of ambition, if ambition leads to the desire for domination".  At the same time, Halifax informed Herbert von Dirksen, the German ambassador to the UK, that his government viewed the talks to discuss the details of the German building escalation as a test case for German sincerity. When the talks began in Berlin on 30 December 1938, the Germans took an obdurate approach, leading London to conclude that the Germans did not wish for the talks to succeed.  In response to the UK's "guarantee" of Poland of 31 March 1939, Hitler, enraged by the UK's move proclaimed "I shall brew them a devil's drink". In a speech in Wilhelmshaven for the launch of the battleship Tirpitz, Hitler threatened to denounce the agreement if the UK persisted with its "encirclement" policy, as represented by the "guarantee" of Polish independence. On 28 April 1939, Hitler denounced the AGNA. To provide an excuse for its denunciation of and to prevent the emergence of a new naval treaty, the Germans began refusing to share information about their shipbuilding, leaving the UK with the choice of either accepting the unilateral German move or rejecting it, thus providing the Germans with the excuse to denounce the treaty.  At a Cabinet meeting on 3 May 1939, the First Lord of Admiralty, Lord Stanhope, stated that "at the present time Germany was building ships as fast as she could but that she would not be able to exceed the 35 per cent ratio before 1942 or 1943". Chatfield, now Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, commented that Hitler had "persuaded himself" that the UK had provided the "Reich" with a "free hand" in Eastern Europe in exchange for the agreement. Chamberlain stated that the UK had never given such an understanding to Germany, and he commented that he first learned of Hitler's belief in such an implied bargain during his meeting with the Führer at the Berchtesgaden summit in September 1938. In a later paper to the Cabinet, Chatfield stated "that we might say that we now understood Herr Hitler had in 1935 thought that we had given him a free hand in Eastern and Central Europe in return for his acceptance of the 100:35 ratio, but that as we could not accept the correctness of this view it might be better that the 1935 arrangements should be abrogated".  In the end, the UK's reply to the German move was a diplomatic note, strongly disputing the German claim that the UK was attempting to "encircle" Germany with hostile alliances. The German denunciation and reports of increased German shipbuilding in June 1939 caused by the Z Plan played a significant part in persuading the Chamberlain government of the need to "contain" Germany by building a "Peace front" of states in both Western and Eastern Europe and raised the perception in the Chamberlain government in 1939 that German policies were a threat to the UK.

The Anglo-German Naval Agreement (AGNA) of 18 June 1935 was a naval agreement between the United Kingdom and Germany regulating the size of the "Kriegsmarine" in relation to the Royal Navy.

英德海军协定是英国和纳粹德国于1935年6月18日就两国海军军备力量所签订的条约。


Pre-accession.

Merneptah was probably the thirteenth son of Ramesses II. This is a result of the latter's advanced age and the fact that he outlived many of his heirs (In his 90s, Ramesses was one of the oldest pharaohs in Egyptian history, if not the oldest). By year 40 of Ramesses II, Merneptah had been promoted to Overseer of the Army, and in year 55 of Ramesses II, Merneptah was officially proclaimed heir and crown prince as Ramesses celebrated his eightieth birthday. After becoming heir, Merneptah took on new responsibilities in administration, mainly becoming prince regent for his elderly and perhaps senile father for the last twelve years of the king's life.

Chronology.

According to one reading of contemporary historical records, Merneptah ruled Egypt for almost ten years from late July or early August 1213 BC until his death on 2 May 1203 BC. Alternatively, astronomical calculations of a potentially reported annular eclipse () that precedes Merneptah's Canaanite campaign against the Israelites place the beginning of his reign in 1209 or 1210 BC.

Campaigns.

Merneptah had to carry out several military campaigns during his reign. In year 5 he fought against the Libyans, who— with the assistance of the Sea Peoples— were threatening Egypt from the West. Merneptah led a victorious six-hour battle against a combined Libyan and Sea People force at the city of Perire, probably located on the western edge of the Delta. His account of this campaign against the Sea Peoples and Libu is described in prose on a wall beside the sixth pylon at Karnak, which states:  Later in the inscription, Merneptah receives news of the attack:  In the Athribis Stele, in the garden of Cairo Museum, it states "His majesty was enraged at their report, like a lion", assembled his court and gave a rousing speech. Later he dreamed he saw Ptah handing him a sword and saying "Take thou (it) and banish thou the fearful heart from thee." When the bowmen went forth, says the inscription, "Amun was with them as a shield." After six hours the surviving Nine Bows threw down their weapons, abandoned their baggage and dependents, and ran for their lives. Merneptah states that he defeated the invasion, killing 6,000 soldiers and taking 9,000 prisoners. To be sure of the numbers, among other things, he took the penises of all uncircumcised enemy dead and the hands of all the circumcised, from which history learns that the Ekwesh were circumcised, a fact causing some to doubt they were Greek.  There is also an account of the same events in the form of a poem from the Merneptah Stele, widely known as the "Israel Stele", which makes reference to the supposed utter destruction of "Israel" in a campaign prior to his 5th year, in Canaan: "Israel has been wiped out...its seed is no more." This is the first recognised ancient Egyptian record of the existence of Israel--"not as a country or city, but as a tribe" or people.

Succession.

Merneptah was already an elderly man in his late 60s, if not early 70s, when he assumed the throne. Merneptah moved the administrative center of Egypt from Piramesse (Pi-Ramesses), his father's capital, back to Memphis, where he constructed a royal palace next to the temple of Ptah. This palace was excavated in 1915 by the University of Pennsylvania Museum, led by Clarence Stanley Fisher.  Merneptah's successor, Seti II, was a son of Queen Isetnofret. However, Seti II's accession to the throne was not unchallenged: a rival king named Amenmesse, who was either another son of Merneptah by Takhat or, much less likely, of Ramesses II, seized control of Upper Egypt and Kush during the middle of Seti II's reign. Seti was able to reassert his authority over Thebes in his fifth year, only after he overcame Amenmesse. It is possible that before seizing Upper Egypt, Amenmesse had been known as Messuy and had been viceroy of Kush.

Mummy.

Merneptah suffered from arthritis and atherosclerosis and died an old man after a reign which lasted for nearly a decade. Merneptah was originally buried within tomb KV8 in the Valley of the Kings, but his mummy was not found there. In 1898 it was located along with eighteen other mummies in the mummy cache found in the tomb of Amenhotep II (KV35) by Victor Loret. Merneptah's mummy was taken to Cairo and eventually unwrapped by Dr. G. Elliott Smith on July 8, 1907. Dr. Smith notes that: The body is that of an old man and is 1 meter 714 millimeters in height. Merneptah was almost completely bald, only a narrow fringe of white hair (now cut so close as to be seen only with difficulty) remaining on the temples and occiput. A few short (about 2 mill) black hairs were found on the upper lip and scattered, closely clipped hairs on the cheeks and chin. The general aspect of the face recalls that of Ramesses II, but the form of the cranium and the measurements of the face much more nearly agree with those of his [grand]father, Seti the Great.

Merneptah or Merenptah (reigned July or August 1213 BC – May 2, 1203 BC) was the fourth pharaoh of the Nineteenth Dynasty of Ancient Egypt. He ruled Egypt for almost ten years from late July or early August 1213 BC until his death on May 2, 1203 BC, according to contemporary historical records. He was the thirteenth son of Ramesses II and only came to power because all his older brothers, including his full brother Khaemwaset or Khaemwase, had died. By the time he ascended to the throne, he was probably around seventy years old. His throne name was "Ba-en-re Mery-netjeru", which means "The Soul of Ra, Beloved of the Gods".

麦伦普塔(英语:Merneptah)古埃及新王国时期第十九王朝的第四任法老。(约公元前1213年7月或8月—约公元前1203年5月2日在位),作为拉美西斯二世第十三子,由于与之较长的十二位兄弟早于其父去世而得以继承王位。即位时已近六旬,父王统治后期,埃及的战备已经废弛,利比亚人逐渐进入三角洲西部地区,进攻埃及的领土。约公元前1209年前后,一些被迫离开小亚细亚和爱琴海附近在中东停泊的海上民族与利比亚人联合,企图入侵埃及位于三角洲的行政与宗教中心孟斐斯和要地赫利奥波利斯。此事为其所获知后,他立即率军与前者作战。同年春天,在弓箭手、步兵与战车兵的紧密配合下,经过6小时激烈交战后歼敌近9400余人,取得了对利比亚人及海上民族的胜利,成功地抗御了来自外部势力对埃及的威胁。埃及危险解除后,他铭刻4块碑文作为纪念。这些碑铭包括《以色列石碑》,叙述了其在巴勒斯坦镇压叛乱的经过,并将以色列人作为其所击败的民族之一。这一史实在《出埃及记》和《士师记》中得到了反映。同时他还新建了宫殿。他的陵墓已发掘,其木乃伊得到确认。