Spor Toto Teşkilatı'nın resmi oyunu olan İddaa, yerli ve yabancı liglerdeki futbol karşılaşmalarının kesin maç sonucunu, ilk yarı ile birlikte maçın kesin sonucunu, maçın skorunu ve toplam gol sayısının 2 ve altında mı yoksa 3 ve üstünde mi olduğunu tahmin etmek suretiyle oynanan bir oyundur.

İddaa, oyunculara şu ana dek 183 adet yabancı lig ve kupa maçlarından seçim yapabilme imkânı tanımıştır. Türk sporseverlerin istekleri ön planda tutularak hemen hemen bütün yabancı ülke lig maçları ile Avrupa Kupaları, UEFA, Şampiyonlar Ligi maçları da oyunlara eklenmiştir.

Şans oyunlarından farkı bilgi ve birikime dayanmasıdır. İddaa'nın yurt dışındaki benzer oyunlardan en büyük farkı ise, oynanan oyunlardan  kazanılacak paranın kamuya kaynak olarak sağlıyor olmasıdır.

2004 yılından itibaren futbolun olduğu her yerde öne çıkan etkili tanıtım kampanyaları, yaygın ve güçlü teknolojik altyapıya sahip bayileriyle bütünleşen yapısıyla her geçen gün daha da büyüyen İddaa oyunu hasılatından futbol endüstrisine, takım isim hakkı olarak sağlanan değerli kaynak sayesinde bugüne kadar kapanma noktasına gelen ve başka hiçbir geliri olmayan birçok Anadolu futbol kulübünün yegane gelir kaynağı haline gelmiştir. İddaa, 2004–2007 sonu itibarıyla elde ettiği hasılattan, Süper Ligde, 1. Lig, 2. Lig ve 3. Ligde yer alan futbol kulüplerine toplam 386.5 milyon TL tutarında isim hakkı bedeli olarak kaynak aktarmıştır.

Türkiye çapından gerçekleştirdiği sponsorluklar ile sadece spor endüstrisine değil, aynı zamanda kültür ve sanat alanında da destek veren İddaa, 2004 -2007 sonu itibarıyla sosyal sorumluluk bilinciyle kurum ve kuruşlarına toplam 105 milyon TL kaynak aktarmıştır.

60.000 kişinin geçim kaynağını sağlayan ve 4000 terminale ulaşmış bayilik ağı ile Türkiye'de bahis oyunlarını yasal ve kontrol edilebilir bir düzene taşıyan Inteltek A.Ş. ve Spor Toto Teşkilat Başkanlığı ile Gençlik ve Spor Genel Müdürlüğü, İddaa oyunu ile 2004 yılından 2007 sonuna kadar Türkiye ekonomisine 989 milyon TL tutarında KDV, Şans Oyunları Vergisi, Damga Vergisi ve Kurumlar vergisi adları altında kaynak aktarmıştır.

İddaa'nın havuz oyunlarından farkı iştirakçinin önceden -doğru tahminde bulunması sonucunda- kazanacağı miktar bilmesi, iştirakçinin –havuzda biriken toplam para ve kazanan sayısından bağımsız olarak- kazanç sağlaması, birçok organizasyondan oluşan programdan, istediği kadar seçim yapılabilme imkânının bulunması, her gün oynanabilmesi,  Türkiye'den ve dünyadan organizasyonların ve karşılaşmaların bulunmasıdır.

Her salı  ve her cuma olmak üzere haftada iki İddaa programı çıkar ve oyuncular programda yer alan maçların sonucunu; 1 (ev sahibi takım galibiyeti), 0 (beraberlik), 2 (deplasman takımı galibiyeti) olmak üzere üç muhtemel sonuçtan herhangi birini tahmin ederek "İddaa kuponu" üzerindeki ilgili yer(ler)e işaretleyerek oynarlar. Buna "Maç Sonucu" oyunu denir.

Kazanç için öncelikle bir kolondaki tüm tahminlerin doğru olması gerekmektedir. Doğru tahminlerin oranlarının birbiriyle çarpımından oluşan kolon oranı, kolon bedeli ile çarpılır. Bu miktar, oyuncunun kazancını belirtmektedir. Eğer oyuncunun kazandığı tutar 4.068 TL'yi aşıyorsa, aşan kısım için % 10 Veraset ve İntikal Vergisi  hesaplanır. Oyuncuya ödeme yapılırken vergi düşülerek net tutar ödenir.

İddaa Programındaki Bazı İfadelerin Açıklamaları

Maç Kodu: Maçın, tahmin yapılması durumunda, İddaa kuponu üzerine işaretlenecek kodunu gösterir.

Takımlar: Maçta oynayacak taraflara ait takımları gösterir.

Lig: Hangi maçın hangi ligde olduğunu gösterir.

Saat: Maçın başlayacağı saati gösterir.

Handikap(H): Maçların oranlarını dengelemek için zayıf takıma verilen gol avansıdır. Örneğin bir maçta ev sahibi takım favori, handikapı da 2 olduğu zaman ev sahibi takım ancak 3 farklı galibiyette kazanmış sayılır. Ev sahibi takımın 2 farklı üstünlüğünde maç berabere bitmiş kabul edilir.

H*(E): Ev sahibi takımın handikapını gösterir.

H*(Dep.): Deplasman takımının handikapını gösterir.

Maçlar: Programda yer alan maçları gösterir.

MBS: Minimum Bahis Sayısını gösterir. Minimum Bahis Sayısı bölümünde herhangi bir sayı belirtilmemişse Maç Sonucu oyunu için en az 4, İlk Yarı/Maç Sonucu oyunu için en az 2 maça tahminde bulunulabilir. Kuponda işaretlenecek minimum maç tahmini sayısı programdan öğrenilebilir.

MBS bölümünde "3" yazıyorsa Maç Sonucu oyunu için en az 3 maça;

MBS bölümünde "2" yazıyorsa Maç Sonucu oyunu için en az 2 maça;

MBS bölümünde "1" yazıyorsa Maç Sonucu ve İlk Yarı/Maç Sonucu oyunu için en az 1 maça tahminde bulunulabilir.

Oran: Kazancın belirlenmesindeki temel faktör. Kupona yazdığınız ve doğru tahmin ettiğiniz maçların (Kazanabilmek için yazdığınız her maçı doğru tahmin etmek zorundasınız. Sistemli oyun hariç.) programda belirtilen oranlarının çarpımı -+ yatırdığınız paranın çarpımı- kazancınızı belirler. örneğin 4 maça tahminde bulundunuz;

Kolon Bedeli x Misli Oranı x (Maçların Oranlarının çarpımı);
1 TL x 2 Misli x (2.20 x 2.80 x 1.90 x 2.00)=46 TL 816 KR kazanıyorsunuz.

Oyun Kuralları
 Maç Sonucu oyununda bir satırda en fazla 2 tahminde bulunulabilir.
 Bir kuponda bir maç için ya Maç Sonucu Oyunu, İlk Yarı / Maç Sonucu Oyunu ya da Mac Skoru oyunu oynanabilir.
  Oranlar, maçlar oynanıncaya kadar değişebilir. Geçerli oranlar, İddaa oynadıktan sonra elindeki bilette bulunan oranlardır.
 Bir kuponda hem Maç Sonucu Oyunu hem İlk Yarı / Maç Sonucu Oyunu hem de Maç Skoru Oyunu oynanabilir.
 İddaa oyununu 18 yaşından büyükler oynayabilir.
 Bir İddaa kuponunda oyun, 2500 kolonu geçemez.
 İlk Yarı / Maç Sonucu oyununda MBS sütununda "1" olarak belirtilen maçlar için, 1 tane maç tahmini yapılabilir.
 Tüm tahminler, bir futbol maçının 90 dakikalık süresine (hakem tarafından sakatlanmalar ve diğer nedenlerle oluşan duraklama dahil olmak üzere) göre düzenlenmiştir. Uzatmalar, "altın gol" veya penaltı atışları tahminlere ilişkin sonuçları etkilemez.
 Bir maç kupon kabulü için esas alınan saatten daha erken başlarsa; bu maçı içeren ve maçın başlangıç saatinden önce oynanan kuponlar kabul edilir.Yine bu maçı içeren ancak maçın başlangıç saatinden sonra oynanan kuponlar kabul edilir ama karşılaşmanın oranı bir (1) olarak alınır.
 Bir maç:

1. İptal edilirse veya

2. Yerel saatle Programda belirtilen tarihi müteakip bir günden fazla ertelenirse,

3. İkinci yarının başlangıcından önce ertelenirse ve erteleme anıyla maçın normal süresi arasındaki süre Programda belirtilen günü takip eden gün içerisinde oynanmazsa (yerel saatle),

4. Program yayınlandıktan sonra ev sahibi /deplasman takımları yer değiştirmesi ve tarafsız sahada oynama durumunda,

5. Rakipler değişirse; karşılaşmaların maç, ilk yarı /normal süre sonucuna ve maçın skoruna ilişkin tahminler kabul edilir. Ama karşılaşmanın oranı bir (1) olarak kabul edilir. Bu durumda, Programda yer alan oynanabilecek maç sayısı en az ikiye düşene kadar Oyuncu oynamaya devam edebilir. Programda oynanabilecek tek maç kalması halinde, MBS sütununda 1 olarak belirtilmiş ise, tek tahmin bulunan kolonlar geçerliliğini korur. Bu gerekleri karşılamayan kolonlar, oyuna katılamazlar ve bu kolonlar için ödenen tutar, oyuncunun oynadığı tüm karşılaşmalar sona erdikten sonra oyuncuya iade edilir.

 Bir maç ikinci devresi esnasında ertelenirse ve maçın geri kalan süresi, Programda resmi olarak belirtilen günü müteakip bir takvim günü içinde oynanmazsa (yerel saatle), geçerli sonuç olarak, maç, ilk yarı /maç sonucu veya maçın skoru erteleme anındaki sonuç ve skor olarak kabul edilir.
 Bir maç, maç başladıktan sonra ertelenir ve Programda resmi olarak belirtilen günden itibaren bir takvim günü içinde yeniden oynanır ve sonuçlanırsa (yerel saatle), geçerli maç, ilk yarı /maç sonucu veya maçın skoru maçın tamamlandığı andaki sonuç ve skordur.
 Sunulan etkinliklere ilişkin veri veya belirli bir bilginin Program'da bulunmaması veya hatalar olduğunun fark edilmesi veya Program'ın dağıtımının gecikmesi durumunda, Spor Toto Teşkilatı, bu hususları mümkün olan diğer yollarla bildirme hakkına sahiptir.
 Bir kupon, oynandığı andan sonraki 5 (beş) dakika içerisinde, maç başlamadığı takdirde oynandığı terminalden iptal edilebilir. Bunun için terminal bir iptal çıktısı verir. Maçın başlama saatinden sonra iptal mümkün değildir.

İddaa Nasıl Oynanır?

İddaa'da farklı oyun türleri ve farklı oynanışlar vardır. Bunlar şu şekildedir:

Altı / Üstü

Bu oyundaki amaç, seçilen maçta iki tarafın atacağı toplam gol sayısının 2 veya daha az mı yoksa 3 veya daha fazla mı olduğunu tahmin etmektir. Eğer maçta 2 veya altında gol olur denirse "Altı" seçilir. Eğer maç bol gollü geçer, 3 veya üstünde gol olur diye tahmin edilirse "Üstü" seçilir. Bu oyunu oynamak diğerlerine göre daha kolaydır çünkü bu oyunda 3 yerine sadece 2 seçenek vardır: Altı ve Üstü. Bu yüzden kazanma ihtimali de daha yüksektir.

Maç Sonucu

Programdan, tahminde bulunmak istenilen maç seçilir. Maçın kodu, kupondaki Maç Kodu alanına yukarıdan aşağıya doğru işaretlenir. Daha sonra, kupon üzerinde bu maçın kesin sonucu Maç Sonucu alanına 1, 0, 2 cinsinden işaretlenir.

1: Ev sahibi takımın galibiyeti
0: Beraberlik
2: Deplasman takımının galibiyeti

Maç Sonucu oyununda, bir maç için aynı satırda en fazla 2 tahminde bulunulabilir. (X kodlu maç için 1 ve 0 gibi). İkili tahmin durumunda, oluşturulacak kolon sayısı arttığından, hem kazanma şansı hem de ödenecek bedel artacaktır.

İlk Yarı/Maç Sonucu

Programda yer alan maçlardan "İlk yarı/Maç sonucu" oranları verilmiş olanlardan en az 2 (MBS hariç) en fazla onbeş tanesi seçilerek ve kupon üzerine İlk yarı/Maç sonucu bölümüne işaretlenerek oynanır. Buradaki amaç tahminde bulunulan maç(lar)ın hem ilk yarı hem de maç sonuçlarını doğru tahmin etmektir. Maç sonucu oyunundan daha zor olmasına rağmen, daha çok kazanmak isteyenler tercih edebilirler, çünkü oranları Maç Sonucu oyununa göre daha yüksektir.

İlk Yarı / Maç Sonucu ve Maç Skoru Oyunlarında bir satırda birden fazla tahminde bulunulamaz.

Maç Skoru

Programda ayrıca belirtilen maçlara oynanabilir. Maçın skorunun kaç-kaç olacağı tahmin edilir. En az 1, en çok 15 maça tahminde bulunulabilir. Maç Skoru Oyunu, Maç Sonucu ve/veya İlk Yarı / Maç Sonucu oyunlarıyla kombine edilebilir. Çifte Şans özelliği bulunmaz. Maç Skoru oyununda bir satırda birden fazla tahmin yapılamaz. Zor bir oyun türü olmasının yanı sıra getirisi diğer oyun türlerine göre yüksektir.

Çifte Şanş

Çifte Şans aslında ayrı bir oyun türü değil oyuncunun hata yapma ihtimalini en aza indirmek için kullanabileceği bir sistemdir. Kısaca bir maçın sonucuna ilişkin aynı anda iki tahminde bulunabilmeyi sağlar.Maç Sonucu oyununda kazanma şansını artırırken, ödenecek bedelin sabit kalmasını sağlar.

Örneğin; "Maç Sonucu" oyununda tahminde bulunulan bir maçın sonucuna ilişkin tek bir tahmin yapılamıyorsa, mesela maçın berabere mi yoksa ev sahibi takım lehine mi bitebileceğine karar verilemiyorsa, kupon üzerine hem 0 (beraberlik) hem de 1 (ev sahibi takım galibiyeti) işaretlenip "Ç" kutucuğu işaretlenirse, maç berabere de bitse ev sahibi takım lehine de bitse doğru tahminde bulunulmuş olur.

Çifte Şans bölümünde "-" işareti görüldüğünde, bu olasılık için herhangi bir oran verilmemiş demektir.

Misli

Misli, kazancın ve kolon bedelinin artırılmasını sağlar. Normalde bir kupon bedeli 3 TL'dir; ancak kuponun altındaki Misli seçeneklerinden bir ya da birkaçının işaretlenmesi (en fazla 3) durumunda hem yatırılan hem de kazanılan para artacaktır.

Sistem

Sistem, oyuncuya yanılma imkânı tanıyarak, kazanma şansını artıran bir özelliktir. Kurallar dahilinde, istenilen sayıda alternatif kolon oluşturur. Üretilen kolonlardan birinin içerdiği bütün tahminlerin doğru olması halinde, oyuncu kazanır. Örneğin 7 maça tahminde bulunan oyuncu kupondaki "Sistem" alanında 5'i işaretlerse, herhangi iki maçı yanlış tahmin etme hakkına sahip olmuştur denebilir. Ancak bu şekilde yatırılan para miktarı artar. (Kazanılan para miktarında bir değişiklik olmaz.)

Sistem Alanı'nda yapılan işaretleme ile oluşan kolon sayısını, Sistem Tablosu söyler. Sistem Alanı'nda işaretlenen sayıyla, tahminde bulunulan maç sayısının kesiştiği nokta üretilen kolon sayısını verir. Örneğin, 6 tane maç tahmini yapılırsa ve Sistem Alanı'nda 4'ü işaretlenmişse  bu durumda kuponunda 15 kolon üretilir ve 15 kolon bedeli ödenir.

Sistemli oyunda ne kadar para yatırılması gerektiği program üzerinde ya da İddaa Bayilerinde bulunan "Sistem Tablosu"ndan öğrenilebilir.

Banko

Banko, futbol bilgisi kullanılarak ödenecek bedelin azaltılmasını sağlar. 'Sistemli' oynarken, güvenilen maçlar, 'banko' (B) olarak işaretlenerek üretilecek kolon sayısı düşürülür. Böylece daha az bedel ödenmiş olur. Ancak banko seçtiğin maçların mutlaka doğru tahmin edilmesi gerekir.

İddaa Uzun Vadeli

İddaa Uzun Vadeli oyunu, Program (Liste) üzerinde ilgili dönemdeki organizasyonlara bakılmak suretiyle kupon üzerinde tahminde bulunulan oyun tipidir. Program (Liste) ile ilan edilen futbol organizasyonları için; organizasyon birincisini, gol kralını, belirtilen karşılaşmalarda ilk golü atacak oyuncuyu, organizasyonların grup birincileri veya ikincilerini, yarı finalistlerini veya finalistlerini kupon üzerinde tahmin etmek suretiyle oynanır. İddaa Uzun Vadeli oranları, İddaa Uzun Vadeli programında ayrıca belirtilir ve kendi özel kuponu üzerinde oynanır. İddaa Uzun Vadeli oyununda, tek tahminde bulunulması yeterlidir. Bu oyunda da birkaç farklı oynanış türü vardır.

Bunlar kısaca:

 Şampiyonu tahmin etme: Bir ligin veya turnuvanın şampiyonunun tahmini,
 Gol Kralını tahmin etme: Bir ligin veya şampiyonanın en çok gol atan oyuncusunun tahmini,
 İlk golü kimin atacağını tahmin etme: Belirli bir maçta, ilk golü atacak oyuncunun tahmini,
 Finalisti tahmin etme: Bir turnuvanın finalistlerinin tahmini,
 Grup birincisini tahmin etme: Bir turnuvanın grup birincilerinin tahminidir.

Bir organizasyonunun gol kralı belirlenirken, olası uzatmalarda kaydedilen goller sayılır, ancak penaltı atışlarında kaydedilen goller dikkate alınmaz. Eğer aynı sayıda gol atan ve organizasyonun gol kralı kabul edilen iki ya da daha fazla oyuncu olursa, bunların her birinin oranı gol kralları sayısına bölünür.

Herhangi bir organizasyon için sunulan seçeneklerin oranlarında "-" yazması, o seçenek için oran verilmediğini ve tahminde bulunulamayacağını belirtir.

Olması muhtemel her sonuç için, oyuncuların ikramiyelerini hesaplayabilecekleri bahis oranları verilir. Programda yayınlanan bahis oranları başlangıç bahis oranları olup, oyun kapanana değin bu oranlar yeni oyuncular için değişebilir. Onaylama anında geçerli bahis oranları bilet üzerinde belirtilmektedir.

İddaa Uzun Vadeli Oyun Kuralları

 Sunulan etkinliklere ilişkin veri veya belirli bilginin programda bulunmaması veya hatalar olduğunun fark edilmesi veya programın dağıtımının gecikmesi durumunda, Spor Toto Teşkilatı bu hususları mümkün olan diğer yollarla bildirme hakkına sahiptir.
  18 yaşından küçükler İddaa Uzun Vadeli oyununa katılamazlar.
 İkramiye, bahsin Merkezi Bahis Sistemi tarafından onaylandığı anda yapılan doğru tahminlere ilişkin bahis oranlarının birbiri ile çarpımı ile bulunan sayının, kolon bedeli ile çarpılması sonucu tespit edilir. En az bir yanlış tahmin bulunan kolonlara ikramiye ödenmez.
 Her oyuncu için, işaretlemiş olduğu kuponda yer alan maçlardan ilk başlayacak olan maçın başlama saatinde oyun sisteme kapanır.
 Oyun, Sistem ve Misli alanları kullanılarak da oynanabilir.
 İptal, Erteleme ve Bahis Oranlarının Değişme Halleri söz konusu olduğunda, 21 Şubat 2006 tarih, 26087 sayılı Resmi Gazete'de yer alan oyun kuralları geçerlidir.

Dış bağlantılar
  İddaa Oyunu Resmi Web Sitesi
  İddaa Programlarında Yer Alan Maçların Sonuçları

Şans oyunları
Türkiye'de kumar

İddaa


مطار الرشيدية مولاي علي الشريف  هو مطار دولي يقع في مدينة الرشيدية بجهة درعة تافيلات بالمملكة المغربية، وله استعمال مُشترك مدني وعسكري. يتوفر المطار على مدرج واحد بطول 3200 متر وعرض 45 متر. وتبلغ الطاقة الاستعابية للمطار 000 300 مُسافر في السنة.

يبعد المطار عن منطقة مرزوكة السياحية بـ 125 كلم (حوالي 1H45) مُروراً بمدينة أرفود، مما يجعله المطار المفضل للطائرات الخاصة ولشركات الطيران التي تُشغل رحلات شارتر جوية لنقل السياح، ويعرف المطار إستقبال عدد كبير من الطائرات عند تنظيم الملتقى الدولي للتمور في أرفود.

تاريخ
في 25 يونيو 2014، دشنت الخطوط الملكية المغربية الخط الجوي الرابط بين الدار البيضاء والرشيدية.

ابتداءاً من سنة 2018، إرتفع عدد المسافرين بمطار الرشيدية مولاي علي الشريف بشكل كبير جداً وهذا راجع للإتفاقية التي وقعها مجلس جهة درعة تافيلات مع الخطوط الملكية المغربية لدعم الرحلات الجوية نحو الدار البيضاء وخفض أسعارها. وتوقيع إتفاقية أخرى مع العربية للطيران لتشغيل خط جوي بين الرشيدية وفاس، ثم في سنة 2019 تم توقيع إتفاقية أخرى جديدة مع الخطوط الملكية المغربية يتم بموجبها رفع عدد الرحلات الجوية بين جهة درعة تافيلات والدار البيضاء، وتتضمن هذه الإتفاقية الجديدة رفع الرحلات بين الرشيدية والدار البيضاء إلى 7 رحلات جوية أسبوعياً.

تحديث المطار
قام المكتب الوطني للمطارات بتحديث المطار بغلاف مالي قدره 82,10 مليون درهم، وقد شمل هذا المشروع بناء محطة جوية جديدة على مساحة 3500 متر مربع، وموقف للسيارات بطاقة استعابية قدرها 375 مكان للوقوف، وتوسيع الطريق المؤدية للمطار، وتقوية السور المحيط به، وتقوية إضاءة موقف الطائرات، وتهيئة المساحات الخضراء. وقد تم تدشين المحطة الجوية الجديدة والشُروع في إستخدامها ابتداءاً من يناير 2019.

شركات الطيران

إحصائيات

 عدد المسافرين:

انظر أيضا

مراجع

وصلات خارجية
 الموقع الرسمي للمكتب الوطني للمطارات

مبان ومنشآت في جهة درعة تافيلالت
مولاي علي الشريف
مولاي علي الشريف

مطار الرشيدية مولاي علي الشريف


Atromitos Yeroskipou () war ein zyprischer Fußballverein.

Geschichte
Der Verein wurde im Jahr 1957 in der Stadt Yeroskipou im Bezirk Paphos gegründet und spielte mehrere Jahrzehnte ausschließlich in der lokalen Liga von Paphos, bevor in nur wenigen Jahren der Durchmarsch bis in die First Division gelang.

Im Jahr 2004 gelang zum ersten Mal in der Vereinsgeschichte der Aufstieg in die Fourth Division der Cyprus Football Association. Bereits im Folgejahr 2005 konnte der Erfolg mit dem Aufstieg in die Third Division wiederholt werden. Nach einem weiteren Aufstieg in die Second Division im Jahr 2007 belegte man dort in der Endtabelle 2008 den dritten Rang, was gleichbedeutend mit dem Aufstieg in die höchste Spielklasse des Landes, die First Division war.

Nach nur einem Jahr Zugehörigkeit zur höchsten Spielklasse stieg Atromitos am Ende der Saison 2008/09 als Tabellenletzter mit nur einem Sieg in 26 Spielen direkt wieder in die Zweitklassigkeit ab. Nach zwei Spielzeiten im Mittelfeld der Second Division belegte der Verein in der Saison 2011/12 nur den 14. und letzten Tabellenplatz und musste wieder in die Third Division absteigen. Im Jahr 2013 wurde Atromitos aufgrund finanzieller Probleme aufgelöst.

Einzelnachweise

Zyprischer Fußballverein
Ehemaliger zyprischer Fußballverein
Sport (Geroskipou)

Atromitos Yeroskipou


Cayo Anclote (en inglés: Anclote Key) es una isla estadounidense en la costa del estado de Florida, situada en las coordenadas geográficas  cerca de Tarpon Springs. Su nombre proviene de la palabra española para "ancla", un anclote, es una ancla pequeña y ligera. La isla es accesible solamente por barco y se divide entre el Parque estadal de preservación del Cayo Anclote (Anclote Key Preserve State Park) y la Reserva nacional de vida salvaje Cayo Anclote (Anclote National Wildlife Reserve). La isla contiene  manglares, pinos costeros y playas. Un gran número de nidos de aves playeras se reproducen en cayo Anclote y las islas circundantes. El Cayo Arena o Sand Key se encuentra cerca.

Véase también
Cayo Agua (La Orchila)
Cayo Alacranes
Cayo Algodón Grande
Cayo Anclitas

Referencias

Enlaces externos
 Mapa de localización de la isla

Archipiélagos e islas de Florida

Cayo Anclote


Un magnetosoma es orgánulo en algunos tipos de bacterias que contiene unos cristales de magnetita (Fe3O4) con forma de cubo o de octaedro que se dispone en filas paralelas al eje longitudinal de la célula. Están presentes en bacterias acuáticas flageladas anaerobias o microaerófilas. Su alineamiento le proporciona propiedades magnéticas que hacen que las bacterias se puedan orientar magnéticamente en el medio ambiente.

En el año 1975 se descubrió que ciertas bacterias estaban orientadas según el campo magnético terrestre. Son orgánulos presentes en las bacterias procariotas magnetotácticas. Típicamente, contienen entre 15 y 20 cristales de magnetita que actúan como una brújula para orientar a las bacterias magnetotácticas en los campos geomagnéticos, lo que simplifica la búsqueda de sus ambientes preferidos de microaerofilia. El magnetosoma está formado por un cristal de magnetita rodeado por una bicapa lipídica, con proteínas específicas solubles y embebidas en la bicapa implicadas en su biosíntesis y regulación.

Características
En general, los cristales de los magnetosomas son de alta pureza química y rangos de tamaño estrechos. La forma del cristal es específica de especie exhiben un patrón específico dentro de la célula. Estas características indican que la formación de magnetosomas está bajo un preciso control biológico de biomineralización.

Las bacterias magnetotácticas generalmente producen la biomineralización de óxido de hierro, produciendo cristales de magnetita (Fe3O4), o de sulfuro de hierro, dando lugar a cristales de greigita (Fe3S4). En los magnetosomas de sulfuro de hierro se han podido identificar otros minerales con esta composición.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! La membrana que los rodea contiene
|-
| *Fospolípidos
|-
| *Proteínas
|-
| *Glicolípidos
|}

Función de los magnetosomas en la célula bacteriana
Es la de orientación en el campo magnético existente. El magnetosoma permite a la bacteria ir fijando su posición con respecto al norte, pudiendo trazar una ruta a través del campo magnético hacia zonas de distintas concentraciones de oxígeno y de nutrientes.

Morfología
La morfología de las partículas de los magnetosomas es variable, pero es uniforme dentro de las células de una sola especie o género bacteriano. Se han descrito tres morfologías cristalinas generales en las bacterias magnetotácticas: más o menos cúbico, prismático alargado (más o menos rectangular), y forma de diente, bala o punta de flecha. Los cristales del magnetosoma son típicamente 35-120 nm de largo, generados de una sola pieza. Una unidad del magnetosoma tiene el máximo momento magnético posible por unidad de volumen para una composición dada. Los cristales más pequeños son superparamagnéticos, es decir, no son permanentemente magnéticos a temperatura ambiente, y las paredes de la unidad se forman en los cristales más grandes. En la mayoría de las bacterias magnetotácticas, los magnetosomas están dispuestos en una o más cadenas.

Tipo de bacterias que producen los magnetosomas
Muchas de ellas se engloban en los géneros Magnetospirillum o Magnetococcus. Las bacterias del género Magnetospirillum son bacterias con forma de sacacorchos (espirilos) gram negativas, perteneciente al grupo taxonómico de las alfa-proteobacterias. Son anaerobios facultativos o microaerófilos y viven en zonas de transición entre zonas anoxigénicas y zonas oxigenadas. Su hábitat predilecto son las zonas húmedas enfangadas o sedimentos marinos donde existen ambientes ricos en azufre y escasos en oxígeno.

Véase también
 Magnetorrecepción

Referencias

Orgánulos celulares
Biofísica
Conceptos del magnetismo
Percepción

Magnetosoma


Šestar je hrvatska podatkovna baza. Zamišljena je kao interaktivna podatkovna baza znanstvenih instrumenata smještenih pri znanstvenim, istraživačkim i visokoškolskim ustanovama u RH. Zahvaljujući raspoloživim informacijama, trebalo bi se unaprijediti korištenje postojećih instrumenata, potaknuti suradnju među znanstveno-istraživačkim ustanovama i samim istraživačima, kao i između znanosti i gospodarstva.

Izvori

Znanost i tehnologija u Hrvatskoj
Baze podataka

Šestar (baza podataka)


الأميرة لطيفة بنت فهد بن عبد العزيز آل سعود ابنة الملك فهد بن عبد العزيز آل سعود والعنود بنت عبد العزيز بن مساعد بن جلوي آل سعود. وهي أخت شقيقة لكل من: فيصل بن فهد، محمد بن فهد، سعود بن فهد، سلطان بن فهد، و خالد بن فهد.

تشغل منصب رئيسة اللجنة النسوية بمؤسسة العنود الخيرية، عضو مجلس الأمناء. ولها العديد من المواقف والمساهمات الخيرية.

حياتها الشخصية
كانت متزوجة من تركي بن عبد الله بن محمد آل سعود وأنجبت فيصل، ومتزوجة من خالد بن سعود بن محمد آل سعود وأنجبت سعود.

وفاتها
توفيت الأميرة لطيفة آل سعود في يوم الجمعة 24 صفر 1435 هـ الموافق 27 ديسمبر 2013 وفقًا لما أعلنه الديوان الملكي.

مراجع

أميرات سعوديات
سعوديات في القرن 20
سعوديات في القرن 21
فاعلو خير سعوديون
مدفونون في مقبرة العود
وفيات 1959

لطيفة بنت فهد بن عبد العزيز آل سعود


كابير (أيضًا كبيرا) (الهندية: कबीर, البنجابي: ਕਬੀਰ, الأردو: کبير) بمعنى (كبير) (1440–1518) هو شاعر صوفي وقديس من الهند، وقد أثرت كتاباته بشكلٍ كبير على حركة بهاكتي. واسم «كابير» مأخوذ من العربية والذي يعني«عظيم».

وبعيدًا عن تأثيره المهم على الديانة السيخية، فإن من يحمل إرث كابير اليوم هم أرباب كابير بانت، وهم جماعة دينية اعتبرته مؤسسها وتعد واحدة من الطوائف التأملية سانت مات. ويعرف أعضاء تلك الجماعة بـتابعي مذهب كابير (كابير بانتيس)، ويقدر عددهم بحوالي 9,600,000. وينتشرون في شمال ووسط الهند، كما يتناثرون مع أطياف الشتات الهندي حول العالم، ارتفاعًا من 843,171 في تعداد 1901.
ومن كتاباته بيجاك، وساخي جرانث، وكابير جرانثاوالي، وأنوراغ ساجار.

النشأة والخلفية
لا يعرف أحد الكثير عن والدي كابير الأصليين، ولكن من المعروف عنه أنه تربى وسط أسرة من النساجين المسلمين. وقد عثر عليه نساج مسلم يدعى نيرو وتدعى زوجته نعمة، في ليهارتارا، التي تقع في فاراناسي. وقد كان كل من نيرو ونيما فقيرين جدًا وأمّيين. قاما بتبني الطفل وعلّماه تجارة النسيج.

ومن غير المعروف ما هو نوع التدريب الروحي الذي تلقاه كابير. لم يصبح كابير راهبا، كما أنه لم يهجر أبدًا الحياة الدنيا. وبدلاً من ذلك اختار كابير أن يعيش حياة متوازنة كرب منزل، ومتصوف، وتاجر، ومتأمل.

ومع ذلك فإننا نعلم أن التدريب الروحاني المبكر لكابير تلقاه على يد راماناندا، والذي أصبح معلمه عندما كان لا يزال طفلاً. وتعددت الصيغ التي توضح كيفية تقبل راماناندا لكابير ليكون تلميذه. ما هو ثابت في جميع الإصدرات أن كابير خدع راماناندا ليعطيه تعويذة للتأمل، مما أجبره على الموافقة على جعل كابير تلميذه.
ويعتقد أن عائلة كابير كانت تعيش في المكان الذي يوجد في كابير تشورا في فاراناسي.  جبهة maṭha كابير ()، هي جبهة (maṭha) تقع في الأزقة الخلفية لكابير تشورا، وتقوم بالاحتفال بحياته وأيامه. وبصحبة المِلكيّة يوجد منزل يسمى Nīrūṭīlā () والذي يأوي مقابر نيرو ونيما. كما يستوعب المنزل أيضًا الطلبة والباحثين الذين يعيشون هناك ويقومون بدراسة أعمال كابير.

الفلسفات
تأثر كابير بالمزاج الديني السائد في عصره، مثل الهندوسية البراهمنية القديمة، وفلسفة التانترا الدينية، وتعاليم ناث اليوغيين، ومذهب الوفاء الشخصي في جنوب الهند والمختلطة مع الرب غير المصور في الإسلام. ويظهر ذلك التأثر بتلك المذاهب المتنوعة في نصوص كابير. ويرى المؤرخون البارزون أمثال آر. سي. ماجومدار، وبي. إن. تشوبرا (P.N. Chopra)، وبي. إن. بوري (B.N. Puri)، وإم. إن داس (M.N. Das) أن كابير هو أول قديس هندي حاول توفيق الهندوسية والإسلام عن طريق التبشير بمذهبٍ عالمي يستطيع فيه كلٌ من الهندوس والمسلمين التعامل مع بعضهم البعض. ولكن هناك القليل من النقاد خالفوا تلك الإدعاءات.

وتعد المبادئ الدينية الأساسية التي يعتنقها كابير بسيطة للغاية. وفقًا لكابير، فإن الحياة ما هي إلا تفاعل بين مبدأين روحيين. الأول يسمى الروح الذاتية (Jivatma) والآخر هو الإله باراماتاما. ووجهة نظر كابير هو أن الخلاص هو عملية توحيد هذين المبدأين السماويين. أدى إدماج الكثير من نصوص كابير في كتب السيخ المقدسة، وحقيقة أنه كان سلفًا لـلمعلم ناناك ديف، إلى وصف بعض الباحثين الغربيين لكابير عن طريق الخطأ على أنه رائد الديانة السيخية.

من أعظم أعماله بيجاك («النبتة»)، وهي فكرة عن الكينونة الأساسية. وتلك المجموعة من الأشعار تلقي الضوء على نظرة كبيرة الشمولية للروحانية. تعد المفردات التي يستخدمها كابير مفردات مفعمة بالمبادئ الروحانية الهندوسية، مثل البراهمي، والكارما، والتناسخ، عارض بشدة العصبيات، في كلٍ من الهندوسية والإسلام. وكانت لغته الهندية تميل إلى العامية، والصراحة، والرقة على نفس النحو الذي تتصف به فلسفته. وغالبًا ما كان يحبذ ترك القرآن والفيدا واتباع مذهب الساهاجا، أو الطريقة الطبيعية البسيطة التي تقول بوحدانية الله. وقد آمن بـالفينداتا مبدأ من مبادئ آتمان، ولكن بخلاف أتباع الفينداتا الأرثوذكسية الأوائل، فإنه رفض نظام الطائفة الهندوسية المجتمعي ومورتي-البوجية (عبادة الأوثان)، وأظهر إيمانًا في أفكار بهاكتي والتصوف. الجزء الأعظم من عمل كابير كـباغات تم تجميعه بواسطة السيخ ومعلمه الخامس، والمعلم آرجان دف، وأدرجها في الكتاب المقدس للسيخ، المعلم غرانث ساهيب.

الشعر
ألّف كابير الشعر بأسلوبٍ بليغ وعملي، مفعم بالمفاجأة والصور الإبداعية. ويظهر صدى قصائده في مدح المعلم الحقيقي الذي يكشف عما هو إلهي من خلال الخبرة المباشرة، كما أدان الطرق الأكثر استخدامًا لمحاولة الاتصال والاتحاد مع الإله مثل الترانيم، وأسلوب التقشف، وما إلى ذلك. وبما أن كابير كان أمّيًا فقد كان يعبر عن أشعاره شفاهة بالعامية الهندية، مستعيرًا من العديد من اللهجات بما في ذلك الأفادهية، والبراجية، والبهوجبورية. وغالبًا ما كان يبدأ نصوصه بشتائمٍ شديدة اللهجة لجذب انتباه المارة. وتمتع كبير بإحياء لشعبيته على مدى النصف قرن الماضي كأكثر القديسين الهنود قبولاً وسهولةً في فهم نصوصه، مع وجود تأثير عظيم على التقاليد الروحانية مثل سانت مات، وغريب داس، ورادها سوامي.

الإرث
تنسب مجموعة كبيرة من العمل الشعري إلى كبير. فيما كتب اثنان من تلاميذه، بهاجوداس ودهارماداس، العديد منها، «...يوجد الكثير من الكلام الذي تم تمريره ببعض الأخطاء المتوقعة والتشويهات، وهو أسلوب نقل من فمٍ لآخر، كجزءٍ من تقليد شفهي راسخ.»

النصوص والأغاني المنسوبة لكابير متوفرة اليوم بالعديد من اللهجات، بمفرداتٍ وهجاءات مختلفة تلائم تقليد النقل الشفهي. وتتباين الآراء بشأن تكوين أي فكرة عن صحة أي قصيدة مهداة. وبالرغم من ذلك، فإن روح التصوف جاءت للحياة من خلال «قوة فريدة... قوة الفكر ونمط الاقتضاب الصارم.»

وقد سمى كابير وأتباعه إنتاجه الشعري بأقاويل بانيس ('bāņīs,'). ويتضمن ذلك أغاني كالسابقة، أو مؤلفات شعرية من بيتين تسمى دوهي (dohe)، أو سالوكا (śalokā) (اللغة السنسكريتية: ślokā)، أو ساخي (sākhī) (اللغة السنسكريتية: sākşī). المصطلح الأخير، والذي يعني 'الشهادة'، هو المصطلح الأكثر دلالة على الاستخدام الذي يصوره كابير وأتباعه في تلك الأشعار: «وكدليلٍ مباشر على الحقيقة، كلمة ساخي (sākhī)... كان يجب أن تذكر... ويذكر الساخي... لاستحضار الحقيقة العليا.» وعلى هذا النحو، فإن الحفظ والقراءة، وبالتالي دراسة تلك الأقاويل تشكل، المذهب لليقظة الروحانية، لكابير وأتباعه.

شعر كابير اليوم
يوجد في شعر كابير العديد من التلميحات التي تستخدم في التيار الرئيسي لموسيقى الأفلام الهندية. الأغنية الصغيرة للصوفية Sufi لفرقة الانصهار والبوم المحيط الهندي جهيني هو تقديم حيوي من قصيدة كابير المشهورة "The intricately woven blanket"، مع تأثيرات من الشعبية الهندية والتقاليد الصوفية والصخور التدريجية.

أنتج مخرج الأفلام الوثائقية شابنام فيرماني، من مشروع كبير سلسلة من الأفلام الوثائقية والكتب التي تتقفّى فلسفة كابير، وموسيقاه وشعره في الهند وباكستان في هذه الأيام. وتعرض الأفلام الوثائقية المغنيين الشعبيين من الهنود مثل براهلاد تيبانيا، وموختيار علي، وفن القوالي الباكستاني ومغنيه فريد أياز.

وظهر شعر كابير بشكلٍ بارز في أفلام المخرج أناند غاندي مثل «هنا، والآن» (Right Here Right Now) سنة 2003 وما تلاها.

المراجع

كتابات أخرى
 Bly, Robert, tr. Kabir: Ecstatic Poems. Beacon Press, 2004. (ISBN 0-8070-6384-3)
 Dass, Nirmal, tr. Songs of Kabir from the Adi Granth. SUNY Press, 1991. (ISBN 0-7914-0560-5)

 Kabir. Compilation of Kabir's dohas in Devanagiri.
 Masterman, David, ed/rev. Kabir says... Los Angeles: Three Pigeons Publishing, 2011.
 Tagore, Rabindranath, tr. Songs of Kabir. Forgotten Books, 1985. (ISBN 1-60506-643-5) Songs of Kabir
 Vaudeville, Charlotte. A Weaver Named Kabir: Selected Verses with a Detailed Biographical and Historical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. (ISBN 0-19-563933-2)
 KavitaKosh.org Compilation of Kabir's dohas in Devanagiri Kabir Page on Kavitakosh

وصلات خارجية

 Gutenberg: Songs of Kabir by Rabindranath Tagore
 The Bijak of Kabir – Ahmad Shah Translation of the Entire Text
 The Anurag Sagar of Kabir

أشخاص من مقاطعة سانت كبير نجر
الحركة البهاكتية
تعددية دينية
دارسون من فاراناسي
شعراء باللغة الهندية
شعراء صوفيون
شعراء من أتر برديش
شعراء هنود
شعراء هنود في القرن 15
شعراء هنود في القرن 16
فلاسفة هنود في القرن 15
فلاسفة هنود في القرن 16
فلاسفة وفيلسوفات هنود
قادة دينيون هندوس هنود
قديسون هندوس
قديسون هندوس هنود
كتاب من فاراناسي
مواليد 1440
مواليد في فاراناسي
مؤسسو أديان
نباتيون هنود
وفيات 1518

كابير


David Lynch - The Art Life er en amerikansk portrætfilm fra 2017 instrueret af Rick Barens og Jon Nguyen.

Handling
DAVID LYNCH: THE ART LIFE er en dokumentarfilm, der giver et indblik i filmmesteren bag film som "The Elephant Man", "Blue Velvet" og "Mulholland Dr." og TV-serien "Twin Peaks". Vi følger Lynch på en personlig rejse fra sin opvækst i en lille amerikansk by til hans nuværende status som en af Amerikas mest gådefulde instruktører. Gennem interviews og nedslag i Lynchs kunst, musik og tidlige film får publikum et unikt indblik i manden såvel som kunstneren David Lynch.

Referencer

Eksterne henvisninger

Dokumentarfilm fra USA
Portrætfilm fra USA
Amerikanske film fra 2017

David Lynch - The Art Life


Hans Piesbergen (* 15. Juli 1891 in Osterholz (Bremen); † 1970) war ein deutscher Verwaltungsjurist.

Leben
Piesbergen war Sohn eines Amtsgerichtsrats. Er studierte Rechtswissenschaft an der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg und wurde 1910 Mitglied des Corps Hasso-Borussia Freiburg. Er beendete das Studium 1913 mit der ersten Staatsprüfung und begann das Referendariat. Er nahm am ganzen Ersten Weltkrieg teil, so dass er das Referendariat erst 1919 fortsetzen konnte. Ab 1921 war er beim Landratsamt des Obertaunuskreises eingesetzt. Nach Stationen in Berlin, Wiesbaden und Münster wurde er 1930 Landrat des Kreises Fallingbostel in der Provinz Hannover. Piesbergen gehörte von 1922 bis 1929 der Deutschen Volkspartei an.

Am 1. Mai 1933 trat er der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei bei. Nach der Zerschlagung der Rest-Tschechei wurde er 1939 Ministerialrat im Protektorat Böhmen und Mähren. In der Planung des Überfalls auf Polen war Piesbergen als Leiter der Zivilverwaltung Mähren mit Sitz in Brünn vorgesehen. Ab dem 5. Juni 1940 wurde er als Leiter der Präsidialabteilung beim Reichskommissar für die besetzten niederländischen Gebiete zur rechten Hand des Reichskommissars Arthur Seyß-Inquart. Er wurde am 1. August 1941 zum Regierungspräsidenten der Hohenzollernschen Lande ernannt, übte sein Amt in Sigmaringen aber wegen der Verwendung in den Niederlanden nicht aus. Am 30. Januar 1942 folgte ihm Wilhelm Dreher als Regierungspräsident.

Piesbergen lebte auf seinem Gutshof Rüenberg in Gronau (Westf.).

Schriften
 Das Reichskartellgericht als Verwaltungsgericht nach der KVO vom 2. November 1923, Wertheim : Bechstein, 1933 Diss. Heidelberg 1931

Literatur
  Bärbel Holtz, Die Protokolle des Preußischen Staatsministeriums, Hildesheim : Olms-Weidmann, 2001 (Acta borussica Band 12/II) ISBN  3-487-12704-0

Einzelnachweise

Verwaltungsjurist
Regierungspräsident (Sigmaringen)
Landrat (Provinz Hannover)
Corpsstudent (20. Jahrhundert)
Person im Ersten Weltkrieg (Deutsches Reich)
Person (Protektorat Böhmen und Mähren)
Person (deutsche Besetzung der Niederlande 1940–1945)
NSDAP-Mitglied
DVP-Mitglied
Person (Osterholz, Bremen)
Deutscher
Geboren 1891
Gestorben 1970
Mann

Hans Piesbergen (Jurist)


El cortex del cíngulo anterior (CCA) o circunvolución del cíngulo anterior es la parte frontal de la circunvolución del cíngulo, que parece un "collar" formado alrededor del cuerpo calloso, el mazo fibroso que transmite las señales neuronales entre los hemisferios cerebrales derecho e izquierdo. Consiste de las áreas de Brodmann 24, 32, y 33. Parece que juega un rol en una gama amplia de funciones autónomas, tales como regular la presión sanguínea y el ritmo cardíaco, como también para ciertas funciones cognitivas racionales, tales como la inhibición verbal, la anticipación de premio, la toma de decisiones, la empatía y las emociones.

Véase también
 Circunvolución del cíngulo
 Sistema de premio

Referencias

Cerebro
Neuroanatomía

Cortex del cíngulo anterior


Frabosa peut désigner:

 Frabosa Soprana, commune italienne de la province de Coni dans la région Piémont en Italie;
 Frabosa Sottana, commune italienne de la province de Coni dans la région Piémont en Italie.

Voir aussi

 Fragoso

Frabosa


Optimates (; Latin for "best ones",  ) and populares (; Latin for "supporters of the people",  ) are labels applied to politicians, political groups, traditions, strategies, or ideologies in the late Roman Republic. There is "heated academic discussion" as to whether Romans would have recognised an ideological content or political split in the label.

Among other things, optimates have been seen as supporters of the continued authority of the senate, politicians who operated mostly in the senate, or opponents of the populares. The populares have also been seen as focusing on operating before the popular assemblies, generally in opposition to the senate, using "the populace, rather than the senate, as a means [for advantage]".

References to optimates (also called boni, "good men") and populares are found among the writings of Roman authors of the 1st century BC. The distinction between the terms is most clearly established in Cicero's Pro Sestio, a speech given and published in 56 BC, where he framed the two labels against each other.

With the publication of the Römische Geschichte in the 1850s, the German historian Theodor Mommsen set the enduring and popular interpretation that optimates and populares represented political parties, which he implicitly compared to the German liberal and conservative parties of his own day. Mommsen's paradigm, however, has been criticised by generations of historians, first by Friedrich Münzer, followed by Ronald Syme, who considered that Roman politics was marked by familial and individual ambitions, not parties. Other historians have pointed to the impossibility of applying such labels to many individuals, who could pretend to be popularis or optimas as they saw fit; the careers of Drusus or Pompey are for example impossible to fit into one "party". Ancient usage was also far from clear: even Cicero, while linking optimates to Greek aristokratia (ἀριστοκρατία), also used the word populares to describe politics "completely compatible with... honourable aristocratic behaviour".

As a result, modern historians do not recognise any "coherent political party" under either populares or optimates, nor do those labels lend themselves easily to comparison with a modern left–right split. Democratic interpretations of Roman politics, however, have pushed for a re-evaluation which attributes an ideological tendency – e.g. populares believing in popular sovereignty – to the labels.

Meaning
With the publication of the Römische Geschichte in the 1850s, the German historian Theodor Mommsen set the enduring and popular interpretation that optimates and populares represented aristocratic and democratic parliamentary-style political parties, with the labels emerging around the time of the Gracchi. His interpretation "owe[d] much to nineteenth century German liberal thought". Classicists today, however, generally agree that neither optimate or popularis referred to political parties: "It is common knowledge nowadays that populares did not constitute a coherent political group or 'party' (even less so than their counterparts, optimates)".

Unlike in modern times, Roman politicians stood for office on the basis of their personal reputations and qualities rather than with a party manifesto or platform. For example, the opposition to the First Triumvirate failed to act as a united front with coherent coordination of its members, acting instead on an ad hoc basis with regular defections to and from those opposing the political alliance depending on the topic of debate, personal relations, etc. These ad hoc alliances and many different methods of gaining political influence meant were no "neat categories of optimates and populares" or of conservatives and radicals in a modern sense. Erich S Gruen, for example, in Last Generation of the Roman Republic (1974) rejected both populares and optimates, saying "such labels obscure rather than enlighten" and arguing that optimates was used not as a political label, but instead used to praise a member of the political elite.

Moving away from the 19th century view of political parties or factions vying for dominance, the scope of the modern academic debate focuses on whether the terms referred to an ideological split among aristocrats or whether the terms were meaningless or topics of debate themselves.

Optimates
The traditional view of the optimates refers to aristocrats who defended their own material and political interests and behaved akin to modern fiscal conservatives in opposing wealth redistribution and supporting small government. To that end, the optimates were viewed traditionally as emphasising the authority or influence of the senate over other organs of the states, including the popular assemblies. In other instances, the optimates are defined "somewhat mechanically, as those who opposed the populares".

This definition relying on a "senatorial" party or fiscal conservatives breaks down at a closer reading of the evidence. A "senatorial" party describes no meaningful split, as basically all active politicians were senators.

A definition to the terms based on whether a politician supported land redistribution or grain subsidies runs into two issues. Such measures were not "the sole preserve of the so-called populares" and "were not per se incompatible with traditional senatorial policy, given the extensive colonisation the senate had overseen in the past and the grain provision which members of the elite occasionally organised on a private basis". Moreover, identifying the populares based on the policies they supported in office would place politicians traditionally identified as belonging to one "faction" into the "opposite" camp:

 Publius Sulpicius Rufus, one of the classic populares, supported policies that had little "to do with the betterment of the populus and in fact appear to have been distinctly unpopular".
 Marcus Livius Drusus, brought agrarian reform laws with the support of the senate, giving his policies a popularis tone, even when senatorial support and agrarian reforms are supposedly dichotomous.
 Cato the Younger, traditionally identified as the optimate, becomes popularis for supporting expansion of the grain dole during his tribunate.
 Sulla, traditionally identified also as an arch-conservative, turns popularis for "probably confiscat[ing] and redistribut[ing] more land in Italy than any other Roman politician".
 And Julius Caesar, traditionally seen as popularis (though never self-identifying with that label in his extant texts), emerges as an optimate for "substantially reduc[ing] the number of grain recipients in Rome during his dictatorship".

Other proposed views of optimates are that they were leaders of the senate or those acting with the support of the senate. Mouritsen in Politics in the Roman Republic (2017) rejects both of the traditional definitions. Of optimates being those with the support of the senate:

Usage of the term by contemporaries also was not highly dichotomised. Optimate was used generically to refer to the wealthy classes in Rome as well as the aristocracies of foreign cities or states:

Populares

References to populares in scholarship today "do not imply a co-ordinated 'party' with a distinctive ideological character, a kind of political grouping for which there is no evidence in Rome, but simply allude to a... type of senator" who is "at least at that moment acting as the people's man". This is in contrast to the 19th century view of the populares from Mommsen, in which they are a group of aristocrats which supported democracy and the rights and material interests of the common people.

The highly influential view of Christian Meier redefined the popularis as a label for a senator using the popular assemblies' law-making powers to overrule decisions of the senate, primarily as a political tactic to get ahead in Roman politics. In this view, a populares politician is a person who:

[adopts] a certain method of political working, to use the populace, rather than the senate, as a means to an end; the end being, most likely, personal advantage for the politician concerned.

Ratio popularis
The ratio popularis, or strategy of putting political questions before the people writ large, was pursued when politicians were unable to achieve their goals through the normal process in the senate. This was in part structural: the "dyadic nature of [the senate and people of Rome, ie the republic] meant that when a senator opposed his peers... there was only recourse available" to the people. This political method involved a populist style of rhetoric, and "only to a limited extent, that of policy" with even less ideological content.

The content of popularis legislation was tied to the fact that politicians choosing to go before the people required needed strong support therefrom to overrule the decision of the senate. This forced politicians choosing a popular strategy to include policies that directly benefited voters in the assemblies, such as debt relief, land redistribution, and grain doles. The earlier popularis tactics of Tiberius Gracchus reflected the dominance of rural voters who had resettled to Rome recently, while the later popularis tactics of Clodius reflected the interests of the masses of urban poor.

Material interests like corn subsidy bills were not the whole of popularis causes: popularis politicians also may have made arguments on the proper role of the Assemblies in the Roman state (ie, a popular sovereignty) rather than just questions of material interests. Other benefits proposed attempted to empower supporters in the popular assemblies, with introduction of secret ballot, restoration of tribunician rights after Sulla's dictatorship, promotion of non-senators onto juries before the law courts, and the general election of priests. All of these empowered non-senatorial supporters broadly, including both the wealthy equites and the poor urban population in Rome.

Ideological view
One of the larger issues in modern scholarship is whether the politicians who operated in the ratio popularis actually believed in their proposals, scepticism of which "certainly seems well warranted in many cases".

A democratic interpretation of Roman politics neatly complements an ideological revival by interpreting Roman politicians to vie for popular support at an ideological, but not factional, level. This link, however, remains tenuous, as "candidates apparently never ran on specific policies or associated themselves with particular ideologies during their campaign[s]". Moreover, speculation as to the inner motivations of Roman politicians cannot be substantiated one way or the other, as the inner thoughts of the Roman elite are almost entirely lost. Even the apparent deaths suffered by "popularis" tribunes cannot be accepted at face value: initial intentions are not final outcomes, it is unlikely that those who followed a popularis path expected death.

Mackie argued that popularis politicians had an ideological bent towards criticising the senate's legitimacy, focusing on the sovereign powers of the popular assemblies, criticising the senate for neglecting common interests, and accusing the senate of administering the state corruptly. She added that populares advocated for the popular assemblies to take control of the republic, phrasing demands in terms of libertas, referring to popular sovereignty and the power of the Roman assemblies to create law. T. P. Wiseman argues, further, that these differences reflected "rival ideologies" with "mutually incompatible [views on] what the republic was".

This democratic interpretation did not imply a party structure, instead focusing on motivations and policies. Scholars of the late republic have not reached a consensus as to whether Roman politicians really were divided in these terms. Nor does an ideological approach explain the traditional identification of certain politicians (eg Publius Sulpicius Rufus) as popularis when the policies they advanced were only weakly connected to the welfare of the Roman voter. Robb argues, moreover, that the premise of the label, ie that a certain person or policy benefits the people write large, is of little use: "the principle of acting in the popular interest was a central one that all politicians would claim to be following".

In rhetoric

The "constitutional framework in which politicians operated automatically turned policy disagreements into rhetorical contests between populus and aristocracy": tribunes which were unable to secure the support of their peers in the senate would naturally go before the people; to justify this they turned to stock arguments for popular sovereignty; opponents would then bring out similar stock arguments for senatorial authority. Young Roman politicians also turned regularly to controversial rhetoric or policies in an attempt to build their name recognition and stand out from the mass of other political candidates in their short one-year terms, with few apparent negative impacts on their longer-term career prospects.

Popularis rhetoric was couched "in terms of the consensus of values at Rome at the time: libertas, leges, mos maiorum, and senatorial incompetence at governing the res publica". In public speeches during the republic, legislative disagreements did not emerge in party-political terms: "from the rostra... neither the opponents of Tiberius Gracchus, nor Catulus against Gabinius, nor Bibulus against Caesar, nor Cato against Trebonius even so much as suggested that their advice to the  was predicated on an 'optimate' policy based on a different arrangement of political ends and means from those of the 'popular' advocates of a bill... there was, it seems, virtually no place on the rostra for ideological bifurcation". For the Roman in the street, political debate was not related to party affiliations, but the issue and proposer itself: "Is the proposer of this agrarian (or frumentary, etc.) law really championing our interests, as he avows, or is he rather pursuing some private benefit for himself or something else behind the scenes?" which naturally flowed into the themes of personal credibility that recur in republican public rhetoric.

Like most Roman rhetoric, popularis rhetoric also drew heavily on historical precedents (exempla) – including that from ancient times, such as the revival of the comitia Centuriata as a popular law court, – from the abolition of the Roman monarchy to the popular rights and liberties won by the secession of the plebs. Popularis rhetoric surrounding secret ballots and land reform were not framed in terms of innovations, but rather, in terms of preserving and restoring the birth-right liberty of the citizenry. And populares too could hijack traditionally optimate themes by criticising current senators for failing to live up to the examples of their ancestors, acting in ways which would in the long run harm the authority of the senate, or framing their own arguments in fiscal responsibility.

Both putative groups agreed on core values such as Roman liberty and the fundamental sovereignty of the Roman people; even those who were supporting the senate at some time or another would not be able to wholly discount the traditional sovereignty attributed to the people. Furthermore, much of the perceived difference between optimates and populares emerged from rhetorical flourishes unsupported by policy: "no matter how emphatically the people's interests and 'sovereignty' may have been asserted, the republic never saw any concrete attempts to change the nature of Roman society or shift the balance of power".

Usage by ancient Romans

Beyond the modern usage of the two terms in classical studies to refer to the putative political parties, the terms also emerge from the Latin literature of the period.

In Latin, the word popularis is normally used outside the works of Cicero to mean "compatriot" or "fellow citizen". The word also could be used pejoratively to refer to populists or politicians pandering to the people, politicians with great personal popularity, politicians who were ostensibly acting in the peoples' interest, and actions before crowds of the people.

The word optimates, while infrequent in the surviving canon, is also used to refer to aristocrats or the aristocracy as a whole.

Cicero
In Cicero's letters – rather than his forensic speeches – he used it generally to refer to popularity. In Cicero's philosophical works, it was used to refer to "the majority of the people" and to describe "the style of speech most useful for public speaking".

The oppositional meaning between populares and optimates emerges mainly from Cicero's drawing of a distinction between the two in his speech Pro Sestio, a speech made to defend a friend instrumental in recalling Cicero from exile by his political enemy Clodius. Cicero's use of the term, that "populares aim to please the multitude", is recognised to be polemical. His remarks that popularis tactics emerged from a failure to win the support of the senate and of personal grievances with the senate are also "equally suspect". Cicero's usage in that speech draws a distinction between optimates who "are honourable, honest, and upright... [and] safeguard the interests of the state and the liberty of its citizens" with populares who are not so honourable and instead engage in failed attempts to cultivate demagoguery. Cicero's description of Clodius as popularis "concentrates on the demagogic sense of the word, rather than risking attack on the rights of the people".

Mouritsen writes of Cicero in Pro Sestio:

Cicero's bold rhetorical self-reinvention in the Pro Sestio has presented historians with a deceptively simple model which at first sight seems to provide a key to unlocking the secrets of Roman politics. But the terminology Cicero uses turns out to be unique and unlike anything else found in the ancient sources... We are therefore not dealing with an observable phenomenon for which the Pro Sestio happens to offer a convenient label. Rather, it is the other way round: Cicero's use of popularis in that particular speech has reified what would otherwise have remained discrete difficult-to-classify events and individuals and turned them into manifestations of a single political movement.

Cicero, however, did not always use the word this way. During his consulship, he "stak[ed] his own claim to being popularis [in] the popular mandate he [held] as an elected consul" and drew a distinction between himself and other politicians as to who truly acted in the interests of the Roman people. This usage did not draw a contrast between populares and optimates. He similarly uses the term popularis describe himself in the Seventh Phillipic for his opposition to Antony and later, in the Eighth Phillipic, to describe the actions of Nasica and Opimius "for having acted in the public interests" by killing Tiberius Gracchus and Gaius Gracchus. This usage also does not contrast to optimates but instead suggests that some person is "truly acting in the interest of the people".

Sallust
Sallust, a Roman politician who served as praetor during Caesar's dictatorship, writing an account of the Catiline conspiracy and the Jugurthine war, does not use the word optimas (or optimates) at all, and uses the word popularis only ten times. None of those usages are political, referring either to countrymen or comrades. Robb speculates that "[Sallust] may have chosen the avoid using the word precisely because it was so imprecise and did not clearly identify a particular kind of politician".

In his work on the Jugurthine war, he does have a narrative of two parties: one of the people (populus) and one the nobles (nobilitas), where a small and corrupt section of the senate () is contrasted oligarchically against the rest of society. But because the nobiles were defined not by their ideology, but by their ancestry from past holders of curule magistracies, these are not the optimates of ideological or political-party conflict, who are themselves "riven by internal divisions".

Sallust also fails to draw any distinction between popular sovereignty and senatorial prestige as sources of legitimacy or authority. He also gives the "dissenting nobles and their factions" no labels, "for the simple reason that they lacked the common characteristics which would have enabled such a categorisation", instead presenting a cynical view in which Roman politicians cloaked themselves opportunistically in terms of libertas populi Romani and senatus auctoritas as means for self-advancement.

Other people in the late republic
While ancient accounts of the late republic describe "a political 'establishment' and the opposition" thereto they do not use words such as populares to describe that opposition. Because politicians viewed their own status as reflected by the support of the people, the latter acting passively as a judge of "aristocratic merit", all politicians claimed "to be 'acting in the interest of the people', or in other words, popularis". Words used to describe dissent in the vein of Gaius Gracchus and Quintus Varius Severus trended more towards seditio and seditiosus.

The works of Livy, the author of Ab Urbe Condita Libri (known in English as the History of Rome), have been used to argue in favour of a distinction between populares and optimates through to earlier periods such as the Conflict of the Orders. Livy wrote after the late republic, during the Augustan period. However, his treatment of the late Republic does not survive except in an epitome called the Periochae. While it is generally accepted that "Livy applies late republican political language to events from earlier periods", the terms optimates and populares (and derivatives) appear infrequently and generally not in a political context.

The vast majority of the usages of popularis in Livy denote fellow citizens, comrades, and oratory suitable for public speaking. Usage of optimates is also infrequent, the majority of usages referring to foreign aristocrats. Livy's terminology in describing the conflict of the orders referred not to populares and optimates but rather to plebeians and patricians and their place in the constitutional order. Livy only uses the word popularis in contrast to optimates in political terms only once, in a speech put into the mouth of Barbatus on the tyranny of the Second Decemvirate in the 450s BC, centuries before the late republic.

Historiography

The traditional view comes from scholarship by Theodor Mommsen during the 19th century, in which he identified both populares and optimates as modern "parliamentary-style political parties", suggesting that the conflict of the orders resulted in the formation of an aristocratic and a democratic party. For example, John Edwin Sandys, writing  1920 in this traditional scholarship, identified the optimates – qua party – as the killers of Tiberius Gracchus in 133 BC. Mommsen too suggested that the labels themselves became common in Gracchan times.

This view was re-evaluated, starting  with Gelzer's Die Nobilität de Römischen Republik, with a model of Roman politics in which a candidate "could not rely on the support of an organised party[,] but instead had to cultivate a wide range of personal relationships extending both upwards and downwards in society". In later work, he returned to a more ideological interpretation of popularis, but viewed popularis politicians not as democrats, but as demagogues "more concerned about gaining the authority of the people for their plans than implementing [their] will".

By the 1930s, a far less ideological interpretation emerged, viewing Roman republican politics as dominated by parties, not of like-minded ideologues, but of aristocratic gentes. Syme in the 1939 book Roman Revolution wrote that:

The political life of the Roman Republic was stamped and swayed, not by parties and programmes of a modern and parliamentary character, not by the ostensible opposition between senate and people, optimates and populares, nobiles and novi homines, but by the strife for power, wealth and glory. The contestants were the nobiles among themselves, as individuals or in groups, open in the elections and in the courts of law, or masked by secret intrigue.

Syme's description of Roman politics viewed the late republic "as a conflict between a dominant oligarchy drawn from a set of powerful families and their opponents" which operated primarily not in ideological terms, but in terms of feuds between family-based factions. Strausberger, writing also in 1939, challenged the traditional view of political parties, arguing that "there was no 'class war'" in the various civil wars (eg Sulla's civil war and Caesar's civil war) that started the collapse of the republic.

Meier noted in 1965 that "'popular' politics was very difficult both to understand and describe[, noting] that the people itself had no political initiative but was 'directed' by the aristocratic magistrates it elected[, meaning that] 'popular' politics was... the province of politicians not the people". Moreover, "very few 'populares' appeared to embrace long term goals and most acted in a way described as popularis for only a short time".

He suggested four meanings for the word popularis:

 politicians acting as champions of the people against the senate,
 politicians manipulating the popular assemblies,
 politicians who took up a causa populi and paraded the people before the plebs urbana, and
 a manner adopted by politicians who used "popular" means to prolong a political career.

His analysis viewed popularis in terms of a method "adopted by those who opposed the senatorial majority, [providing] a behavioural model which did not concern itself with attributing motive to political action". Gruen in the famous Last Generation of the Roman Republic in 1974 rejected the terms entirely:

Brunt, writing in the 1980s–90s, took a view trending against political parties but towards an ideological dimension. He emphasised that shifting alliances and loyalties between senators precluded the existence of "durable or cohesive political factions" which could be identified as optimates or populares and that "optimates and populares did not and could not constitute parties as we know them". Moreover, he argued there were no "large groups of politicians, bound together by ties of kinship or friendship, or by fidelity to a leader, who [acted] together consistently for any considerable time" and that "of large, cohesive, and durable coalitions of families there is no evidence at all for any period". Instead, he argued that the distinction was not one of permanent factional strife, but rather, of support and opposition of the senate: popularis politicians, while not being "reformers" per se, would resort to the popular assemblies if they felt intervention from the people was desirable, with an ideological distinction dividing Roman politicians as to what was in the public interest.

The optimates were explored by Burckhardt in 1988, viewing them as portions of the nobility acting to advance laws against corruption, electoral bribery, and overly flagrant displays of wealth (ie laws on repetundae, ambitus, and sumptuaria) with tactics such as vetoes and obstructionism. Gruen, however, noted in 1995, that this analysis provided "no clear criteria" for determining anything about the makeup, size, or organisation of the group. Identification of optimates also continues to be difficult. They have been identified as "members of an 'aristocratic party' to upholders of senatorial authority to supporters of the class interests of the wealthy".

Mackie argued in a 1992 influential paper revitalising the ideological view that ratio popularis implied and required substantial argumentation based on Roman tradition to justify the intervention of the popular assemblies. Such argumentation took the form of an ideology of popular sovereignty, self-justifying the leadership of the comitia in the state. Hölkeskamp suggested in 1997 that popularis ideology reflected a history of senatorial intransigence characterised as "partial and unlawful" which, over time, eroded the legitimacy of the senate in the republic. Morstein-Marx's book on mass oratory in the republic – often before contiones or assemblies of the people – focused, however, on how both opponents and supporters of legislation attempted to portray themselves as "true" popularis acting in the interest of the people and the other as demagoguery.

There continues to be debate as to the utility of the terms in scholarship. In 1994, Andrew Lintott wrote in The Cambridge Ancient History that although both factions came from the same social class, there is "no reason to deny the divergence of ideology highlighted by Cicero" with themes and leaders stretching back in Cicero's time for hundreds of years.
 T. P. Wiseman similarly lamented an "ideological vacuum" in 2009, promoting the term as a label for ideology rather than for political factionalism in the vein of Mommsen.

Other recent publications have continued to contest the topic. M. A. Robb argued in her 2010 book Beyond Populares and Optimates that the labels emerge from Cicero's writings and were "far from corresponding with definite parties or definite policies". It seems Romans did not use the terms themselves: for example, Caesar and Sallust never identified Caesar as a member of any populares "faction". "The terms populares and optimates were not common and everyday labels used to categorise certain types of late republican politician". Robb rejects usage of both populares and optimates writ large, as all Roman politicians would have asserted their devotion to public liberty and also have asserted their own excellence; instead of populares to describe demagoguery, Romans would have used seditiosi. Similarly, Henrik Mouritsen, writing in the 2017 book Politics in the Roman Republic rejects the putative categories entirely, supporting a "politics without 'parties'" in the vein of Meier, where politicians "at certain moments in their career[s] used their powers without the backing of their peers".

Notes

References
Footnotes

 Books

 Articles

Further reading

Roman Republic
Society of ancient Rome

Optimates and populares


مركز خليل السكاكيني الثقافي مؤسسة مستقلة وغير ربحية ،أنشئت عام 1996 في رام الله ، تعني بترويج الفن والثقافة والإبداع الفلسطيني. ويعمل المركز على نشر مذكرات خليل السكاكيني التي بدأ بكتابتها منذ عام 1952 وحتى وفاته.

سبب التأسيس
تأسس مركز خليل السكاكيني الثقافي عام 1996م تخليدًا لذكرى الأديب والمعلم الفلسطيني خليل السكاكيني، ليشكل هذا المتحف رافدًا جديدًا للثقافة الفلسطينية من خلال تنمية الفنون الحرئية وتطوير المهارات الإبداعية للفنانين التشكيلين ورعاية المواهب الجديدة وعرض جمع الأعمال الفنية والموسيقية أيضًا. بالإضافة إلى توثيق ونشر الرواية الفلسطينية من خلال تنظيم برامج تسرد التجربة الفلسطينية الإنسانية وتطوير برامج تبحث في مكونات التراث الثقافي الفلسطيني والذاكرة الفلسطينية.

مراجع

ثقافة فلسطينية
مراكز ثقافية فلسطينية
معالم رام الله
منظمات مقرها في رام الله
مواقع جذب سياحي في فلسطين

مركز خليل السكاكيني الثقافي


زيامة منصورية أو زيامة المنصورية هي بلدية جزائرية، مركز لدائرة زيامة منصورية التابعة لولاية جيجل.

الموقع الجغرافي
تقع في أقصى غرب الولاية يحدها من الشمال البحر الأبيض المتوسط ومن الشرق بلدية العوانة وبلدية سلمى ومن الغرب والجنوب الغربي ولاية بجاية ومن الجنوب الشرقي بلدية ايراقن سويسي.

المساحة والسكان
مساحتها 102.31 كم² وعدد سكانها 12642 نسمة (2008)، أي بكثافة 123 نسمة لكل كم².

إقتصاديا

السياحة

زيامة منصورية بلدية ساحلية وسياحية بالدرجة الأولى، وتعرف شواطئها إقبالا حقيقيا من قبل السياح من داخل وخارج الوطن. تمتاز بمرافق سياحية جد هامة منها فنادق ودور الشباب بوبلاطن.
أهم شوطئ البلدية :
 الشاطئ الأحمر
 شاطئ الملمش
 شاطئ الولجة
 شاطئ مارسيدي
 شاطئ الكهوف العجيبة
 شاطئ تازة

الصيد البحري

تتوفر زيامة المنصورية عل ميناء للصيد البحري والذي يعتبر ثاني أهم مورد للبلدية بعد قطاع السياحة حيث يشتغل به الكثيرمن سكان المنطقة مما ساهم في امتصاص البطالة، كما يعتبر سمك السردين الذي تجلبه قوارب الصيد من أجود الأنواع.

الصحة والتعليم

الصحة

التعليم
الهياكل المدرسية
 متوسطتان متوسطة بوحوش إسماعيل ومتوسطة بلهوان
 ثانوية واحدة درباح محمد
 مركز للتكوين المهني عليش محمد
 مدرسة 18 فيفري بحي بقرز
مدرسة ساحلي سليمان بحي عزيرو أعمر
 مدرسة علوطي مصطفى بحي عمروش علي
 مدرسة بوقاسي سعدة
 مدرسة بوخرص حسين
 مدرسة بوشتوت الهادي بتازة
 مدرسة  الشريعة

اللهجة المحلية
يتكلم سكان منطقة زيامة المنصورية كل من اللغة الأمازيغية بلهجتها المحلية المعروفة ب تَسَاحْلِيتْ وهي نفسها المستخدمة في شرق ولاية بجاية وشمال ولاية سطيف ( أو ما يعرف بمنطقة الساحل و سكانها يطلق عليهم إِسَاحْلِيَّنْ ) و اللغة العربية بلهجة محليّة تشبه لهجة سكان جيجل مع بعض الاختلافات (كنطق حرف القاف كما هو أي [قاف] عكس باقي سكان جيجل الذين ينطقونه [كاف]) كما أنّها تحوي الكثير من المفردات الأمازيغية كأسماء الحيوانات والنباتات مثل: تَاكُورْزْمَه ،أَغُوَّارْ، بُوفَكْرَانْ، أَفَالْكُو ،تَالْغُودَه، آكَرْنِي، إلخ ؛ أسماء الأماكن مثل: أَيْتْ خَلْفْ الله، أخَّرَّاطَنْ، تَامْدَة مَاَلْبَرْجَاتْ، أَغِيلْ اخْلَفْ، إِغْزَرْ نْتُورْتُوتْ ،تِيزْرَارَنْ، إلخ

المصادر

أماكن أمازيغية مأهولة
بلديات ولاية جيجل

زيامة منصورية


Masacrul din Simele ( pramta d-Simele, مذبحة سميل maḏbaḥat Summayl) a fost un masacru comis de către forțele armate ale Regatului Irak condus de Bakr Sidqi în timpul unei campanii contra asirienilor din nordul Irakului, în august 1933. Termenul este folosit pentru a descrie nu numai masacrul din Simele, dar și uciderile care a avut loc în 63 de sate asiriene în provincia Dohuk și raionul Mosul, în care au murit între 5.000 și 6.000 de asirieni.

Înainte de aceasta, în timpul genocidului asirian, în timpul și după primul război mondial, în anii Imperiului Otoman, mai mult de jumătate din populația asiriană a Turciei a fost masacrată. Termenul "genocid" a fost inventat de Raphael Lemkin, care a fost influențat în mod direct de povestea acestui masacru și a genocidului armean.

Impact cultural
În memoria masacrului Simele,  ziua de 7 august a devenit oficial cunoscută ca Ziua Martirilor sau Zi Națională de Doliu a comunitatii asiriene in lume, așa cum a fost proclamată de către Alianța Universală Asiriană în 1970. În 2004, guvernul sirian a interzis unei organizații politice asiriene să comemoreze evenimentul și a amenințat cu arestarea în caz de încălcare a interdicției. . Muzicianul asirian Shlimon Bet Shmuel a compus un cântec despre acest eveniment. Masacrul a făcut obiectul mai multor poezii și   și povestiri, inclusiv cea de scriitorul americano- armean William Saroyan, intitulat "Șaptezeci de mii asirieni", scrisă în 1934.

Note

Bibliografie

1933
Masacre
Rasism
Persecuția creștinilor
Istoria Irakului

Masacrul din Simele


La  cérémonie des American Film Institute Awards (AFI Awards), décernés par l'American Film Institute, récompense les dix meilleurs films sortis et les dix meilleures séries télévisées diffusées en 2021.

Palmarès
Sauf indication contraire, les informations proviennent du site officiel de l'AFI

Les 10 films récompensés

 Coda
 Don't Look Up : Déni cosmique
 Dune
 La Méthode Williams
 Licorice Pizza
 Nightmare Alley
 The Power of the Dog
 Tick, Tick...BOOM!
 Macbeth
 West Side Story

Prix spécial :

 Belfast
 Summer of Soul (…ou quand la révolution n'a pas pu être télévisée)

Les 10 séries récompensées

 Hacks
 Maid
 Mare of Easttown
 Schmigadoon!
 Succession
 Ted Lasso
 The Underground Railroad
 WandaVision
 The White Lotus

Prix spécial :

 Squid Game

Notes et références

22e cérémonie des American Film Institute Awards


På 76°46' nord er en dansk dokumentarfilm fra 1989 instrueret af Anders Odsbjerg.

Eksterne henvisninger

Dokumentarfilm fra Danmark
Danske film fra 1989

På 76°46' nord


Filip Zoričić (Split, 28. svibnja 1982.), hrvatski političar, profesor hrvatskoga jezika i književnosti i povijesti, doktor humanističkih znanosti, gradonačelnik Pule od lipnja 2021. godine.

Biografija

Zoričić je osnovnu školu završio u rodnom Splitu, a potom i srednju nadbiskupijsku klasičnu gimnaziju don Frane Bulić Split, kao sjemeništarac. Diplomirao je 2005. godine na Filozofskom fakultetu u Puli, tada pod Sveučilištem u Rijeci, a u siječnju 2021. doktorirao na Filozofskom fakultetu u Splitu temom "Vlado Gotovac: ideje i život". Od 2006. do 2018. radio je kao profesor povijesti i hrvatskog jezika i književnosti u pulskoj Gimnaziji, a u lipnju 2018. je izabran za ravnatelja iste ustanove. Redovito je, kao znanstvenik i kao voditelj i član nevladinih organizacija, radio na promociji znanosti i kulture u Puli i u širem hrvatskom kontekstu.

U dva navrata (2016. – 2020., 2020. – 2021.) bio je nezavisni vijećnik mjesnog odbora Stari Grad Pula. Na lokalnim izborima 2021. godine, u drugom krugu izbora, 30. svibnja, pobijedio je kandidatkinju IDS-a Elenu Puh Belci i kao nezavisni kandidat postao gradonačelnik grada Pule.

Filip je trenirao nogomet u Hajduku i HNK Mosoru, te istovremeno, jedno vrijeme, plesao folklor u KUD Jedinstvo i košarku u KK Dalvin. Pjevao je i u klapama u vrijeme studija. Zoričić je od 2005. u braku sa suprugom Petrom. Imaju dvoje djece: kći Aniku (2006.) i  sina Mateja (2008.).

Djela
Vlado Gotovac - Prva politička biografija, Despot infinitus, Zagreb, 2022.

Izvori

Vanjske poveznice
Službeni YouTube kanal Filipa Zoričića
Službena stranica Nezavisne liste Filipa Zoričića

Pulski gradonačelnici
Hrvatski političari od 1989.
Životopisi, Pula
Životopisi, Split

Filip Zoričić


Hawk-Eye is a computer vision system used in numerous sports such as cricket, tennis, Gaelic football, badminton, hurling, rugby union, association football and volleyball, to visually track the trajectory of the ball and display a profile of its statistically most likely path as a moving image. The onscreen representation of the trajectory results is called Shot Spot.

The Sony-owned Hawk-Eye system was developed in the United Kingdom by Paul Hawkins. The system was originally implemented in 2000 for television purposes in cricket. The system works via six (sometimes seven) high-performance cameras, normally positioned on the underside of the stadium roof, which track the ball from different angles. The video from the six cameras is then triangulated and combined to create a three-dimensional representation of the ball's trajectory. Hawk-Eye is not infallible, but is advertised to be accurate to within 3.6 millimetres and generally trusted as an impartial second opinion in sports. It has been accepted by governing bodies in tennis, cricket and association football as a means of adjudication with different number of cameras depending on the sport. Hawk-Eye is used for the Challenge System since 2006 in tennis and Decision Review System in cricket since 2009. The system was rolled out for the 2013–14 Premier League season as a means of goal-line technology. In December 2014, it was also adopted for the 2015–16 Bundesliga season.

Method of operation
All Hawk-Eye systems are based on the principles of triangulation using visual images and timing data provided by a number of high-speed video cameras located at different locations and angles around the area of play. For tennis there are 10 cameras. The system rapidly processes the video feeds from the cameras and ball tracker. A data store contains a predefined model of the playing area and includes data on the rules of the game.

In each frame sent from each camera, the system identifies the group of pixels which corresponds to the image of the ball. It then calculates for each frame the position of the ball by comparing its position on at least two of the physically separate cameras at the same instant in time. A succession of frames builds up a record of the path along which the ball has travelled. It also "predicts" the future flight path of the ball and where it will interact with any of the playing area features already programmed into the database. The system can also interpret these interactions to decide infringements of the rules of the game.

The system generates a graphic image of the ball path and playing area, which means that information can be provided to judges, television viewers or coaching staff in near real-time.

The tracking system is combined with a back-end database and archiving capabilities so that it is possible to extract and analyse trends and statistics about individual players, games, ball-to-ball comparisons, etc.

History
Hawk-Eye was developed in 2000 by engineers at Roke Manor Research Limited, then a Siemens subsidiary in Romsey, England. Paul Hawkins and David Sherry submitted a United Kingdom patent application for the technology, but this was subsequently withdrawn. All of the technology and intellectual property was spun off into a separated company, Hawk-Eye Innovations Ltd, based in Winchester, Hampshire. This was initially established as a joint venture between Roke Manor Research and Sunset + Vine. At the time, Sunset + Vine produced the Channel 4 television cricket coverage where Hawk-Eye was first used.

On 14 June 2006 a group of investors—led by the Wisden Group and that included Mark Getty, a member of the wealthy American family and business dynasty—bought the company for £4.4m. The acquisition was intended to strengthen Wisden's presence in cricket and allow it to enter tennis and other international sports, with Hawk-Eye working on implementing a system for basketball. According to Hawk-Eye's website, the system produces much more data than that shown on television.

Put up for sale in September 2010, it was sold as a complete entity to Japanese electronic giant Sony in March 2011 in a deal that valued the company at £15m-£20m.

Deployment in sport

Cricket

The technology was first used by Channel 4 during a Test match between England and Pakistan on Lord's Cricket Ground, on 21 May 2001. It is used by the majority of television networks to track the trajectory of balls in flight. Its major use in cricket broadcasting is in analysing LBW decisions, where the likely path of the ball can be projected forward, through the batsman's legs, to see if it would have hit the stumps.

In the winter season of 2008/2009 the ICC trialled a referral system where Hawk-Eye was used for referring decisions to the third umpire if a team disagreed with a leg before wicket (LBW) decision. Initially the third umpire was able to look at what the ball actually did up to the point when it hit the batsman, but could not look at the predicted flight of the ball after it hit the batsman.  The third umpire is now able to see the projected path of the ball too, and Hawk-Eye is currently sanctioned in international cricket even though some doubts remain about its accuracy.

When an LBW decision is referred to Hawk-Eye, it assists in assessing against three criteria:
 Where the ball pitched (in particular with respect to the stumps)
 The location of impact on the leg of the batsman (in particular with respect to the stumps)
 The projected path of the ball past the batsman

In all three cases, marginal calls result in the on-field umpire's call being maintained.

Due to its real-time coverage of bowling speed, the system is also used to show delivery patterns of a bowler's behaviour such as line and length, or swing/turn information. At the end of an over, all six deliveries are often shown simultaneously to illustrate a bowler's variations, such as slower deliveries, bouncers and leg-cutters. A complete record of a bowler can also be shown over the course of a match.

Batsmen also benefit from the analysis of Hawk-Eye, as a record can be brought up of the deliveries from which a batsman scored. These are often shown as a 2-D silhouetted figure of a batsman and colour-coded dots of the balls faced by the batsman. Information such as the exact spot where the ball pitches or speed of the ball from the bowler's hand (to gauge batsman reaction time) can also help in post-match analysis.

Tennis
 For a history of electronic line calling in tennis, see Electronic line judge

In Serena Williams's quarter final loss to Jennifer Capriati at the 2004 US Open, three line calls went against Williams in the final set, and Auto-Ref system was being tested during the match. Though the calls were not reversed, there was one overrule of a clearly correct call by the chair umpire Mariana Alves that the TV replay showed to be good. These errors prompted talks about line calling assistance especially as the Auto-Ref system was being tested by the U.S. Open at that time and was shown to be very accurate.

In late 2006 Hawk-Eye was tested by the International Tennis Federation (ITF) in New York City and was passed for professional use. Hawk-Eye reported that the New York tests involved 80 shots being measured by the ITF's high speed camera, a device similar to MacCAM.  During an early test of the system at an exhibition tennis tournament in Australia (seen on local TV), there was an instance when the tennis ball was shown as "Out", but the accompanying word was "In". This was explained to be an error in the way the tennis ball was shown on the graphical display as a circle, rather than as an ellipse. This was immediately corrected.

Hawk-Eye has been used in television coverage of several major tennis tournaments, including Wimbledon, the Queen's Club Championships, the Australian Open, the Davis Cup and the Tennis Masters Cup.  The US Open Tennis Championship announced they would make official use of the technology for the 2006 US Open where each player receives two challenges per set. It is also used as part of a larger tennis simulation implemented by IBM called PointTracker.

The 2006 Hopman Cup in Perth, Western Australia, was the first elite-level tennis tournament where players were allowed to challenge point-ending line calls, which were then reviewed by the referees using Hawk-Eye technology. It used 10 cameras feeding information about ball position to the computers. Jamea Jackson was the first player to challenge a call using the system.

In March 2006, at the Nasdaq-100 Open in Key Biscayne, Florida, Hawk-Eye was used officially for the first time at a tennis tour event. Later that year, the US Open became the first grand-slam tournament to use the system during play, allowing players to challenge line calls.

The 2007 Australian Open was the next grand-slam event  to implement Hawk-Eye in challenges to line calls, where each tennis player in Rod Laver Arena was allowed two incorrect challenges per set and one additional challenge should a tiebreak be played. In the event of an advantage final set, challenges were reset to two for each player every 12 games, i.e. 6 all, 12 all. Controversies followed the event as at times Hawk-Eye produced erroneous output. In 2008, tennis players were allowed three incorrect challenges per set instead. Any leftover challenges did not carry over to the next set. Once, Amélie Mauresmo challenged a ball that was called in, and Hawk-Eye showed the ball was out by less than a millimetre, but the call was allowed to stand. As a result, the point was replayed and Mauresmo did not lose an incorrect challenge.

The Hawk-Eye technology used in the 2007 Dubai Tennis Championships had some minor controversies. Defending champion Rafael Nadal accused the system of incorrectly declaring an out ball to be in following his exit. The umpire had called a ball out; when Mikhail Youzhny challenged the decision, Hawk-Eye said it was in by . Youzhny said after that he himself thought the mark may have been wide but then offered that this kind of technology error could easily have been made by linesmen and umpires. Nadal could only shrug, saying that had this system been on clay, the mark would have clearly shown Hawk-Eye to be wrong. The area of the mark left by the ball on hard court is a portion of the total area that the ball was in contact with the court (a certain amount of pressure is required to create the mark).

The 2007 Wimbledon Championships also implemented the Hawk-Eye system as an officiating aid on Centre Court and Court 1, and each tennis player was allowed three incorrect challenges per set. If the set produced a tiebreak, each player was given an additional challenge. Additionally, in the event of a final set (third set in women's or mixed matches, fifth set in men's matches), where there is no tiebreak, each player's number of challenges was reset to three if the game score reached 6–6, and again at 12–12. Teymuraz Gabashvili, in his first round match against Roger Federer, made the first-ever Hawk-Eye challenge on Centre Court. Additionally, during the finals of Federer against Rafael Nadal, Nadal challenged a shot which was called out. Hawk-Eye showed the ball as in, just clipping the line. The reversal agitated Federer enough for him to request (unsuccessfully) that the umpire turn off the Hawk-Eye technology for the remainder of the match.

In the 2009 Australian Open fourth round match between Roger Federer and Tomáš Berdych, Berdych challenged an out call. The Hawk-Eye system was not available when he challenged, likely due to a particularly pronounced shadow on the court. As a result, the original call stood.

In the 2009 Indian Wells Masters quarterfinals match between Ivan Ljubičić and Andy Murray, Murray challenged an out call. The Hawk-Eye system indicated that the ball landed on the centre of the line despite instant replay images showing that the ball was clearly out. It was later revealed that the Hawk-Eye system had mistakenly picked up the second bounce, which was on the line, instead of the first bounce of the ball. Immediately after the match, Murray apologised to Ljubicic for the call, and acknowledged that the point was out.

The Hawk-Eye system was developed as a replay system, originally for TV broadcast coverage. As such, it initially could not call ins and outs live.

The Hawk-Eye Innovations website states that the system performs with an average error of . The standard diameter of a tennis ball is , equating to a 5% error relative to ball diameter. This is roughly equivalent to the fluff on the ball.

Hawk-Eye has developed a technology called 'Hawk-Eye Live', which uses the 10 cameras to call shots in or out in real time, with an 'out' call being signified by a speaker emitting an 'out' sound that emulates a human line judge. The technology was initially expected to be in place for the 2019 US Open. The 2021 Australian Open was the first Grand Slam tournament to use Hawk-Eye Live for all matches in place of line judges, in part to reduce personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by the US Open later that year. Previously, the 2020 US Open used Hawk-Eye in place of line judges for all matches except those in the two main stadiums.

Clay court tournaments, notably the French Open, are generally free of Hawk-Eye technology due to marks left on the clay where the ball bounced to evidence a disputed line call. Chair umpires are then required to get out of their seat and examine the mark on court with the player by their side to discuss the chair umpire's decision. The 2021 Mutua Madrid Open became the first major tournament on clay to use an electronic system to check the bounce of the ball on the court when in doubt. The system was developed by FoxTenn, a Spanish company located in Barcelona. It uses real images of the ball captured by 40 cameras located at ground level, synchronized with lasers and working at up to 3,000 images per second to determine whether it has bounced in or out of regulatory limits. This system was previously used at the 2020 Rio Open in Rio de Janeiro and at the 2021 MUSC Health Women's Open in Charleston, South Carolina.

Unification of rules
Until March 2008, the International Tennis Federation (ITF), Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP), Women's Tennis Association (WTA), Grand Slam Committee, and several individual tournaments had conflicting rules on how Hawk-Eye was to be utilised. A key example of this was the number of challenges a player was permitted per set, which varied among events. Some tournaments allowed players a greater margin for error, with players allowed an unlimited numbers of challenges over the course of a match. In other tournaments players received two or three per set. On 19 March 2008, the aforementioned organizing bodies announced a uniform system of rules: three unsuccessful challenges per set, with an additional challenge if the set reaches a tiebreak. In an advantage set (a set with no tiebreak) players are allowed three unsuccessful challenges every 12 games. The next scheduled event on the men and women's tour, the 2008 Sony Ericsson Open, was the first event to implement these new, standardized rules.

Association football

Hawk-Eye is one of the goal-line technology (GLT) systems authorised by FIFA. Hawk-Eye tracks the ball, and informs the referee if a ball fully crosses the goal line into the goal. The purpose of the system is to eliminate errors in assessing if a goal was scored. The Hawk-Eye system was one of the systems trialled by the sport's governors prior to the 2012 change to the Laws of the Game that made GLT a permanent part of the game, and it has been used in various competitions since then. GLT is not compulsory and, owing to the cost of Hawk-Eye and its competitors, systems are only deployed in a few high-level competitions.

, licensed Hawk-Eye systems were installed at 96 stadiums. By number of installations, Hawk-Eye is the most popular GLT system. Hawk-Eye is the system used in the
Premier League, Serie A and Bundesliga among other leagues.

Snooker

At the 2007 World Snooker Championship, the BBC used Hawk-Eye for the first time in its television coverage to show player views, particularly of potential snookers. It has also been used to demonstrate intended shots by players when the actual shot has gone awry. It is now used by the BBC at every World Championship, as well as some other major tournaments. The BBC used to use the system sporadically, for instance in the 2009 Masters at Wembley the Hawk-Eye was at most used once or twice per frame. Its usage has decreased significantly and is now only used within the World Championships and very rarely in any other tournament on the snooker tour. In contrast to tennis, Hawk-Eye is never used in snooker to assist referees' decisions and primarily used to assist viewers in showing what the player is facing.

Gaelic games
In Ireland, Hawk-Eye was introduced for all championship matches at Croke Park in Dublin in 2013. This followed consideration by the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) for its use in Gaelic football and hurling. A trial took place at Croke Park on 2 April 2011. The double-header featured football between Dublin and Down and hurling between Dublin and Kilkenny. Over the previous two seasons there had been many calls for the technology to be adopted, especially from Kildare fans, who saw two high-profile decisions go against their team in important games. The GAA said it would review the issue after the 2013 Sam Maguire Cup was presented.

Hawk-Eye's use was intended to eliminate contentious scores. Its first use in the championship came on Saturday 1 June 2013 for the Kildare v Offaly game, part of a double header with a second game of Dublin v Westmeath. Hawk-Eye determined that Offaly substitute Peter Cunningham's attempted point had gone wide 10 minutes into the second half.

Use of Hawk-Eye was suspended during the 2013 All-Ireland SHC semi-finals on 18 August due to a human error during a minor (under-18) hurling game between Limerick and Galway. During the minor game, Hawk-Eye ruled a point for Limerick as a miss although the graphic showed the ball passing inside the posts, causing confusion around the stadium – the referee ultimately waved the valid point wide provoking anger from fans, viewers and TV analysts covering the game live. The system was subsequently stood down for the senior game which followed, owing to "an inconsistency in the generation of a graphic". Limerick, who were narrowly defeated after extra-time, announced they would be appealing over Hawk-Eye's costly failure. Hawk-Eye apologised for this incident and admitted that it was a result of human error. The incident drew attention from the UK, where Hawk-Eye had made its debut in English football's Premier League the day before.

Hawk-Eye was introduced to a second venue, Semple Stadium, Thurles, in 2016. There is no TV screen at Semple: instead, an electronic screen displays a green Tá if a score has been made, and a red Níl if the shot is wide. It was used at a third venue, Páirc Uí Chaoimh, Cork, in July 2017, for the All-Ireland SHC quarter-finals between Clare versus Tipperary and Wexford versus Waterford.

Hawk-Eye was at the centre of several contentious decisions during the first half of the first 2022 All-Ireland SFC semi-final between Derry and Galway. This led to its suspension for the second half of that game, the referee being forced to alter the score and, later, Hawk-Eye's suspension for the second All-Ireland SFC semi-final between Dublin and Kerry. The GAA confirmed on 15 July that Hawk-Eye would return for the All-Ireland SHC final, following comprehensive testing and a full review of the score detection technology.

Hawk-Eye malfunctioned again during the 2023 All-Ireland SFC quarter-final clash between Armagh and Monaghan after it returned a 'data unavailable' message. The GAA requested an explanation from Hawk-Eye who concluded that the message was a result of operator error. The next day the GAA took the decision to stand down Hawk-Eye once again.

No official Irish-language term exists, although some publications have used the direct translation Súil an tSeabhaic.

Australian football
On 4 July 2013, the Australian Football League announced that they would be testing Hawk Eye technology to be used in the Score Review process. Hawk Eye was used for all matches played at the MCG during Round 15 of the 2013 AFL Season. The AFL also announced that Hawk Eye was only being tested, and would not be used in any Score Reviews during the round.

Badminton
BWF introduced Hawk-Eye technology in 2014 after testing other instant review technologies for line call decision in BWF major events. Hawk-Eye's tracking cameras are also used to provide shuttlecock speed and other insight in badminton matches. Hawk-Eye was formally introduced in 2014 India Super Series tournament.

Concerns about accuracy
Hawk-Eye is now familiar to sport fans around the world for the views it brings into sports like cricket and tennis. Although this new technology has for the most part been embraced, it has received criticism from some quarters. In the 2007 Wimbledon Championships a shot that appeared to be out, was called by Hawk-Eye as in by 1mm, a distance smaller than the advertised mean error of . Some commentators have criticised the system's  statistical margin of error as too large. Others have noted that while  is extraordinarily accurate, this margin of error is only for the witnessed trajectory of the ball. In 2008, an article in a peer-reviewed journal consolidated many of these doubts. The authors acknowledged the value of the system, but noted that it was probably fallible to some extent, and that its failure to depict a margin of error gave a spurious depiction of events. The authors also argued that the probable limits to its accuracy were not acknowledged by players, officials, commentators or spectators. They hypothesised that Hawk-Eye may struggle with predicting the trajectory of a cricket ball after bouncing: the time between a ball bouncing and striking the batsman may be too short to generate the three frames (at least) needed to plot a curve accurately.

Use in computer games
The use of the Hawk-Eye brand and simulation has been licensed to Codemasters for use in the video game Brian Lara International Cricket 2005 to make the game appear more like television coverage, and subsequently in Brian Lara International Cricket 2007, Ashes Cricket 2009 and International Cricket 2010. A similar version of the system has since been incorporated into the Xbox 360 version of Smash Court Tennis 3, but it is not present in the PSP version of the game, although it does feature a normal challenge of the ball which does not use the Hawk-Eye feature. It is also featured (Called Big Eye) in Don Bradman Cricket 2014 and 2017.

Competition
Cyclops is a computer system which has been used on the ATP and WTA professional tennis tours as an electronic line judge since 1980, now superseded by Hawk-Eye at Grand Slam tournaments.

FoxTenn is another competing system for electronic line judge calling which uses real data to trace back ball path and marking, including on clay surfaces.

See also

 Cricket clothing and equipment
 Electronic line judge
 Cyclops
 Hot Spot (cricket)
 Umpire Decision Review System
 Virtual Eye

References

External links
 Hawk-Eye Innovations
 A video demonstration of Hawk-eye at a cricket match
 How It Works magazine – Controversial Hawk-Eye moments

English inventions
Companies based in Hampshire
Cricket equipment
Cricket terminology
Gaelic games terminology
Sony subsidiaries
Sports officiating technology
Tennis equipment
Tennis terminology

Hawk-Eye