text:
Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals/2021/November

Minecraft assets and blocks copyright
I would like to make a Minecraft strategy guide, or if already made, add onto it. I believe that Minecraft is All Rights Reserved and is not to be used for commercial use according to https://account.mojang.com/documents/commercial_guidelines. But what if I take screenshots of Minecraft, but with a Public Domain resource pack? Like this? Maybe then I could take screenshots and upload them here? - Red-back spider (discuss • contribs) 21:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You could try uploading images to WikiBooks directly, instead of to commons, using the same sort of rationale Wikipedia uses for images such as wikipedia:File:Minecraft_explore_landscape.png. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 06:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Xs zhang6

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikibooks, Xs zhang6!

 First steps tutorial Wikibooks is for collaborative development of free textbooks.

You do not need technical skills to contribute. You can easily change most books. Please introduce yourself, and let us know what interests you.

If you already contribute at other Wikimedia projects, our Wikimedia Orientation should quickly get you started. (Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

  Getting help   Made a mistake?   Goodies, tips and tricks
 * Read the Using Wikibooks book for a friendly introduction to the project, or our help pages for more information.
 * You can get friendly help from the community in the user assistance room or our IRC channel.
 * Upload freely licensed files to Wikimedia Commons. You may request permission to upload fair use files locally. Please include author and source information and a non-free use rationale for non-free files.
 * You can restore a previously saved version.
 * Pages should follow the  naming convention.
 * Need to rename a page? Use the move tab (is available once your account is 4 days old - until then, ask for help).
 * To request a page be deleted, add to the top of the page.
 * Was a page you made deleted? Please read the deletion policy, and check the deletion log to find out why. Also check the RFD archives if applicable. You can request undeletion at WB:RFU, or ask the administrator who deleted the page.
 * Please fill in the edit summary and preview your edits before saving.
 * Sign your name on discussion pages by typing ~~~~
 * User scripts can make many tasks easier. Look at the Gadgets tab of my preferences; check off the boxes for the scripts you want, and hit save!

Thanks for your contributions -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Xs zhang6


text:
User talk:Taxiarchis Fiskatoris

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikibooks, Taxiarchis Fiskatoris!

 First steps tutorial Wikibooks is for collaborative development of free textbooks.

You do not need technical skills to contribute. You can easily change most books. Please introduce yourself, and let us know what interests you.

If you already contribute at other Wikimedia projects, our Wikimedia Orientation should quickly get you started. (Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

  Getting help   Made a mistake?   Goodies, tips and tricks
 * Read the Using Wikibooks book for a friendly introduction to the project, or our help pages for more information.
 * You can get friendly help from the community in the user assistance room or our IRC channel.
 * Upload freely licensed files to Wikimedia Commons. You may request permission to upload fair use files locally. Please include author and source information and a non-free use rationale for non-free files.
 * You can restore a previously saved version.
 * Pages should follow the  naming convention.
 * Need to rename a page? Use the move tab (is available once your account is 4 days old - until then, ask for help).
 * To request a page be deleted, add to the top of the page.
 * Was a page you made deleted? Please read the deletion policy, and check the deletion log to find out why. Also check the RFD archives if applicable. You can request undeletion at WB:RFU, or ask the administrator who deleted the page.
 * Please fill in the edit summary and preview your edits before saving.
 * Sign your name on discussion pages by typing ~~~~
 * User scripts can make many tasks easier. Look at the Gadgets tab of my preferences; check off the boxes for the scripts you want, and hit save!

Thanks for your contributions -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Taxiarchis Fiskatoris


text:
User:Cast123456

Hi, Welcome to my page! I am passionate about Cooking apart from my Business profession.

title: User:Cast123456


text:
User talk:Cast123456

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikibooks, Cast123456!

 First steps tutorial Wikibooks is for collaborative development of free textbooks.

You do not need technical skills to contribute. You can easily change most books. Please introduce yourself, and let us know what interests you.

If you already contribute at other Wikimedia projects, our Wikimedia Orientation should quickly get you started. (Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

  Getting help   Made a mistake?   Goodies, tips and tricks
 * Read the Using Wikibooks book for a friendly introduction to the project, or our help pages for more information.
 * You can get friendly help from the community in the user assistance room or our IRC channel.
 * Upload freely licensed files to Wikimedia Commons. You may request permission to upload fair use files locally. Please include author and source information and a non-free use rationale for non-free files.
 * You can restore a previously saved version.
 * Pages should follow the  naming convention.
 * Need to rename a page? Use the move tab (is available once your account is 4 days old - until then, ask for help).
 * To request a page be deleted, add to the top of the page.
 * Was a page you made deleted? Please read the deletion policy, and check the deletion log to find out why. Also check the RFD archives if applicable. You can request undeletion at WB:RFU, or ask the administrator who deleted the page.
 * Please fill in the edit summary and preview your edits before saving.
 * Sign your name on discussion pages by typing ~~~~
 * User scripts can make many tasks easier. Look at the Gadgets tab of my preferences; check off the boxes for the scripts you want, and hit save!

Thanks for your contributions -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cast123456


text:
User talk:Mohammed ndagi usman

--Xania   talk 01:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mohammed ndagi usman


text: Konkani/Colors

title: Konkani/Colors


text:
User talk:Kazel (usurped)

Request for usurpation
Hello,. A request has been made via SRUC (metawiki) to usurp, or "take over", your username because another user would like to use it to edit.

If you do not object to being renamed to a new username in order for another user to use the name you currently have, please log in and post a reply here saying so (you may also tell us what username you would like to be renamed to, or we will provide you with a generic one) or use Special:GlobalRenameRequest.

If you do nothing : the request may be filled shortly, and your account will be moved to a generic username. You may request that it be moved to a new username of your choice at any time.

If you object to being renamed : please log in and make an edit to this page clearly stating that you object to usurpation. Any objection on your part will prevent usurpation.

Please note that even if your current username is usurped, you can still edit and your data will not be lost; your preferences, watchlist, and other user settings will be transferred to a new username.

Thank you for your time.

--Superpes15 (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kazel (usurped)


text:
User talk:122.56.79.25

Changed you made to NCEA Level 1 Science/Life processes have been undone because you remove significant content from the page and didn't leave an edit summary.--Xania   talk 00:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Warning
--Xania   talk 02:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:122.56.79.25


text:
User talk:2A00:23C7:F10C:AA00:C0FC:D4CF:FD83:A932

--Xania   talk 00:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


text:
User talk:2800:200:F008:AE0C:1DFD:3AC5:9A87:ABC6

--Xania   talk 00:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Mrdigorno

Your recent edits to Classical Mechanics/Lagrange Theory have been reverted because you removed a large amount of text without explaining your edits in the Edit Summary field. Please use the Edit Summary to explain your edits - especially if you are making significant changes.--Xania   talk 04:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mrdigorno


text:
User talk:71.85.148.33

A page you created recently, Tatargyz Alphabet, has been deleted. The page did not seem to be part of a book. Articles should be written on Wikipedia, not Wikibooks. Additionally, there is no language called Tatargyz. Please see Using Wikibooks for information about what Wikibooks is all about and how to add content here.--Xania   talk 04:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:71.85.148.33


text:
Transportation Deployment Casebook/2022/Puerto Rico

Streetcar
Streetcars are vehicles that run on pre-laid tracks on streets. Initially, streetcars were horse-drawn, but they evolved into steam-powered or electric-powered vehicles with the invention of steam engines and combustion engines. They were a popular form of public transit before automobiles and trains. Streetcars were known for their low rolling resistance due to steel wheels on steel rails and the simple guidance mechanism provided by flanges. People used them to travel around cities.

Transport before streetcar
Before the emergence of streetcars, walking was the primary mode of transportation within cities. Other options included horse-drawn carriages and wagons, which shared some similarities with streetcars in transporting people. However, they were less favored due to the lack of scheduling and dependency on pavement conditions.

Emergence of streetcar
The concept of streetcars originated in the early 1800s, but the first commercial streetcar was introduced by an American, John Stephenson, in 1832. Streetcar technology was similar to that of wagons but featured a fixed truck underneath, which required knowledge of ironworks at the time. The initial design of streetcars consisted of a single carriage with a capacity of 6-12 people, and it was driven by multiple horses. At the peak of the streetcar era, they became electric-powered and had larger capacities, which largely depended on the number of carriages.

Market development
The initial market for streetcars aimed to enable owners to transport their customers to their shops. Over time, streetcar owners recognized the potential of their service and began expanding routes to serve more areas. Builders and engineers focused on improving streetcar efficiency. For example, John Stephenson reduced carriage weight by half compared to the initial design and increased the number of horses from two to four.

Growth of streetcar
At the time, streetcars were the best option for people to travel within cities. The growth of streetcars was initially slow, as their value did not justify the cost. However, as engineers and builders improved the design and reduced the capital required, streetcars became a popular choice. Concurrently, investors were willing to risk their capital to build their own streetcar routes. The influx of private sector involvement led to traffic management and maintenance issues, as there was no centralized system. Consequently, local authorities often required streetcar owners to maintain road pavements regularly and allowed them to charge a flat fee for ticket sales as payment for maintenance. However, this policy resulted in a fixed ticket price for every streetcar system, causing problems for passengers who had to switch streetcars to reach their destination due to the lack of a centralized system. This issue was eventually resolved when local authorities took over the assets and maintained them using tax revenue. This move faced some opposition at the time, as it was seen as a step towards socialism.

Quantitative analysis
=== McGraw Electric Railway Manual - The Red Book of American Street Railway Investment ===

General information
A quantitative analysis was conducted on the growth of the streetcar system in Puerto Rico. The parameter focused on in this analysis was the track length of streetcars recorded in the McGraw Electric Railway Manual - The Red Book of American Street Railway Investment. The earliest record of streetcar tracks dates back to 1902. However, streetcars were already established in Puerto Rico in the 1880s during the Spanish colonization era. Puerto Rico was surrendered to the United States after the Spanish-American War in 1898. The streetcar system before the surrender was managed by Spanish investors who never submitted their information to the McGraw Electric Railway Manual. Therefore, the analysis only includes streetcar systems with records in the McGraw Electric Railway Manual.

World War 1
The railway system in Puerto Rico was heavily affected by World War 1 in 1914. Tracks were significantly damaged, requiring reconstruction and recovery to revive the entire streetcar system. However, some tracks were not economically viable to be reconstructed, resulting in a considerable drop in track length after 1914.

Results
A regression study was conducted on the track length. A three-parameter logistic function was used:

S(t) = Smax/[1+exp(-b(t-ti)]

where:

 * S(t) is the status measure (e.g., passenger-km traveled)
 * t is time (usually in years),
 * ti is the inflection time (year in which 1/2 Smax is achieved),
 * Smax is the saturation status level (choose the maximum length of the streetcar system recorded in the data),
 * b is a coefficient to be estimated.

The results were split into two categories: including data after 1914 and excluding data after 1914.

Discussion
The analysis including data after 1914 is invalid due to the low R^2 and an intercept year of 1919, which does not make sense. This result is reasonable because there was a drastic drop in data after 1914. The regression study assumes the number always increases as the year increases; thus, it is reasonable for the R^2 to be this low. However, the analysis excluding data after 1914 is valid. The R^2 is 0.8, which, although not high, shows a strong correlation of data. The t-statistic of the data is 6.77


text: User talk:Antimony12

title: User talk:Antimony12


text:
User:CodeAres Global IT Solutions

What are the advantages of ERP Solution?

Human resource. A modern ERP solution can help your HR managers to improve several niches of their work. First of all, these are payrolls and staff performance estimation. Second of all, the system allows to advance the process of talent acquisition due to the information the platform provides recruits with. Planning. If you are applying a custom ERP solution which uses Big Data analytics, the planning issue won’t bother you that much. Such analytics system tracks the history of every event that happened in any department. It can create a productivity chart based on the finished work and make a reasonable plan for every department and each person in detail. Better inventory management. Inventory issues are one of the most crucial in any company. A well adjusted ERP system helps to conduct a stable inventory level which is needed specifically for your company. Reports. If you choose an ERP system with the ability to create reports automatically, you can save up to 50% of all working time. That’s right, this is the time needed to create all the reports manually. Trust me, the biggest part of your staff would say huge “thank you” if you provide them with an automotive solution for reporting. If I haven’t persuaded you that ERP is a really cool system for your business, then look at this picture. Here are all the spheres which ERP platform concerns, optimises and improves, as a result. It is clear that you cannot choose the perfect turnkey solution specifically for your business because every firm and company is unique and has its own peculiarities. And here you have two options. The first one is to agree on the out-of-the-box platform which costs less but doesn’t fit all you criteria. The second option is to order a custom solution. Such a system will be created specifically for your business bust will cost you more and will need some time for the development and testing processes. Anyway, it’s only up to you what option to choose, my opinion is that it is definitely worth it to try.

title: User:CodeAres Global IT Solutions


text:
Rust for the Novice Programmer/Introduction

Introduction
Welcome to Rust for the Novice Programmer! In the introduction, you will gain some context for the concepts you will learn in the following chapters. Don't worry if you don't understand bits and pieces of it. Learning some portions will help you grasp ideas as you move forward!

What is Programming?
Programming is writing programs that instruct a computer to do a specific task. However, computers are both complicated and rudimentary: they don't understand normal human language very well because our languages are imprecise and inaccurate. Therefore, we must use a language that is precise and clear to communicate our exact intent to computers. This idea is where programming languages come in. They provide a way for us to lay out instructions on how we want a computer to perform. However, new programmers must learn them from scratch since they are not natural languages. There are many programming languages, each with advantages and disadvantages. In this guide, we will focus on learning the Rust programming language.

What is Rust?
Rust is a modern programming language designed for performance and safety. You may see this tagline often, but what does it mean?

Modern
Rust is considered 'modern' because of its recent development history. It began development in 2006 and became stable in 2015. In programming terms, the promise of stability is essential - it means that your old programs won't break due to language updates. Despite being stable for some time, most programmers believe Rust to be a modern language. What gives?

Well, it can take a long time to build up an ecosystem. A programming language is only as valuable as the tools surrounding it, and sprouting programming languages often need more tooling.

However, these newer languages have their benefits, too. With decades of history behind us, programmers can design more accessible language features, learning from past projects' successes and failures. With that concept in mind, old languages tend to be stuck with old ideas. The moment they become stable, removing any language features that are confusing or harmful is impossible. By taking it slow, Rust could learn from history and create a comfortable language.

Performant
When people say that Rust is fast and 'performant', they refer to the mechanics of the language. Created by Mozilla as a systems programming language, Rust was always intended to be quick. However, think of all the vast places where computers control our world: computers serve websites, render 3D graphics, and perform scientific research. All of these tasks benefit from high performance!

For these systemic tasks, Rust is an excellent choice of language. It can reduce energy usage, helping to foster a better climate and reducing server costs for large businesses. Everyone wins!

Safe
The 'safety' of a program is critical in many contexts. Computers power systems such as vehicles, banking, and personal information worldwide. Not only is it imperative that these programs work, but also that they remain intact during critical situations or potential cyberattacks. Rust has various concepts that help ensure your programs always work as expected.

Moving On
All that said, we hope you have fun! Programming can be fun and engaging. You don't need to get caught up in these concepts when you start. Now, let's learn how to get Rust installed on your computer!

Next: Getting Setup


text:
Infrastructure Past, Present, and Future Casebook/Big Dig

This casebook is a case study on the Big Dig by Shaheer Malik, Evan Price, Maeen Aljaieed, and Gurfateh Singh as part of the Infrastructure Past, Present and Future: GOVT 490-004 (Synthesis Seminar for Policy & Government) / CEIE 499-001 (Special Topics in Civil Engineering) Spring 2022 course at George Mason University's Schar School of Policy and Government and the Volgenau School of Engineering Sid and Reva Dewberry Department of Civil, Environmental, and Infrastructure Engineering.

DISCLAIMER: The information presented in this wikibook is for academic purposes only and has no particular goal beyond presenting what has been learned. Any views presented in this wikibook are the views of their respective writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of our professor, Dr. Gifford, or that of our institution, George Mason University.

=Summary=

The Central Artery/ Tunnel Project, famously known as the “Big Dig”, is located in Boston, Massachusetts, in the United States. Originally proposed in the 1970s, the project was supposed to improve traffic flow and congestion and to create large green spaces in Boston. The project included moving the 6-lane elevated I-93 interstate highway, also called the central artery, underground by constructing an underground expressway tunnel, extending the I-90 interstate through South Boston, across the Boston Harbor, to Logan International Airport, and building the Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge over the Charles River for I-93. The I-93 tunnel is now called the Thomas P. O’neill Jr. Tunnel and the underwater tunnel extending I-90 to Logan International Airport is now called the Ted Williams Tunnel. The project was awarded to Bechtel Corporation and Parsons Brinckerhoff Joint Venture by the Massachusetts Highway Department to manage the massive project. The ground was broken in 1982 and construction was meant to be completed in 1998 and was estimated to cost around 2.8 billion dollars. The Big Dig pushed the boundaries of innovation and engineering and set foot to take on massive feats that had never been done before. The project, however, ran into many problems and was surrounded by controversy and local pushback. Many parts of the original design proved to be insufficient and had to be redesigned. All the changes led to massive delays and an enormous budget overrun. The project was finally complete in 2007 and ended up costing an astonishing $14.6 billion but with interest owed, it will end up costing a total of $22 billion dollars to be paid by 2038.

=Annotated List of Key Actors and Institutions=

The Big Dig Project was an enormous task and had countless people and organizations that had a stake in it. Due to the massive size of the project, the design and construction was broken into dozens of smaller sub projects awarded to subcontractors. Some of the major stakeholders in the central Artery/ Tunnel Project include:

Private Sector Actors and Institutions
Bechtel Corporation and Parsons Brinckerhoff Joint Venture

Joint venture of Bechtel Corporation and Parsons Brinckerhoff, now WPS USA, were hired by the Massachusetts Highway Department in 1985 to manage the design, construction, cost estimates and budget forecasts of the project. [6 ]

Bechtel Corporation: is an American engineering, procurement, construction, and project management company founded in 1898 and is headquartered in Reston, VA. [7 ]

Parsons Brinckerhoff: now known as WPS USA, is an engineering and design firm founded in 1885 based in New York, NY. [8 ]

Frederick P. Salvucci, was the state’s Secretary of Transportation. He advocated for the Big Dig and the need for it to be built for many years. He is considered the “Man behind the Big Dig” and the project wouldn’t have happened if it wasn't for his efforts. [10 ]

Robert Albee, was the state’s Director of Construction Services. To oversee the design and engineering for the Central Artery Tunnel Project, he left his job as Massachusetts chief engineer in 1985 to take this new position and stayed the director till 1998. [9 ]

Public Sector Actors and Institutions
Massachusetts Highway Department (MDH): Was the owner of the Big Dig Project from inception to 1997. MHD was responsible to oversee the project in its entirety. [14 ]

Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MassPike): MassPike took over the project from MDH in 1997 and assumed all responsibility for maintaining it into the future. It is the current owner and Operator of the Central Artery/ Tunnel Project. It maintains and repairs the project and is responsible for its operating expenses and repair budgets. [11 ]

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): FHWA was the primary funding agency for the Big Dig and was responsible for oversight of the project budget and finance plan. [14 ]

Massachusetts General Court: At the beginning of the project the General Court was responsible for the required funding remaining after what the funding provided by the FHWA. [11 ]

=The Original Plan= Boston’s Big Dig project (also known as the Central Artery/Tunnel Project) began with a series of highway-expansion plans to solve the city’s increasing traffic and economic problems. The city of Boston is a history rich city with a road system that was designed before the automobile. The city contained a highway system opened in 1950 which featured a six-lane two-way highway linking southeast with the north and offered many offramps to access the city. This existing expressway drove right into the middle of downtown Boston with a series of high, above ground ramps in the middle of the city. This expressway was designed to contain 74,000 cars per day but was containing upwards of 200,000 cars per day which led to nightmare traffic congestion. The project was divided into two major components: moving the 6-lane elevated I-93 highway underground into a state-of-the-art underground expressway (named Thomas P. O’neill Jr. Tunnel) and extending I-90 through an underwater tunnel (named Ted Williams Tunnel) from South Boston to Logan International Airport. Other projects were also completed as part of the Big Dig including the construction of the Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Memorial Bridge over the Charles River and the Rose Kennedy Greenway which is open spaced green parks to replace the old above-ground I-93 expressway. There were also other smaller projects with general improvements to the existing infrastructure in Boston.

In March 1982, Boston was awarded $2 billion in federal funding. The original cost estimate, made in 1985, was $2 billion (costs later soared to $14 billion). The plan was significant since it would be the most extensive urban highway project in the United States since President Eisenhower’s interstate highway program.

The original cost estimate was 2.8 billion to start construction in 1982 and finishing in 1998. However, the project wouldn’t be complete until 2007 with a cost of 14.6 billion but with interest being paid the total cost is 22 billion and won’t be paid until 2038. The Boston Globe reported that a billion dollars of the project’s budget was lost due to design flaws.

=Why Do the Big Dig?= Because of the city’s congestion, more automobiles were on the road than the roads were designed to handle, resulting in deadly delays and slow travel. All traffic east, west, north, and south used the central artery. The Central Artery was designed to have 74,000 cars however by the 1990s it had upwards of 190,000 cars per day. This led to a 500-million-dollar loss to traffic jams. Traffic was stuck in the Central Artery upwards of 14 hours per day. Over 5,000 workers were involved in the Big Dig. In building the Big Dig, there was a 62% decrease in vehicle hours of travel on I-90 from 38,000 hours per day to 14,800 hours. Additionally, Carbon monoxide levels have reduced by 12% since its completion in 2007 since cars are not stuck in traffic. With the Big Dig, the greenbelt of 27 acres parks and open space where the old expressway stood was opened up which drastically changed the scene of the city and improved businesses. The tunnel allowed the city of Boston to reunite with the north neighborhoods that were previously separated by the above ground highway system. This separation caused economic harm to the businesses present there. Today, the Shawmut Peninsula is one of the most sought after urban real estate locations in the country.

The project’s original purpose was to improve traffic flow in the central artery and to create large green spaces to decrease pollution. Furthermore, the project’s objectives were to increase local and regional economic activity, improve pedestrian and cycling safety, open up new and under-utilized sections of the region for development, and improve the general quality of life for inhabitants in the surrounding districts (Greiman & Sclar, 2019).

=Map=

=Design=

The Big Dig or the Central Artery/ Tunnel Project is commonly considered as a single project, however, the project included three major individual construction projects in the center of the city of Boston. The Big Dig encompassed countless small projects and tasks, however the three major undertakings included:

Depressing the Central Artery

The original I-93, also known as the central artery, was a 6-lane elevated highway that went through downtown Boston. This highway was depressed underground by constructing the Thomas P O’Neill Tunnel.The tunnel is 1.5 miles long and accommodates 4 lanes of traffic. Before construction could begin, utility relocations and mitigation efforts had to be performed.[12 ] To allow daily life to continue as is, slurry walls had to be constructed so that the existing elevated artery could still be functioning while the excavation for the tunnel took place. The Big Dig represents the largest use of the slurry wall technique in North America. The slurry walls were eventually incorporated into the permanent structure of the tunnel. Once the construction of the tunnel was complete, the elevated highway was demolished, with many new parks and green spaces built in its place. [14 ]

Extending I-90 through South Boston, across the Boston Harbor, to Logan International Airport

This endeavor consisted of constructing the Ted Williams Tunnel and the Fort Point Channel Tunnel. The Ted Williams Tunnel connects South Boston to Logan Airport. To build this tunnel, 12 binocular-shaped steel tunnel sections were built in the Bethlehem Shipyard in Maryland. They were each longer than a football field and were delivered using barges or floating vessels. Each section cost $1.5 million dollars. Once they were at the Black Falcon Pier, the sections were equipped with steel-reinforced concrete walls and roadbed. The harbor was drained and then a 0.75 mile trench was dug out. The tubes were then lowered into the trench and connected.[12 ] At the Fort Point Channel, the tubes could not be barged in due to existing bridges over the channel. This led the engineers to instead build a concrete immersed tube tunnel on-site. A casting basin was constructed using steel cofferdams to be able to cast the tunnel boxes. Once the tunnel boxes were dry, the basin was flooded by removing the cofferdams.[13 ] This allowed the tunnels to be floated out to be lowered into the trench that was dug out in the channel. The process was repeated to construct and transfer the remaining two tunnel boxes. All the tubes were then connected to form the tunnel under Fort Point Channel.

Building the Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge over the Charles River

Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Bridge is the world's widest cable-stayed bridge. [12 ] The bridge is named after an American colonist and a civil rights activist. It is located in Boston, MA and was built in 2003 at a cost of $100 million [20 ]. The bridge is owned by Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, designed by Christian Menn, a Swiss engineer, and constructed by Bechtel/Parsons Brinkerhoff. [21 ] This bridge is 1432 ft long and has 10 lanes. [12 ] Eight of these lanes pass through the legs of the twin towers, and the other two lanes are cantilevered on the east side. It was built as part of the Big Dig project and replaces the existing deteriorated bridge that crossed the Charles River. The bridge has an average deck width of 183 ft and a structure length of 1407 ft. [20 ] Additionally, it has the following span length (ft): 112/130/745/250/170 [20 ] Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Bridge is connected to the Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Tunnel on one side of the river, and to Route 1 and I-93 on the other side of the river. Furthermore, this bridge holds the distinction of being the “first hybrid cable-stayed bridge in the United States” [12 ], as the frame of the bridge is made up of steel and concrete.

=Timeline=

=Risk= The implementation of adequate project management plans, techniques, and practices is vital for the overall success of the project. The construction of the megaprojects comes with inherent risks and Big Dig being one of the most technically challenging projects in the United States had several risks associated with it. The complexity of the project is evident from the fact that it includes, “the deepest underwater connection, the largest slurry-wall application in North America, unprecedented ground freezing, extensive deep-soil mixing programs to stabilize Boston’s soils, the world’s widest cable-stayed bridge, and the largest tunnel-ventilation system in the world” [3 ]. Extensive risk assessments and environmental feasibility studies were therefore conducted before the commencement of the project.

Several programs and innovative tools were used to mitigate the overall risk associated with the Central Artery/Tunnel Project. The Safety and Health Awards for Recognized Excellence (SHARE) program integrated risk management practices to reduce and prevent the occurrence of accidents. Additionally, the Community and Business Artery Public Awareness Program had several meetings to address project-related issues [4 ]. The owner-controlled insurance program (OCIP) was also implemented, which provided coverage for contractors and designers [4 ]. In addition to the OCIP, an integrated audit program was adopted which identified and mitigated project delays [3 ]. The project still faced several issues regardless of implementing all of the risk management practices. These issues contributed to the significant increase in the overall cost of the project.

There were tremendous risks associated with the construction of the Big Dig and some of these risks were difficult to identify in a timely manner. These unanticipated risks detrimentally impacted the cost, schedule, and scope of the project. Additionally, the last drawing package was provided to the bidders only five days before the contract was awarded and consisted of plans and drawings which were considerably incomplete [2 ]. As a result, it became impossible to quantify potential risks during the planning stage of the project and to accurately determine the cost and the schedule.

The Big Dig Project did not achieve project deliverables and goals in a timely manner because the initial “project management plan was based on flawed engineering specifications” [1 ]. This is evident by the fact, that only aerial photographs and “as-built” drawings were used for the preliminary site assessment instead of surveying the central artery. According to Anthony Lancellotti, an engineering manager at Bechtel, the company undertook a calculated risk by not surveying the site as the available drawing and photographs seemed sufficient for the project [2 ]. Contract documents show that this undertaken risk resulted in several change orders and claims [3 ].

The excavation of the site leads to the discovery of uncharted utilities, 150-year-old revolutionary-era sites, and weak soil. To prevent the utilities from getting damaged the Big Dig utility program relocated the utility lines [3 ]. The risk of damaging the utilities was still high because not all of the utilities were shown on “as-built” drawings. Additionally, a high risk was associated with damaging the infrastructure due to the building’s foundations being in close proximity to the construction site [3 ]. Any damage to the infrastructure had the potential of closing Boston’s major financial center and detrimentally impacting the region’s economy.

There were significant risks with respect to the construction and the installation of six concrete immersed tube tunnel sections under Fort Point Channel [5 ]. Virginia Greiman denotes that these sections were floated to their desired locations through the use of GPS [4 ]. Afterward, they were lowered below the surface of the channel and then supported by 110 steel reinforced caissons. These caissons and tubes were fitted together within 1/16 inch of perfection, therefore it meant there was no room for errors. There was also the risk of the tunnel section dislodging and collapsing on the existing subway, as these sections lie exactly 4 feet above the existing subway system. All of these risks were proactively managed by installing the tunnel section Line during the nonpeak hours and by doubling the insurance coverage. Furthermore, gates were installed to separate the subway line and the main train station, and barges with clay were also available nearby to quickly fill a potential leak in the tunnel wall [4 ].

=Things Gone Wrong= The original design of the Charlestown Bridge proposed the use of 30 meters 100 ft highway ramps which was sued by the city of Cambridge for redesign. This forced the planners to come up with an alternative redesign. The redesign completed by Swiss engineer Christian Menn featured the cable-stayed bridge 436 meters and 1432 ft. in length, which is the widest cable-stayed bridge in the country.

The biggest obstacle that the project faced was that it had to be completed without a single disturbance to traffic flowing above the ground, which meant no homes, business, or subway systems would be demolished, rerouted, or stopped. Local residents were not happy with the ongoing noise of the construction and protests to demand that a mandatory silence period be met. Local support for the project dimmed as time passed. This was compromised with a no construction period between 9PM to 5AM which affected the project’s deadline and caused a major delay for the completion. During the onset of the project, twelve I-90 connector steel sections were shipped out from Baltimore which needed to be matched exactly into the dugout trench in the tight-spaced and dark waters of the Boston Harbor. However, once they arrived the steel sections were three feet nine inches too short and did not completely fit in the floor of the harbor. The planners had to build a steel and concrete extension at the South Boston side to meet the short form steel box.

Next, the central artery I-93 was to be tunneled underground however, the soft earth mixed with landfills was unstable to drill so planners decided to build a horizontal tunnel to minimize risk. In building the support system, a 37-meter 120 ft deep concrete wall using a slurry technique to support the underground tunnel was built. 2.9  million cubic meters of concrete was used for the wall. However, contractors did not remove gravel and debris before pouring the concrete which caused thousands of leaks later on. This also led to several lawsuits for providing substandard materials for the project which resulted in six employees being arrested and charged with defrauding the US in which a 50-million-dollar settlement was reached.

Additionally, lighting fixtures that were installed in the tunnel were faulty and fell which cost 50 million dollars to replace. Furthermore, “Ginsu Guardrails” were safety rails within the tunnels with squared off edges that allegedly caused eight deaths of ejected victims of crash accidents. These guardrails were removed by the state but only on the curved sections of the path.

During the digging, colonial artifacts were found which led to a pause in the digging to allow the artifacts to be recovered. This led to significant delays in project deadlines. Environmentalists were concerned that the underground digging would disrupt the rat population underground, forcing them onto the surface.

Perhaps the worst of all was in 2006 when a 24-ton concrete paneling fell onto a passing car immediately killing the passenger and seriously injuring her driving husband. The concrete panel failing was due to the misuse of the epoxy glue which was not intended for long term use. In response, governor Mitt Romney ordered a full safety audit for the tunnel reopening all sections in June the following year.

Five years into the project, the tunnel had to be passed above the red line subway built in 1914 underneath the Fort Point Channel. The team excavated the existing channel until four feet remained to build 110 concrete foundations around the red line such that the tunnel was supported above it. The initial plan was to redirect the railway lines but that plan was quickly changed. In September of 2001, there was a massive leak in the tunnel section in Fort Point Channel causing 70,000 gallons of the Atlantic ocean in every minute. The most immediate threat was towards the tunnel section that was proximate to the red line subway which carried 218,000 commuters every day. The casting basin and tunnel were flooded to equalize the pressure from the leak and prevent the tunnel sections from becoming dislodged.

=Political Issues=

Acquiring Funding
Though many might argue that the Big Dig was an engineering solution that should not be politicized, the project was inevitably a highly political issue. Though the designing and logistics of the project were complex, getting enough political support to appropriate funds to the project added another layer of issues to the project.

The project was originally conceived in the 1970s, the brainchild of then Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis and Secretary of Transportation Frederick Salvucci, and both knew that Massachusetts would need federal funds to begin the project. The first attempt to gain financing for the project was in 1976, when then House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill inserted initial funding for the project into federal highway legislation. Despite this initial funding, the first ask for major federal funds to actually begin the project did not occur until more than decade later, in 1987. President Ronald Reagan greatly opposed the Big Dig, opposing it on financial grounds, stating that “...I remain firm in my pledge to the American taxpayers to speak out against such budgetary excesses…” |Source: and went on to veto highway legislation that included funding for the Big Dig. Despite this, the Senate overrode his veto, and the Big Dig was financed for the first time.

This was not the end of funding issues, however, and the initial funding would not come close to covering all the costs the Big Dig would eventually incur.

Political Opposition
The Big Dig was unpopular amongst many outside the project, particularly after the project began and the true cost of the project began to balloon. In the late 1990s, after the estimated cost of the project reached the ten billion mark and “a whopping $1 billion a mile”|Source:, opponents to Big Dig, primarily congressional Republicans, asked for a federal spending cap to be put in place.

A leading opponent of federal funding for the Big Dig was Virginia Representative Frank Wolf, who called on the US Department of Transportation to cap off federal Big Dig spending. He stated “...The cap would not be done in a way to hurt Massachusetts…” in 1996, a grave foreshadowing to the extensive debt the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would incur to complete the project.

In the end, federal opponents got their way. The US federal government would, around the turn of the millennium, no longer fund the Big Dig beyond what it had already provided in grants. Though the opposition never stopped the construction of the Big Dig - that was never their goal - the remaining responsibility was on Massachusetts and Boston entirely |Source:.

=Financing and Funding the Project - Cost Overruns=

The Big Dig was a completely publicly financed project, with a range of funding coming from state, federal and local sources in proportions that varied by year, administration and by the project’s outlook, and in amounts that ended up to never be enough. The project was intended to cost a mere six billion dollars when given final approval in 1990, 90% of that funding was to come from federal grants. An initial 755 million dollars was approved that year to begin the project, though almost immediately the beginning of construction was delayed. In fact, the project was already delayed since being originally proposed in the 80s, but the Reagan Administration delayed funding for the project. This resulted in the original cost estimate of six billion to already be inaccurate by 1990 The price tag only continued to inflate from there. From the original six billion dollar price tag, the total cost (including seven billion dollars in interest to be paid on debt eventually incurred by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) totals to be 22 billion dollars, which is project to be paid off at last in 2038. The cost overrun came from several areas.

Technical issues
The Big Dig was extraordinarily complex, requiring new techniques such as freezing the earth to safely tunnel or using slurry to construct the tunnel walls, as well as issues resulting from the construction, such as archeological examinations whenever the project ran into pieces of Boston’s history. There was also the issue of acquiring land for the project, though much of the project was on government owned property, frequently the project would require “staging areas” for large sections of the project, such as creating a casting area to manufacture tunnel sections on site.

Mitigations
Despite the benefits the project would eventually bring, the Big Dig was unpopular or heavily critiqued. This would include residents complaining about noise from the 24 hour construction or environmentalists complaining about destroyed wetlands. To mitigate these issues, the project spent nearly three billion dollars relieving various complaints, accommodating locals, or even, as Michael Fein of Johnson and Wales University provides an example of: “When the project destroyed wetlands, project managers agreed to build a park elsewhere.”

Projects like these, or installing soundproof windows, or improving streetscape because of a resident’s needs, cost millions of dollars each. Though a million dollars from a fifteen billion dollar project is almost a rounding error, many small projects began to add up.

Political Issues and Public Project Philosophy
Frederick Salvucci, the visionary and de facto leader of the project, credits the delays and ballooning costs to a change in administration and political philosophy in 1991, when Bill Weld became Governor of Massachusetts. Salvucci notes that, after the change in leadership, reconsiderations of the project’s scope and design, privatization of key actors in the project and what Salvucci described as a “...[lack] of capacity to make informed judgements”, led to delays, internal conflicts, and further impact studies that themselves delayed the project and added further costs.

Furthermore, Salvucci notes that once cost issues began to arise, the Weld administration resorted to “creative financing”, and, Salvucci claims, “[t]here was no honest disclosure of problems at the earliest possible moment to search for solutions, problems were hidden for as long as possible to the point in time that no options were available”. These delays, build up of problems, lack of project efficiency and organization due to restructuring and lack of transparency further added to the inflated cost, though an exact dollar estimate is unknown.

Another issue had to do with a change in philosophy of the process of the project. Whereas in the 1960s when the Central Artery was originally constructed, public officials and highway designers had no qualms with tearing down residences and dislocating 20,000 locals for the benefit of the project. This cheap, goal-driven process was not shared by those who sought to replace the Central Artery. They saw the philosophy of the original project as Machiavellian and sought to approach the replacement much more as a “friendly neighbor”. This meant: not disturbing traffic, not destroying private property that would otherwise make the project easier if it was removed, and maintaining the day to day routines of the city. The challenge was made: build a highway as you drive on it.

Redesigns
One final issue that led to the cost overruns was the constant redesigns that plagued the project from the start. Rather than settling on one design and committing to it, various actors involved in the project pressured, proposed or demanded minor to significant redesigns of various aspects of the project. One such example was the Federal Highway Administration threatening to cut off federal funds until the central artery was widened for future road demand. Some redesigns were political in nature, others were pragmatic, more were small and resulted from technical challenges, safety necessities or succumbing to resident demand. All in all, redesigns cost an additional three billion dollars.

Debt
On the issue of debt, Massachusetts has dug themselves quite a big hole, if you’ll excuse the pun. Particularly in the early years after the completion of the Big Dig, Massachusetts found itself into a precarious financial situation. With 22 billion in debt, the state was forced to take away funding from other projects to service bonds floated for the project. This led to a “kicking the can” situation, where other capital improvements are in desperate need of attention, and initiating those projects will require more debt to be floated. This led the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to be in a rather precarious situation, as they found themselves (in 2008) to have the highest debt per capita of any state, and it spends 38% of its highway budget on debt services, compared to a national median of 6%. The issues are troubling, however it does not appear as though the Commonwealth has capitulated under this debt.

=Local Concerns and Mitigation=

Despite the benefits to the environment, to traffic and to the urban fabric of Boston that the Big Dig promised, the project faced layers of opposition. Local residents complained about the noise and other disturbances caused by constant construction, day and night, for years on end. Environmentalists complained about various impacts construction would have on the environment. Businesses in Boston feared that construction or any delays to the highway the Big Dig was replacing would disrupt commercial traffic in the city.

These various groups had, through various mediums, the power to disrupt, delay or terminate the Big Dig as a project, despite the project having already begun. The actors behind the project could not allow this to happen, and with no easy solution to solve every groups complaints, the project had to resort to mitigations and promises. For locals, the Big Dig funded soundproofed windows and even new mattresses that absorbed vibrations from construction. For the environmentalists: green space on top of the highway tunnel, and using excavated soil to make a new harbor park in Boston. For businesses: early on the promise was made that the central artery would not be closed, ever, while construction was ongoing.

These various mitigations may seem preposterous and even crony, yet they worked. Despite the headaches caused by the construction of the project, political opposition and the occasional local adamantly opposing the project, “more than 80 percent of Boston residents and nearly two-thirds of state residents supported the Big Dig”, leading to continued support. One striking example of mitigation was nearly one billion dollars spent to rework the planned bridge that was opposed by residents, business owners and the City of Cambridge. Despite the fact that the bridge (likely) was perfectly fine, the project had to maintain popular support, and as a result the bridge was redesigned at great cost.

These various mitigations added up. In addition to the one billion spent on bridge reworking, the overall costs of mitigation added up to be a third of the Big Dig’s overall price tag, roughly five billion dollars.

One striking example of mitigation was nearly one billion dollars spent to rework the planned bridge that was opposed by residents, business owners and the City of Cambridge. Despite the fact that the bridge (likely) was perfectly fine, the project had to maintain popular support, and as a result the bridge was redesigned at great cost. These various mitigations added up. In addition to the one billion spent on bridge reworking, the overall costs of mitigation added up to be a third of the Big Dig’s overall price tag, roughly five billion dollars.

=Effects of the Big Dig=

The Big Dig met (and in some cases exceeded) its goals. Traffic flow was improved 62%, while saving nearly $170 million a year in reduced vehicle operating costs and reduced time spent in traffic. There has also been a marked improvement in air quality, with a 12% reduction in air pollution. This couples with the increased green space, with more than 315 acres of new park space open to the public where the Central Artery once ran.

The Big Dig has also seen improved investment in downtown Boston, particularly in the Back Bay and South Boston Seaport areas that were once cut off by the elevated Central Artery. Over $7 billion in urban investment has been committed to these areas, including 7,700 housing units, millions of square feet of commercial space and an estimated 43,000, compared to the construction of the Central Artery which displaced 20,000 residents during construction. The full benefits to the city are yet to be realized and will continue to unfold as long as the Big Dig is utilized and Boston exists as a city.

=Discussion Questions=
 * Was the Big Dig worth its cost?

 * Would Boston have been better off pursuing some other alternative?

 * What alternatives could have been proposed?

 * What should the Big Dig have done differently?

=Additional Readings=

From YouTube:
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eleScfXwwM0

This is a short documentary, primarily on the construction of the project. It does not go into detail about certain issues, but it provides a comprehensive overview of the project.

=References=

1) “Project Manager's Handbook.” Edited by David I Cleland and Lewis R Ireland, McGraw Hill, 2008, http://www.mim.ac.mw/books/Cleland's%20Project%20Manager's%20Handbook.pdf#page=254.

2) Lewis, Raphael, and Sean Murph. “Artery Errors Cost More than $1b.” Boston.com, The Boston Globe, 2003, http://archive.boston.com/globe/metro/packages/bechtel/.

3) Greiman, Virginia. “The Big Dig .” NASA, 2020, https://appel.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/469423main_ASK_39s_big_dig.pdf.

4) Greiman, Virginia A. Megaproject Management: Lessons On Risk and Project Management from the Big Dig. Wiley, 2013.

5) Commonwealth of Massachusetts. “The Big Dig: Facts and Figures.” Mass.gov, https://www.mass.gov/info-details/the-big-dig-facts-and-figures.

6) https://www.enr.com/articles/35354-state-sues-consultant-bechtelparsons-brinckerhoff-over-central-artery-costs

7) https://www.bechtel.com/

8) https://www.wsp.com/en-US/news/2017/wsp-parsons-brinckerhoff-to-operate-as-wsp-usa-in-the-united-states

9) https://www.concreteconstruction.net/projects/infrastructure/the-eighth-wonder-of-the-world_o

10) https://www.technologyreview.com/2004/07/01/101647/the-man-behind-the-big-dig/

11) https://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1211&context=br_rev

12) https://www.mass.gov/info-details/the-big-dig-tunnels-and-bridges

13) https://learning-oreilly-com.mutex.gmu.edu/library/view/megaproject-management-lessons/9781118416341/9781118416341c02.xhtml#c02

14) https://learning-oreilly-com.mutex.gmu.edu/library/view/megaproject-management-lessons/9781118416341/9781118416341c03.xhtml#c03

15) https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2015/12/29/years-later-did-big-dig-deliver/tSb8PIMS4QJUETsMpA7SpI/story.html.

16) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/24724718.2020.1742624

17) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eleScfXwwM0&t=1523s&ab_channel=louiscamero.

18) https://www.mass.gov/info-details/the-big-dig-project-background.

19) https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/2007/07/28/concrete-supplier-to-pay-50/52836345007/

20) https://www.aisc.org/nsba/prize-bridge-awards/prize-bridge-winners/leonard-p.-zakim-bunker-hill-bridge/

21) https://www.bostonpreservation.org/advocacy-project/leonard-p-zakim-bunker-hill-memorial-bridge


text: Afrikaans/Vocabulary/Animals

title: Afrikaans/Vocabulary/Animals


text:
User talk:195.194.86.150

____                  _               _____      _ _                   |  _ \                 | |             / ____|    | | |                  | |_) |_   _ _ __ _ __ | | ___ _   _  | |     ___ | | | __ _  __ _  ___  |  _ <| | | | '__| '_ \| |/ _ \ | | | | |    / _ \| | |/ _` |/ _` |/ _ \ | |_) | |_| | |  | | | | |  __/ |_| | | |___| (_) | | | (_| | (_| |  __/ |____/ \__,_|_|  |_| |_|_|\___|\__, |  \_____\___/|_|_|\__,_|\__, |\___|                                 __/ |                         __/ |                                     |___/                         |___/

Burnley Collage IP Address :)

/$$$$$$$                               /$$                            /$$$$$$            /$$ /$$                                                                                /$$  | $$                                             /$$  \ $$                                                                |  $$$$$$/                                            |  $$$$$$/                                                                 \______/                                              \______/
 * $$__ $$                              | $$                           /$$__  $$          | $$| $$
 * $$ \ $$ /$$   /$$  /$$$$$$  /$$$$$$$ | $$  /$$$$$$  /$$   /$$      | $$  \__/  /$$$$$$ | $$| $$  /$$$$$$   /$$$$$$   /$$$$$$
 * $$$$$$$ | $$ | $$ /$$__  $$| $$__  $$| $$ /$$__  $$| $$  | $$      | $$       /$$__  $$| $$| $$ |____  $$ /$$__  $$ /$$__  $$
 * $$__ $$| $$  | $$| $$  \__/| $$  \ $$| $$| $$$$$$$$| $$  | $$      | $$      | $$  \ $$| $$| $$  /$$$$$$$| $$  \ $$| $$$$$$$$
 * $$ \ $$| $$  | $$| $$      | $$  | $$| $$| $$_____/| $$  | $$      | $$    $$| $$  | $$| $$| $$ /$$__  $$| $$  | $$| $$_____/
 * _______/ \______/ |__/      |__/  |__/|__/ \_______/ \____  $$       \______/  \______/ |__/|__/ \_______/ \____  $$ \_______/
 * _______/ \______/ |__/      |__/  |__/|__/ \_______/ \____  $$       \______/  \______/ |__/|__/ \_______/ \____  $$ \_______/

title: User talk:195.194.86.150


text:
Cookbook:Steamed Salmon

Ingredients

 * Salmon
 * 250 ml boiling water
 * 2 tsp salt

Procedure

 * 1) Put your salmon in a pot.
 * 2) Add the boiling water and sprinkle with salt.
 * 3) Cover the pot, and steam over low heat until the flesh is just cooked.

title: Cookbook:Steamed Salmon


text:
User talk:Leonel Sohns

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikibooks, Leonel Sohns!

 First steps tutorial Wikibooks is for collaborative development of free textbooks.

You do not need technical skills to contribute. You can easily change most books. Please introduce yourself, and let us know what interests you.

If you already contribute at other Wikimedia projects, our Wikimedia Orientation should quickly get you started. (Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

  Getting help   Made a mistake?   Goodies, tips and tricks
 * Read the Using Wikibooks book for a friendly introduction to the project, or our help pages for more information.
 * You can get friendly help from the community in the user assistance room or our IRC channel.
 * Upload freely licensed files to Wikimedia Commons. You may request permission to upload fair use files locally. Please include author and source information and a non-free use rationale for non-free files.
 * You can restore a previously saved version.
 * Pages should follow the  naming convention.
 * Need to rename a page? Use the move tab (is available once your account is 4 days old - until then, ask for help).
 * To request a page be deleted, add to the top of the page.
 * Was a page you made deleted? Please read the deletion policy, and check the deletion log to find out why. Also check the RFD archives if applicable. You can request undeletion at WB:RFU, or ask the administrator who deleted the page.
 * Please fill in the edit summary and preview your edits before saving.
 * Sign your name on discussion pages by typing ~~~~
 * User scripts can make many tasks easier. Look at the Gadgets tab of my preferences; check off the boxes for the scripts you want, and hit save!

Thanks for your contributions -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Leonel Sohns


text:
User talk:Xenoborg21

Welcome, Xenoborg21!

If you have any questions, you can ask in the assistance reading room or possibly contact me personally.

--Xania   talk 01:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Xenoborg21


text:
Cookbook:Smoked Salmon

Smoked salmon consists of salt-cured salmon flavored, and sometimes cooked, with wood smoke.

Cold-smoked
After curing, the salmon is placed in a chamber into which wood smoke is allowed to build up away from the fire. The temperature of the chamber ranges from 60°F to 90°F (15°C to 32°C), which is not hot enough to cook the fish. As a result, cold-smoked salmon retains the delicate, moist texture of raw fish.

Hot-smoked
Like cold-smoked salmon, the hot-smoked variety starts with salt curing, although typically to a lesser extent. The salmon is then placed in a smoking chamber closer to the fire, and the heat and smoke both accumulate in the chamber. The temperature can range from 100°F to 175°F(38°C to 93°C), which is enough to cook the fish. Hot-smoked salmon therefore has the firm, flaky texture of cooked fish.

title: Cookbook:Smoked Salmon


text:
Category:Book:Documents on the Persian Gulf's name

Pages related to Documents on the Persian Gulf's name:


text:
User talk:130.193.199.186

--Xania   talk 12:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:130.193.199.186


text:
User talk:2A02:8070:7AB:DC00:E58B:A832:44F5:5C51

You cannot edit for 24 hours due to disruptive editing. You are welcome to contribute constructively when editing privileges are restored. You may appeal this action with a reasonable argument by adding the text below.

--Xania   talk 12:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


text:
Calculus/Derivatives of Hyperbolic Functions

The hyperbolic functions are functions that are related to the trigonometric functions, largely due to the consequences of their definitions. While not necessarily related to the triangular or circular definitions of the trigonometric functions, their identities make them look quite similar.

Nevertheless, these functions are important in calculus because they form a large subset of solutions to some problems in calculus and are important in many areas of applied mathematics.

Introducing the Hyperbolic Functions

Section defines hyperbolic functions according to the parametric definition, similar to trigonometric functions.

That is, rotating a ray from the direction of the positive half of the $$x$$-axis by an angle $$\theta$$ (counterclockwise for $$\theta > 0,$$ and clockwise for $$\theta < 0$$) yields intersection points of this ray with the unit hyperbola: $$A=(x_A,y_A)$$.

It is defined that: $$ $$ $$

where $$a$$ is twice the area between the ray, the hyperbola, and the $$x$$-axis. As a consequence of these definitions, it becomes clear

$$

Keep in mind that similar to $$\sec (x) $$, $$\csc (x) $$, and $$\cot (x) $$, the definitions of the hyperbolic versions are as follows: $$ $$ $$

These definitions are limited in that applying calculus to this would be difficult without additional tools. Using the exponential definition of hyperbolic functions (not defined in Section ) allow us to more easily find derivatives, the goal of this section.

$$

$$

$$

Properties of the Hyperbolic Functions
Proof: By equation, $$ \sinh x = \frac{e^x - e^{-x}}{2} $$. If a function is odd, then $$f(-x)=-f(x)$$.
 * $$\begin{align}

\sinh (-x) &= \frac{e^{(-x)} - e^{-(-x)}}{2} \\ &= \frac{e^{-x} - e^{x}}{2} \\ &= -\frac{e^{x} - e^{-x}}{2} = -\sinh (x) \qquad \blacksquare \end{align}$$

Proof: By equation, $$ \cosh x = \frac{e^x + e^{-x}}{2} $$. If a function is even, then $$f(-x)=f(x)$$.
 * $$\begin{align}

\cosh (-x) &= \frac{e^{(-x)} + e^{-(-x)}}{2} \\ &= \frac{e^{-x} + e^{x}}{2} = \frac{e^{x} + e^{-x}}{2} = \cosh (x) \qquad \blacksquare \end{align}$$

Proof: Using equations and, $$ \cosh x = \frac{e^x + e^{-x}}{2} $$,
 * $$\begin{align}

\sinh (2x) &= \frac{e^{(2x)} + e^{-(2x)}}{2} \\ &= \frac{e^{4x}-1}{2e^{2x}} \\ &= \frac{\left(e^{2x}-1\right)\left(e^{2x}+1\right)}{2e^{2x}} \end{align}$$ Notice that $$\sinh (x)\cosh (x) = \frac{e^{4x}-1}{4e^{2x}}$$. Multiplying this by two gives us $$\sinh (2x)$$. Hence,
 * $$\sinh(2x) = 2\sinh(x)\cosh(x) \qquad \blacksquare$$

Proof:

Derivatives of the Hyperbolic Functions
Proof:

Proof:


text:
User talk:Sierrajulietromeo

Welcome, Sierrajulietromeo!

If you have any questions, you can ask in the assistance reading room or possibly contact me personally.

--Xania   talk 14:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sierrajulietromeo


text:
Linux Applications Debugging Techniques/Signals

Links of interest

 * SIGSEGV to exception


text:
User talk:2603:8001:2A00:30E4:E5A8:C605:F93F:6084

--Xania   talk 01:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Isman ali

--Xania   talk 01:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Isman ali


text:
User talk:Kianne dacles

--Xania   talk 09:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kianne dacles


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. e4/1...e5/2. Bc4/2...c5

= Bishop's Opening - Sideline 2... c5?! = The aim of 2…c5 is to play in the Sicilian style against the Bishop’s Opening. However, it creates structural issues in the Black position, unnecessarily weakening the pawn structure too early in d6 since e5 has already been played. White development goes smoothly.

Theory table
.

'''1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 c5?!'''


text:
Judaism/Kabbalah

What is meant by Kabbalah?

title: Judaism/Kabbalah


text:
User talk:Cultural sec

Please don't copy material from Wikisource - it is out of scope for Wikibooks. This project is for original textbooks, not copies of existing books. The material you have copied has been deleted. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 12:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cultural sec


text:
Infrastructure Past, Present, and Future Casebook/Dutch Dikes

=Summary of Dutch Dikes=

The Ditch Dikes are Netherland's most important invention. Dikes are man-built buildings that protect against natural factors such as water, temperature, and altitude. They are generally composed of local materials. Various degrees and intensities of flooding have occurred in the Netherlands over the ages, from rivers as well as the sea. With the country being below sea level, The area is vulnerable and at a constant threat of experiencing floods. To prevent future floods, the Netherlands created their most important invention, which is the Dikes [http://dutchdikes.net/history/. [1] ]. A dike is a barrier used to prevent and hold back water from a river, lake, or ocean. This invention provided defense against storm surges from the sea; it helped to solve the most important issue to the vulnerable, densely populated country from flooding. The American Society of Civil Engineers has declared the Dutch Dikes, Netherlands Protection Works, as one of the great wonders of the modern world. [21 ]

= Timeline of Events =

8th century
For millennia, the Dutch have been building dams, dikes, and other flood defenses. Because of the frequent floods, the early residents of the Netherlands located their villages on hills. The Dutch constructed their first dams, dikes, and dunes in the eighth century. The Netherlands' flood defenses increased as the country became wealthier and more popular. [8 ]

1918-1975, Zuiderzee Works
On 1918 June 14th, The Dutch parliament passed the law establishing the Zuiderzee Works. In Dutch, Zuirderzee means “Southern Sea”. The Dutch's Zuirderzee work refers to Lely’s plan of building dams and dikes to close off the Zuiderzee and turn it into a lake. The goal of this closure was to guard the Southern Sea from flooding. [https://www.britannica.com/place/Zuiderzee. [10] ]

Using Lely’s plan, In the 1930s, the Netherlands built the Afsluitdijk; connecting between north and west of the Netherlands while closing off the Southen Sea to safeguard and protect the Netherlands' center region from flooding. In 1932 the dike was finished and on September 25th, 1933, the Afsluitdijk was officially opened. [https://watersnoodmuseum.nl/en/knowledgecentre/brouwers-dam/. [9] ]

Between 1937- 1942, artificial lands were reclaimed on the Southern Sea to use as agricultural lands to safeguard food for the people of the Netherlands. The first reclaimed land, Wieringermeerpolder was constructed between 1927–1930, followed by Noordoostpolder in 1937–1942, Oostelijk Flevoland in1950–1957, and Zuidelijk Flevoland in 1959–1968. These lands provide nearly ten percent of the total arable lands in the country. [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-00268-8_11#:~:text=The%20IJsselmeerpolders%E2%80%94Wieringermeerpolder%20(constructed%201927,country%20today%20(1%2C045%2C000%20ha. [11] ]

Later between 1963-1975, the Houtribdijk dike with two artificial islands was built to complete the Zuirderzee works and connects between the Enkhuizen and the Flevolands while dividing the IJsselmeer river into northern and southern parts. [https://www.catharinavanmijdrecht.eu/sailing-area/sailing-the-ijsselmeer/. [12] ]

1950-1997, Delta Works
On the night of 31st January 1953, a disaster flood occurred when the North Sea attacked with a ferocity that dramatically destroyed and deconstructed the country. This caused the Dutch government to implement Van Veen's plan to close the estuaries in the southwestern region of the Netherlands. [Https://www.britannica.com/biography/Johan-van-Veen [6] ]

Delta works were named after the delta region of the three rivers (Meuse, Scheldt, and Rhyne), in which most of the floods came in. The planned work was focused on the delta region, therefore, they built dikes to connect the three rivers which would result in being flood defenders that would protect the Southwestern part of the Netherlands, also known as Zeeland. There are thirteen delta works that successfully created protection against flooding in the Zeeland region from the North Sea. All of the projects were built between 1954 and 1997, and none of the dikes built have ever failed since they were put into service.

In 1958, Delta's work first flood defender was built-in Hollandsche IJssel. Followed by Zandkreekdam in 1960, Veerse Gatdam in 1961, Grevelingendam in 1965, Volkerakdam in 1969, Haringvlietdam in 1971, Brouwersdam in 1972 Oosterscheldekering in 1986 Bathse Spuisluis, Oesterdam, and Philipsdam in 1987 Maeslantkering and Hartelkering in 1997. [https://watersnoodmuseum.nl/en/knowledgecentre/delta-works/. [7] ]

= Annotated List of Actors =

-Engineer Cornelis Lely designed the Zuiderzee works plan. With the Netherlands being vulnerable to floods, Lely drew up the basic design plan of building dikes and dams to prevent and hold back the water. The Afsluitdijk was constructed based on Lely’s plan which was first developed in 1892. [https://deafsluitdijk.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/DNA_Zuilenboekje_ENGELS_ar16_def_webversie.pdf. [13] ]

- Engineer Johan Van Veen: he is considered the father of the Delta Works for acquiring great urgency for flood defenses after the disaster of 1953 flood. His warning described the risks and included a flood defenses plan in the Southwestern region of the Netherlands (now called the Delta Works plan). [https://www.britannica.com/event/Delta-Project. [14] ]

- In 1957, the flood defenses plan of the Delta Works was passed by the Dutch Parliament. A year later the senate and Queen Juliana signed it to begin the work. [https://geheugen.delpher.nl/en/geheugen/pages/collectie/De+Deltawerken+door+de+lens+van+Aart+Klein/De+Deltawerken. [15] ]

= Funding and financing =

Considering the funding and financing of the Dutch dikes system, each dike has its own story as they were not simultaneously built. Talking about the Delta Works system of dikes is a series of construction projects in the southwest of the Netherlands to protect a large area of land around the Rhine–Meuse–Scheldt delta from the sea. Constructed between 1954 and 1997, the works consist of dams, sluices, locks, dykes, levees, and storm surge barriers located in the provinces of South Holland and Zeeland.

The aim of the dams, sluices, and storm surge barriers was to shorten the Dutch coastline, thus reducing the number of dikes that had to be raised. Along with the Zuiderzee Works, the Delta Works have been declared one of the Seven Wonders of the Modern World by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

The projects of the Delta system are financed with the Delta Fund corporation. In 1958, when the Delta law was accepted under the Delta Works Commission, the total costs were estimated at 3.3 billion guilders. The Delta works were financed by Netherlands’ national budget, with a contribution of the Marshall Plaof n 400 million guilders. In addition, the Dutch natural gas discovery contributed massively to the finance of the project. At completion in 1997, costs were set n 8.2 billion guilders [https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/adaptation-cost-in-the-netherlands-climate-change-and-flood-risk-. [2] ]. However, in 2012 the total costs were already set at around $13 billion [https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/world/europe/netherlands-sets-model-of-flood-prevention.html. [3] ].

Due to climate change and relative sea-level rise, the dikes will eventually have to be made higher and wider. The needed level of flood protection and the resulting costs are a recurring subject of debate and involve a complicated decision-making process. In 1995 it was agreed in the Delta Plan Large Rivers and Room for the River projects that about 500 kilometers of insufficient dyke revetments were reinforced and replaced along the Oosterschelde and Westerschelde between 1995 and 2015. After 2015, under the High-Water Protection Program, additional upgrades are made.

In September 2008, the Delta Commission presided by a politician Cees Veerman advised in a report that the Netherlands would need a massive new building program to strengthen the country's water defenses against the anticipated effects of global warming for the next 190 years. The plans included drawing up worst-case scenarios for evacuations and included more than €100 billion, or $144 billion, in new spending through the year 2100 for measures, such as broadening coastal dunes and strengthening sea and river dikes. The commission said the country must plan for a rise in the North Sea of 1.3 meters by 2100 and 4 meters by 2200 [https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/news/03iht-03dutch.15877468.html. [4] ].

Considering the Zuiderzee Works, is a man-made system of dams and dikes, land reclamation, and water drainage work, in total the largest hydraulic engineering project undertaken by the Netherlands during the twentieth century. The project involved the damming of the Zuiderzee, a large, shallow inlet of the North Sea, and the reclamation of land in the newly enclosed water using polders. Its main purposes are to improve flood protection and create additional land for agriculture.

The first step in the plan was to enclose the Zuiderzee by building a 20-mile-long dam across the bay. Something like this had never been done before, so the Dutch engineers made the wise decision to start by building a much shorter dam out to the island of Wieringen which would form the first part of the enclosure of the bay. The experience gained in the exercise was valuable when the longer dam, the Afsluitdijk, was built from the other side of Wieringen across the bay to the village of Zurich in 1927.

The Afsluitdijk project consists of the design, reconstruction, financing, operation, and maintenance of a 32km dyke that runs between Friesland and Den Oever in North Holland.

The existing structure is over 85 years old and is an important Dutch landmark. However, its flood control capacity does not meet modern standards. The Afsluitdijk was first completed in 1932 and closed off the saltwater Zuiderzee, turning it into a freshwater lake known today as IJsselmeer. Total funding for the project amounts to roughly 835 million Euros ($974 million). Lenders will provide around €815 million, guaranteed by the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI).

Long-term debt amounts to €660 million, of which the European Investment Bank (EIB) will provide €330 million under a 30-year facility. Additionally, there are two milestone facilities for a total of €100 million, and an equity bridge loan of about €60 million.

The lenders on the deal comprise:

 * Belfius Bank
 * DekaBank
 * EIB

 * KfW IPEX-Bank
 * Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (LBBW)
 * Rabobank

KfW IPEX-Bank will provide about €124 million, with DekaBank and LBBW lending similar amounts. Contributions from Belfius Bank and Rabobank are smaller. Rabobank will not provide long-term debt. Pricing on the debt is partly fixed and partly floating, with the floating-rate portion covered by interest rate swaps. Pricing on the long-term debt for this availability-based scheme is thought to be between 100bp and 110bp over Euribor.

This level was considered too low for many of the banks which have provided debt for Dutch infrastructure PPPs in the past, meaning they did not lend on this deal and are unlikely to be involved in the upcoming transactions, some have said. The tenor on long-term commercial debt is 25 years post-construction, or around 30 years in total. While no institutional investors are lending to the project, a limited sell down of debt is envisaged for after the financial close with German institutional investors expected to take interest. However, this is not expected to amount to a substantial proportion of the overall debt [https://www.ijglobal.com/articles/133627/afsluitdijk-ppp-the-netherlands. [5] ].

=Institutional arrangements:=

The barrier, which spanned 32 kilometers and held back the Wadden Sea, was one of the biggest technical accomplishments of its day, and it is credited with sparing huge portions of the nation from catastrophic floods in 1953. However, while the Afsluitdijk has remained stable for over a century, increasing sea levels and heavier storms mean that Dutch authorities are now investing USD $617 million to fortify the structure so that it can resist a one-in-ten-thousand-year storm event. This nation-saving seawall is being supersized by using 75,000 concrete blocks, building additional drainage locks, and utilizing cutting-edge technology. When the building of the Afsluitdijk began in 1927, it was one of the world's greatest ventures of its kind, requiring more than 36 million cubic meters of material to span the 32-kilometer mouth of the Zuiderzee. Ships began dredging material and dropping it straight into the bottom in four sites throughout the length of the dyke until it broke the surface. While numerous modest renovations and enhancements have been done to the dike in recent years, increasing sea levels and an increase in the frequency and intensity of storms have left the dike in desperate need of serious reinforcement - and 2019 witnessed the commencement of a major strengthening project. While extending the height of the Afsluitdijk was explored, this option would need significantly more material and would significantly increase the project's cost.[https://www.theb1m.com/video/the-sea-wall-that-saved-a-nation. [18] ]                                                                                Dikes Engineers will instead reinforce the dike by placing a layer of concrete reinforcing blocks throughout its length, avoiding erosion and breaches during severe storms. Each of these blocks will be microchipped to make future tracing and maintenance easier. While passive sluice gates were originally placed into the barrier to discharge water from the lake twice daily at low tides, the difference in water level on each side of the dike at low tide is no longer sufficient to provide for adequate drainage to the Wadden Sea. Two of Europe's largest pumping stations will be erected near the sluice gates to prevent the lake from being swamped by the rivers that feed it. The dyke's locks will also be extended to allow for easier boat access, and the A7 causeway will be widened.[19 ]

= Narrative of the Case =

The evolvement of dikes of carefully stacked clay to pile dikes into high-tech sensor dikes did not happen overnight. Already in Roman times, small dikes and dams were created. A look into the long Dutch tradition of dike building gives us insight on a deeply rooted culture of trial and error in a country where the sea level rises and the ground level is dropping. History shows that either a big flood or a tiny worm, but also national welfare can lead to big consequences and shifts in the flood protection system. Key moments in the ever-evolving dike network are described over different dike periods [http://dutchdikes.net/history/. [1] ].

The Netherlands witnessed little dike-building activity in the early Middle Ages. With the departure of the Romans began a period of political instability and population decline. From the eighth century, we see renewed, if slow, population growth, after which the population of the Netherlands increased tenfold between 800 and 1250. Once again settlements were formed in the salt marshes, which abounded in fish and in grazing pastures for livestock. On a small scale, streams were dammed and low dikes built, following the contours of the existing differences in elevation.

In the fourteenth century, the combined effects of soil subsidence and rising sea levels meant, in many parts of the Low Countries, that sea level and ground level converged to the same height. This was the period that saw the first large-scale building of dikes. The population was falling in some parts of Europe, as a result of economic recession and a succession of epidemics, but the Netherlands, especially Holland, was doing relatively well.

In the period between 1500 and 1800, the Netherlands became ever more prosperous and witnessed rapid population growth, although the graph displays peaks and troughs. The acme of the Golden Age was in the first half of the seventeenth century. Large-scale hydraulic engineering works such as land reclamation, polders and largescale peat extraction were organized by collectives, with interested parties joining forces for the purpose.

Dike builders had gradually switched to constructions with low-gradient outer slopes. To strengthen dikes, stony materials were added to the dike revetment. Most of the stone was transported from Norway by sea and from Belgium along the major rivers to the Netherlands. In addition, a great many dolmens or hunebedden were demolished to reinforce the coastal defenses. From 1900 onwards, materials such as concrete blocks were developed, mass-produced and transported in large numbers. Advances in knowledge, technology and mobility made large-scale interventions in the water system possible, culminating in the Zuider Zee works.

The Zuider Zee had only just been closed off when the next calamity presented itself, this time in the southwest coastal region. In 1953, a rare combination of spring tide, a north-north-west storm and high water in the rivers caused a national disaster. In Zeeland, the islands of South Holland and West Brabant, there were widespread dike breaches. The North Sea Flood claimed more than 1,800 lives and caused immense damage. An area measuring some 1,650 square kilometers of land was flooded.

The North Sea Flood provided an impetus for a large number of new hydraulic works: the Delta Plan. The Netherlands must be protected from suffering any repeat of the disaster in the future. The sea inlets should be closed off, with the exception of the Nieuwe Waterweg and the Western Scheldt, thus making the coastline much shorter and far easier to defend. Parliament passed the Delta Act in 1958 and the construction commenced. The Act prescribed the criteria to be met by the dikes along the coast and rivers as well as their height. It was the beginning of an era of drastic and large-scale reinforcements of the dikes.

=Policy Issues=

The Netherlands looks to have made the transition from flood defense to flood risk management, in line with the rest of Western Europe. The flood catastrophes around the turn of the Millennium demonstrated the ineffectiveness of institutional and technical arrangements, ushering in flood risk management measures that "create space for the river," according to a compelling and widely propagated tale (K. Krieger 2013, unpublished manuscript). Krieger, on the other hand, demonstrates that for the United Kingdom and Germany, this statement is considerably too simple. History is essential. Krieger contends that organizational variables, specifically sets of norms, processes, and frameworks, can explain the disparities in flood management decisions made in Germany and England, and he advocates for a comparative test in the Netherlands and France, which have different state traditions. These policies make more sense for Netherlands because they are the most venerable to flood. Policys are a changing factor for Netherlands because it’s at a venerable place and situation changes depending on the weather and future climate. But there are some ground rules with stays the same such as:

1. A legally anchored funding scheme to keep the dike rings up to the level of the legally binding flood protection standards. This cost is pooled between the national Treasury and the regional authorities. 2. Responsibilities for flood protection are allocated to dedicated organizations: the national agency of public (water) works and the regional water boards.

3. The Expertise Network for Flood Protection (ENW). This institutionalized network of flood risk management experts, mostly civil engineers, has existed since 1965. ENW gives requested and unrequested advice to the ministry of infrastructure and environment. Their advice is literally always adopted.

4. Legal standards for flood risk and accompanying legal assessment (Wettelijk Tots Instrumentarium) and design guidelines for how to maintain flood defenses (Leidraden) consisting of extensive guidelines and technical reports.

These are some of the rules that has laid by Dutch National Water Plan.[http://dadoi.org/10.11L16.1936-704x.2006. [17] ]

After the publication of the NWP reposts based on the flood data Netherlands government passed an act called the Delta Act. This act follows as: 1. New flood protection standards will be set these will not only be linked to the probability of flooding. but also, to the impact of a flood (risk-based approach). The scope of the impact is the decisive factor in setting the standard.

2. The availability of freshwater for agriculture, industry, and nature will become more predictable.

3. Spatial planning will become more climate-proof and water robust

Also, as I have mentioned above the plan changes due to constant climate change in the world, they have added some more rules over the years, such as:

1. 2011: The publication of a more explorative approach of the first series of pilot locations in the Netherlands that are considered suitable for MLS. The main conclusion of this report is that MLS is approached enthusiastically and energetically and that there is a strong desire of the involved local and regional authorities to explore the opportunities of MLS further.

2. 2012: To calculate the effectiveness of possible MLS measures, a toolkit was developed funded by the knowledge organization of the regional water authorities and the Delta Programme.[20]

= Lessons learned / takeaways =

The Netherlands played a role model in showing how water and flood can be managed using engineering innovations. This gives inspiration for countries and governments to try to resist nature and fight natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, and many more incidents where it is deadly dangerous. This also must be taken into consideration especially when our familiar world might change due to global warming and climate change that will directly impact our lives.

= Discussion Question =

1. How would you evaluate the effort of Dutch Dikes?

2. How effective do you think these Dikes will be in future, especially with climate change?

= References =

-“Dutch Dikes.” History. [http://dutchdikes.net/history/. [1] ]

-Aerts, J.C.J.H. “Adaptation Cost in the Netherlands: Climate Change and Flood Risk Management.” Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Climate Changes Spatial Planning and Knowledge for Climate, 1 Jan. 1970. [https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/adaptation-cost-in-the-netherlands-climate-change-and-flood-risk-. [2] ]

-Higgins, Andrew. “Lessons for U.S. from a Flood-Prone Land.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 15 Nov. 2012. [https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/world/europe/netherlands-sets-model-of-flood-prevention.html. [3] ]

-“Dutch Draw up Drastic Measures to Defend Coast against Rising Seas.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 Sept. 2008. [https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/news/03iht-03dutch.15877468.html. [4] ]

- Author, Beatrice Mavroleon Contact, et al. “Afsluitdijk PPP, the Netherlands.” IJGlobal. [https://www.ijglobal.com/articles/133627/afsluitdijk-ppp-the-netherlands. [5] ]

- “Johan Van Veen.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., https://www.britannica.com/biography/Johan-van-Veen. [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Johan-van-Veen. [6] ]

- “Delta Works.” Watersnoodmuseum, https://watersnoodmuseum.nl/en/knowledgecentre/delta-works/. [https://watersnoodmuseum.nl/en/knowledgecentre/delta-works/. [7] ]

- “Why The Netherlands Isn’t Flooding (Anymore).” YouTube, uploaded by History Scop, 1 Feb. 2020. [8 ]

- “Brouwers Dam.” Watersnoodmuseum. [9 ]

- “Zuiderzee.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. [https://www.britannica.com/place/Zuiderzee. [10] ]

- Nijhuis, Steffen. “The Noordoostpolder: A Landscape Planning Perspective on the Preservation and Development of Twentieth-Century Polder Landscapes in the Netherlands.” SpringerLink, Springer International Publishing, 1 Jan. 1970. [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-00268-8_11#:~:text=The%20IJsselmeerpolders%E2%80%94Wieringermeerpolder%20(constructed%201927,country%20today%20(1%2C045%2C000%20ha. [11] ]

-“Sailing the IJsselmeer.” Catharina Van Mijdrecht, 20 Apr. 2015. [https://www.catharinavanmijdrecht.eu/sailing-area/sailing-the-ijsselmeer/. [12] ]

- The Afsluitdijk. [https://deafsluitdijk.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/DNA_Zuilenboekje_ENGELS_ar16_def_webversie.pdf. [13] ]

-“Delta Project.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. [https://www.britannica.com/event/Delta-Project. [14] ]

- “The Memory.” The Delta Works - The Memory. [https://geheugen.delpher.nl/en/geheugen/pages/collectie/De+Deltawerken+door+de+lens+van+Aart+Klein/De+Deltawerken. [15] ]

- Buuren, Arwin van. Ellen, Gerald Jan., and Jeroen F. Warner. Path-dependency and policy learning in the Dutch delta: toward more resilient flood risk management in the Netherlands? Jstore. [16 ]

- Mostert, E. 2006. Integrated water resources management in the Netherlands: how concepts function. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education 135(1):19-27. [17 ]

-2020, Dan Cortese22 July, et al. “The Sea Wall That Saved a Nation.” The B1M, 22 July 2020, [https://www.theb1m.com/video/the-sea-wall-that-saved-a-nation. [18] ]

-Rammel, C., S. Stagl, and M. Wilfing, 3007. Managing complex adaptive systems a co-evolutionary perspective on natural resource management. Ecological Economios 63(1):9-21. [19 ]

-Vogt, Berber "The Afsluitdijk as a Complex System",29 May 2019. [20 ]

- Jean-Louis Briaud, et al. “Civil Engineers Create Wonders of the World.” ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers, 1 July 2021. [21 ]


text:
User talk:Raffaela Kunz

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikibooks, Raffaela Kunz!

 First steps tutorial Wikibooks is for collaborative development of free textbooks.

You do not need technical skills to contribute. You can easily change most books. Please introduce yourself, and let us know what interests you.

If you already contribute at other Wikimedia projects, our Wikimedia Orientation should quickly get you started. (Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

  Getting help   Made a mistake?   Goodies, tips and tricks
 * Read the Using Wikibooks book for a friendly introduction to the project, or our help pages for more information.
 * You can get friendly help from the community in the user assistance room or our IRC channel.
 * Upload freely licensed files to Wikimedia Commons. You may request permission to upload fair use files locally. Please include author and source information and a non-free use rationale for non-free files.
 * You can restore a previously saved version.
 * Pages should follow the  naming convention.
 * Need to rename a page? Use the move tab (is available once your account is 4 days old - until then, ask for help).
 * To request a page be deleted, add to the top of the page.
 * Was a page you made deleted? Please read the deletion policy, and check the deletion log to find out why. Also check the RFD archives if applicable. You can request undeletion at WB:RFU, or ask the administrator who deleted the page.
 * Please fill in the edit summary and preview your edits before saving.
 * Sign your name on discussion pages by typing ~~~~
 * User scripts can make many tasks easier. Look at the Gadgets tab of my preferences; check off the boxes for the scripts you want, and hit save!

Thanks for your contributions -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Raffaela Kunz


text:
User talk:Azabara4

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikibooks, Azabara4!

 First steps tutorial Wikibooks is for collaborative development of free textbooks.

You do not need technical skills to contribute. You can easily change most books. Please introduce yourself, and let us know what interests you.

If you already contribute at other Wikimedia projects, our Wikimedia Orientation should quickly get you started. (Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

  Getting help   Made a mistake?   Goodies, tips and tricks
 * Read the Using Wikibooks book for a friendly introduction to the project, or our help pages for more information.
 * You can get friendly help from the community in the user assistance room or our IRC channel.
 * Upload freely licensed files to Wikimedia Commons. You may request permission to upload fair use files locally. Please include author and source information and a non-free use rationale for non-free files.
 * You can restore a previously saved version.
 * Pages should follow the  naming convention.
 * Need to rename a page? Use the move tab (is available once your account is 4 days old - until then, ask for help).
 * To request a page be deleted, add to the top of the page.
 * Was a page you made deleted? Please read the deletion policy, and check the deletion log to find out why. Also check the RFD archives if applicable. You can request undeletion at WB:RFU, or ask the administrator who deleted the page.
 * Please fill in the edit summary and preview your edits before saving.
 * Sign your name on discussion pages by typing ~~~~
 * User scripts can make many tasks easier. Look at the Gadgets tab of my preferences; check off the boxes for the scripts you want, and hit save!

Thanks for your contributions -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Azabara4


text:
User talk:Quartae

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikibooks, Quartae!

 First steps tutorial Wikibooks is for collaborative development of free textbooks.

You do not need technical skills to contribute. You can easily change most books. Please introduce yourself, and let us know what interests you.

If you already contribute at other Wikimedia projects, our Wikimedia Orientation should quickly get you started. (Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

  Getting help   Made a mistake?   Goodies, tips and tricks
 * Read the Using Wikibooks book for a friendly introduction to the project, or our help pages for more information.
 * You can get friendly help from the community in the user assistance room or our IRC channel.
 * Upload freely licensed files to Wikimedia Commons. You may request permission to upload fair use files locally. Please include author and source information and a non-free use rationale for non-free files.
 * You can restore a previously saved version.
 * Pages should follow the  naming convention.
 * Need to rename a page? Use the move tab (is available once your account is 4 days old - until then, ask for help).
 * To request a page be deleted, add to the top of the page.
 * Was a page you made deleted? Please read the deletion policy, and check the deletion log to find out why. Also check the RFD archives if applicable. You can request undeletion at WB:RFU, or ask the administrator who deleted the page.
 * Please fill in the edit summary and preview your edits before saving.
 * Sign your name on discussion pages by typing ~~~~
 * User scripts can make many tasks easier. Look at the Gadgets tab of my preferences; check off the boxes for the scripts you want, and hit save!

Thanks for your contributions -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Quartae