in order for senate or house to vote on a bill how many members must be present

Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution provides that "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business..." Therefore, in both the House of Representatives and the Senate a quorum is a simple majority of their respective members. The only exception is that stated in the Twelfth Amendment, which provides that in cases in which no candidate for President of the United States receives a majority in the Electoral College, the election is decided by the House of Representatives, in which case "a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states," and in cases in which no candidate for Vice President of the United States has been elected, the election is decided by the Senate, in which case "a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators."

Quorum

A quorum is the minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly (a body that uses parliamentary procedure, such as a legislature) necessary to conduct the business of that group. According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, the "requirement for a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons."[2]

The term quorum is from a Middle English wording of the commission formerly issued to justices of the peace, derived from Latin quorum, "of whom", genitive plural of qui, "who".[3] As a result, quora as plural of quorum is not a valid Latin formation.

Each assembly determines the number of members that constitutes a quorum in its governing documents (such as in its constitution, charter, bylaws or standing orders). The quorum may also be set by law. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised states that the quorum set in an organization's bylaws "should approximate the largest number that can be depended on to attend any meeting except in very bad weather or other extremely unfavorable conditions."[2]

In the absence of such a provision, a quorum in an assembly whose membership can be determined is a majority of the entire membership.[2] In the meetings of a convention, unless provided otherwise, a quorum is a majority of registered delegates, even if some have departed. In a mass meeting or in an organization in which the membership cannot be accurately determined, the quorum consists of those who attend the meeting.[2]

In committees and boards, a quorum is a majority of the members of the board or committee unless provided otherwise. The board or committee cannot set its own quorum unless given such power.[4] In a committee of the whole or its variants, a quorum is the same as the assembly unless otherwise provided.

In online groups, a quorum has to be determined in a different manner since no one is actually "present". The rules establishing such groups would have to prescribe this determination.[5] An example is that a quorum in such groups could be established as "present" if enough members state that they are "present" at the designated meeting time.[6]

The chair of the group has the responsibility to determine if a quorum is present.[7] In addition, any member can raise a point of order about an apparent absence of a quorum.[8] Because it is difficult to determine exactly when a quorum was lost, points of order relating to the absence of a quorum are "generally not permitted to affect prior action; but upon clear and convincing proof, such a point of order can be given effect retrospectively by a ruling of the presiding officer, subject to appeal."[7]

When a quorum is not met, the assembly can only take limited procedural actions. These limited actions are to fix the time to which to adjourn, adjourn, recess, or take measures to obtain a quorum, such as a motion that absent members be contacted during a recess.[9]

Any other business that is conducted is not valid unless it is ratified at a later meeting where a quorum is present. However, there is no obligation to ratify such action and those responsible may be punished for their actions.[9]

In legislatures and other assemblies that have the legal power to compel the attendance of their members, the call of the house procedure may be used to obtain a quorum.[10] This procedure does not exist in ordinary societies, since voluntary associations have no coercive power.[10]

When a call of the house is ordered, the clerk calls the roll of members and then the names of absentees. Members who do not have an excused absence are arrested and brought in.[10] The arrested members may be charged a fee.[10]

In the United States Senate, the procedure was used in the early morning hours of February 25, 1988. Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, then the Senate Majority Leader, moved a call of the house after the minority Republicans walked out in an attempt to deny the Senate a quorum after Senate aides began bringing cots into the Senate cloakrooms in preparation for an all-night session over campaign finance reform for congressional elections. Byrd's motion was approved 45-3 and arrest warrants were signed for all 46 Republicans. Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Henry K. Giugni and his staff searched the Capitol's corridor and Senate office buildings for absent Senators, and after checking several empty offices, spotted Senator Steve Symms of Idaho, who fled down a hallway and escaped arrest. After a cleaning woman gave a tip that Senator Robert Packwood of Oregon was in his office, Giugni opened the door with a skeleton key. Packwood attempted to shove the door closed, but Giugni and two assistants pushed it open. Packwood was "carried feet-first into the Senate chamber by three plainclothes officers" and sustained bruised knuckles.[11]

Prior to 1988, the last time the procedure had been used was during a 1942 filibuster over civil rights legislation.[11] Southern Democrat senators had spent days filibustering legislation to end poll taxes used in the South to disenfranchise blacks and other low-income voters. Taking place just days after midterm elections had resulted in the loss of nine seats. Democratic Majority Leader Alben W. Barkley obtained an order on a Saturday session on November 14, 1942 directing Sergeant at Arms Chesley W. Jurney to round up the five Southern absentees to obtain a quorum. Jurney sent his Deputy Sergeant at Arms, J. Mark Trice, to the apartment of Democratic Senator Kenneth McKellar of Tennessee at the Mayflower Hotel. Then 73 years old and the third-most senior Senator, McKellar was later described by Republican Senator Bill Frist in his book on Tennessee senators as an "extraordinarily shrewd man of husky dimensions with a long memory and a short fuse." Trice called from the lobby, but McKellar refused to answer his phone, so the deputy sergeant at arms walked up to the apartment and convinced the senator's maid to let him in:[12]

When Trice explained that McKellar was urgently needed back at the Capitol, the 73-year-old legislator agreed to accompany him. As they approached the Senate wing, McKellar suddenly realized what was up. An aide later recalled, "His face grew redder and redder. By the time the car reached the Senate entrance, McKellar shot out and barreled through the corridors to find the source of his summons."
Barkley got his quorum...[12]

The tactic of quorum-busting—causing a quorum to be prevented from meeting—has been used in legislative bodies by minorities seeking to block the adoption of some measure they oppose. This generally only happens where the quorum is a super-majority, as quorums of a majority or less of the membership mean that the support of a majority of members is always sufficient for the quorum (as well as for passage). Rules to discourage quorum-busting have been adopted by legislative bodies, such as the call of the house, outlined above.

Quorum-busting has been used for centuries. For instance, during his time in the state legislature, Abraham Lincoln leapt out of a first story window (the doors of the Capitol had been locked to prevent legislators from fleeing) in a failed attempt to prevent a quorum from being present.[13]

A recent prominent example of quorum-busting occurred during the 2003 Texas redistricting, in which the majority Republicans in the Texas House of Representatives sought to carry out a controversial mid-decade congressional redistricting bill which would have favored Republicans by displacing five Democratic U.S. Representatives from Texas (the Texas Five) from their districts. The House Democrats, certain of defeat if a quorum were present, took a plane to the neighboring state of Oklahoma to prevent a quorum from being present (and thus the passage of the bill). The group gained the nickname "the Killer Ds."

Similarly, the minority Democrats in the Texas Legislature's upper chamber, the Texas Senate, fled to New Mexico to prevent a quorum of the Senate to prevent a redistricting bill from being considered during a special session. The Texas Eleven stayed in New Mexico for 46 days before John Whitmire returned to Texas, creating a quorum. Because there was now no point in staying in New Mexico, the remaining ten members of the Texas Eleven returned to Texas to vote in opposition to the bill.

During the 2011 Wisconsin protests, fourteen Democratic members of the Wisconsin Senate went to Illinois in order to bust the necessary 20-member quorum. Democrats in the Indiana House of Representatives did the same in order to block another union-related bill, causing the legislative clock on the bill to expire. Traveling out of their state placed these legislators beyond the jurisdiction of state troopers who could compel them to return to the chamber.[14]

The similar tactic of disappearing quorum (refusing to vote although physically present on the floor) was used by the minority to block votes in the United States House of Representatives until 1890. That year, Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed ordered that members who were present but abstaining would count in the quorum.[15][16][17]

Section 22 and section 39 of the Constitution of Australia set the quorum for sittings of the House of Representatives and Senate at one-third of the whole number of MPs and senators, respectively, but Parliament is permitted to change the quorum for each House by ordinary legislation.

In the House of Representatives, the quorum was amended down to one-fifth by the House of Representatives (Quorum) Act 1989, which means the quorum of the current House of 150 MPs is 30 MPs.[18] In the senate, the quorum was amended down to one-quarter by the Senate (Quorum) Act 1991, so 19 senators is a quorum.[19] The quorum includes the occupant of the Chair and is not reduced by the death or resignation of a member or senator.

If at the beginning of a sitting the quorum is not met, the bells are rung for five minutes and a count is then taken; if the quorum is still not met the sitting is adjourned until the next sitting day. During the sitting, any MP or senator may draw attention to the lack of quorum in which the bells are rung for four minutes, and if a quorum is still not met the sitting is adjourned.

Although quorum-busting is virtually unheard of in Australia, it is not unknown for parties to deliberately use quorum counts as a disruptive tactic and there have been some suggestions to enact rules to restrict this practice; however, this is very difficult due to the explicit mention of a quorum in the constitution. It is considered disorderly to call attention to quorum when one exists and members or senators who do so can be punished.

In the National Council of Austria at least one third of the representatives must be present, so that they may decide on a simple law (participation quorum of 33.3%). At least half of the members must participate if a constitutional law should pass the parliament (participation quorum of 50% based on the total number of members). Over and above that, constitutional laws require the consent of at least two-thirds of the members present (quorum agreement of 66.6% based on the number of voting present).

In Canada, the Constitution Act, 1867 sets quorum for sittings of the House of Commons of Canada at 20 MPs. If a member calls for quorum to be counted and a first count shows there are fewer than 20 members, bells are rung to call in the members; if after 15 minutes there are still fewer than 20 members, the session is adjourned to the next sitting day; the members present sign a roll on the table of the house, and this list is included in the Journal of the House. There is no need for quorum when the attendance of the House is requested in the Senate of Canada, for example when Royal Assent is being given to bills.[20] The quorum of the Senate is 15.[21]

In the German Bundestag at least half of the members (311 out of 622) must be present so that it is empowered to make resolutions.[35] It is however common that fewer members are present, because they can still make effective decisions as long as no parliamentary group or 5% of the members of the parliament are complaining about the lack of quorum. This is in rare cases used by opposition parties to delay votes.[36]

Article 75 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong stipulates that the quorum required for the meetings of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong (LegCo) as "not less than one half of its members". Between 1997 and 2012 the quorum was 30, and since 2012 it has been 35. Prior to 1997 transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong, the quorum was set at 20.

The quorum for the panels, committees and subcommittees is, nevertheless, one-third or three members, whichever the greater, as according to the Rules of Procedure. The three standing committees, namely, the Finance Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and Committee on Members' Interests, is exceptional that the quorums are 9, 3 and 3 respectively.

Quorum-busting was used at least twice since 1997. In 2005, when some pro-democracy members of the council paid a silent tribute to late leader of the People's Republic of China, Zhao Ziyang, against the Rules of Procedure, the president of the council suspended the meeting. When the meeting was recalled, pro-Beijing members refused to return to the chamber, forcing the meeting to be adjourned.

On 27 January 2010, when five pro-democracy members were intending to make their resignation speeches, pro-Beijing members of the council left the chamber as a sign of protest. One of the pro-Beijing members nevertheless stayed in the chamber to call for the quorum to be counted, effectively forcing the meeting to be adjourned. The resignation was intended as a de facto referendum across all five geographical constituencies of the territory, involving the entire electorate, which would not be officially recognised anyway. Most other factions, although against the move by these five Members, stayed in the chamber.

On 2 May 2012, when the LegCo was debating a law change to bar resigning legislators to participate in by-elections in 6 months, effectively discouraging any more "de facto" referenda, some of the five pro-democracy members who resigned constantly issued quorum calls, especially when they were making their resignation speeches intended for 2 years before. In the nine-hour meeting, 23 quorum calls were issued, taking up to 3 hours. When LegCo reconvened on 3 May, it was adjourned for lack of quorum amid a boycott by the pan-democrats. The pro-government members drew a timetable to ensure a quorum, but it failed to prevent another lack of quorum.

On 18 June 2015, when the LegCo was due to vote on a resolution to amend the provisions for the election of the territory's Chief Executive, pro-Beijing members left the chamber to force a quorum roll call to make sure that a sick member could be able to rush back to the chamber. However some of the members stayed behind, citing miscommunication, and the division proceeded with two members above the required quorum of 35. While the resolution was originally predicted to be narrowly defeated due to not able to get super-majority support votes, it turned out to be a landslide defeat.[37]

Quorum-busting and attempts to thwart it are also a common feature during the annual motion debate related to the 1989 Tiananmen massacre moved by pro-democracy Members. The quorum is called to be counted from time to time by the pan-democrats, in order to force the pro-Beijing camp to keep some members in the chamber.

Article 100 of the Constitution of India stipulates that at least 10% of total number of members of the House must be present to constitute the quorum to constitute a meeting of either House of Parliament. For example, if the House has total membership of 250, at least 25 members must be present for the House to proceed with its business.[38]

If at any time during a meeting of a House there is no quorum, the Chairman has to either adjourn the House or suspend it until there is a quorum.[38]

According to the most recent standing orders, published in 2011, the Quorum for the Irish Parliament (The Oireachtas) for both the house and senate is 20 members.

The chamber of Dail Eireann is rarely full outside question time, with often just one government representative (often an ordinary member of parliament not a minister) present to answer opposition questions.

According to article 96 of the Turkish Constitution, unless otherwise stipulated in the Constitution, the Turkish Grand National Assembly shall convene with at least, one-third of the total number of members (184 out of 550) and shall take decisions by an absolute majority of those present; however, the quorum for decisions can, under no circumstances, be less than a quarter plus one of the total number of members.

Before the constitutional referendum of 2007, there was a quorum of two-third required in the Turkish Parliament. The opposition parties used the quorum to deadlock the presidential election of 2007, making it impossible for the parliament to choose a president. As a result, the ruling AK party proposed a referendum to lower the quorum. Nearly seventy percent of the participants supported the constitutional changes.

In the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the House of Commons has a quorum of 40 MPs, including the Speaker, out of 650 members of the House. There is no need for a quorum to be present at all times. Commons debates could theoretically continue even if just one MP and the Speaker were present. However, if a division is called and fewer than 40 MPs are present, then a decision on the business being considered is postponed and the House moves on to consider the next item of business. The quorum for votes on legislation in the House of Lords is 30, but just three of the 753 peers, including the Lord Speaker, are required to be present for a debate to take place.[39]

Historically, the Quorum was a select group of the Justices of the Peace in each county in early modern Britain. In theory, they were men experienced in law, but many of the Quorum were appointed because of their status. Some legislation required the involvement of a member of the Quorum, (e.g., granting a licence to a badger). In practice, they increasingly were not qualified, as the proportion in the Quorum rose faster than proportion who were called to the bar or practising lawyers. By 1532, an average 45% of Justices of the Peace nationally were of the Quorum. In Somerset, the proportion rose from 52% in 1562 to 93% in 1636. By then, most of those not on the Quorum were new to the bench. Sometimes Justices of the Peace were removed from the Quorum as a disciplinary measure less drastic than removal from the bench.[40]

The large deliberative bodies of the United Nations (the General Assembly and Economic and Social Council, as well as their subsidiary organs) generally require the attendance of one-third of the membership (currently 65 states in the General Assembly and 18 in ECOSOC) to conduct most business, but a majority of members (currently 97 states in the General Assembly and 28 states in ECOSOC) in order to take any substantive decisions.[41][42] The rules of the United Nations Security Council make no provisions for quorum, but nine votes are in all cases required to pass any substantive measure, effectively meaning that a meeting with fewer than nine members in attendance is pointless.[43]

The Senate has the additional ordinary requirement in Rule VI of its Standing Rules that "A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn."


who wrote the lyrics to heavy by linkin park

"Heavy" is a song by American rock band Linkin Park, featuring guest vocals from American singer Kiiara. The song is the first single from their seventh studio album, One More Light. The song was written by Linkin Park members Chester Bennington, Brad Delson, and Mike Shinoda, alongside Julia Michaels and Justin Tranter. The single was released for download on February 16, 2017, and was premiered on radio on February 21. It is the band's last single to be released during Bennington's lifetime.

Heavy (Linkin Park song)

Band members Chester Bennington, Mike Shinoda, and Brad Delson worked with Julia Michaels and Justin Tranter in co-writing the song's lyrics,[5][6] who had previously worked with artists such as Justin Bieber, Selena Gomez, and Gwen Stefani.[7] Lyrically, the inspiration for "Heavy" came from band member's conversations about frustrations and troubles in their own lives.[5] From that, they found that there was some heavy stuff happening in each other's lives.[5] Bennington stated that personally, he has a hard time with life, even on a good day. He said the opening line "I don't like my mind right now" is him 24 hours a day.[8] In an interview with Music Choice, Bennington said of the song: "Most of my problems are problems that I cause myself. That's what that song's about -- that time when you consciously look at that. Once you acknowledge what it is, you can separate yourself from it and do something about it, as opposed to just being in it."[9]

In a series of videos released leading up to the single's debut, Joseph Hahn brought up the idea of bringing in a female singer for the track, which he described as "something that feels out of the box for us, could give [the song] that dynamic it needs."[10] Bennington, in working with Michaels on writing the track and hearing her rough vocal takes, suggested she sing on the final version, though she declined, stating she would rather be behind the scenes. Bennington recorded a version entirely with his vocals in case the band could not find a fit for a female singer, while the band continued their search.[11]

The band was introduced to Kiiara through Zane Lowe, who, upon interviewing her, was informed that Linkin Park was her favorite band. Lowe reached out to vocalist Shinoda, who was intrigued considering how different Kiiara's music, like her single "Gold", was from Linkin Park's previous works. Zane put Shinoda in contact with Kiiara, and the band ended up deciding to work with her. Kiiara only recorded vocals for the song, as the lyrics and music had already been written prior to her involvement.[5] Music producers Emily Wright and Andrew Bolooki handled vocal production.[12][13] The band approved of the overall sound, with Shinoda noting that adding the female voice brought more meaning to the song, signaling that it is not just about one person's struggle.[14]

"Heavy" received generally negative reviews from critics, with complaints generally centered around the band's move from nu metal to a pop-oriented sound.[15][7][16] Anna Gaca of Spin found the song to be a failed attempt to stay relevant against current popular rap rock bands like Twenty One Pilots, concluding that "So: How bad is "Heavy"? It's not as bad as you'd think. It will annoy you no more and no less than any other blowout pop duet else you're likely to hear on the radio while you're at the gym or the supermarket or something. It's fairly astonishing to see Linkin Park bend their knee so shamelessly for a taste of the charts, but those are the rules of the game."[7] Emmy Mack of Music Feeds was similarly negative, noting the irony of naming the track "Heavy" when the song sounded like "a dance-pop duet featuring Chester doing a really bad Twenty One Pilots impersonation and trading verses with a random guest pop vocalist."[15] Allison Stewart of The Washington Post called the song "lumbering" and stated that it "emulates, in feel if not in sound, the Chainsmokers' "Closer," with Kiiara standing in for Halsey."[17]

Fan reaction to the song has been equally negative.[15] The negativity inspired the band "Bloodywood" to re-record the song in Linkin Park's Hybrid Theory and Meteora nu metal sound, catching the attention of many music websites such as Loudwire and Team Rock, the latter of which declared it "what Linkin Park's Heavy should have sounded like."[16][18] The cover and negative reception even caught the attention of the band, who halfheartedly played a part of it in a rehearsal session video, with Bennington jokingly stating at the end "There's your fuckin' Hybrid Theory now shut the... [fuck up]".[19]

The song was released as the first single from their seventh studio album, One More Light.[5] It was released digitally on February 16, 2017.[5] The music video for the song was released on March 9 through their official YouTube channel.[20] The band released a lyric video of the song on the same day.[21]

The song was performed live on the day of the single's release via Facebook as a "stripped down", acoustic version with Shinoda on piano, Delson on guitar, and Bennington and Kiiara on vocals, along with a similar performance of past singles "Burn It Down" and "Crawling".[22] The entire band with Kiiara then performed the song live together on The Late Late Show with James Corden on February 27, 2017.[23] It was also performed with the entire band during ECHO Music Awards in Germany on April 6, 2017.[24]

The music video starts with Chester Bennington and Kiiara grappling with doubles of themselves, where Kiiara's double lingers hauntingly, while Bennington begins to scuffle with his. Eventually, Bennington leaves his house to attend his support group. During discussions, he gets into a confrontation with one of the members of the group, while Kiiara is shown watching them from the under the brim of her hoodie. Bennington leaves in a fury and enters a bathroom. In the bathroom he engages in a fierce fist fight with his double. Then Kiiara is shown entering the same bathroom where Bennington is shown pushed by his demon to the wall and falls down and is caught by Kiiara. The video ends with the two sitting together, Kiiara putting her hand onto Bennington's shoulder.

"Heavy" debuted at number 52 on the US Billboard Hot 100, selling 35,000 downloads in its first week. The song slid down to number 82 the following week and peaked at slowly rose to number 50.[25] The song re-entered the chart in August 2017, after the death of frontman Chester Bennington, and reached a new peak of 45.[26]

Radio CD single

Nicky Romero Remix produced by:

*sales figures based on certification alone
^shipments figures based on certification alone
sales+streaming figures based on certification alone


when is a functional dependency said to be trivial

Given a relation R, a set of attributes X in R is said to functionally determine another set of attributes Y, also in R, (written X → Y) if, and only if, each X value in R is associated with precisely one Y value in R; R is then said to satisfy the functional dependency X → Y. Equivalently, the projection

π

X
,
Y

R

{\displaystyle \pi _{X,Y}R}

 is a function, i.e. Y is a function of X.[1][2] In simple words, if the values for the X attributes are known (say they are x), then the values for the Y attributes corresponding to x can be determined by looking them up in any tuple of R containing x. Customarily X is called the determinant set and Y the dependent set. A functional dependency FD: X → Y is called trivial if Y is a subset of X.

Functional dependency

In relational database theory, a functional dependency is a constraint between two sets of attributes in a relation from a database. In other words, functional dependency is a constraint that describes the relationship between attributes in a relation.

In other words, a dependency FD: X â†’ Y means that the values of Y are determined by the values of X. Two tuples sharing the same values of X will necessarily have the same values of Y.

The determination of functional dependencies is an important part of designing databases in the relational model, and in database normalization and denormalization. A simple application of functional dependencies is Heath’s theorem; it says that a relation R over an attribute set U and satisfying a functional dependency X → Y can be safely split in two relations having the lossless-join decomposition property, namely into

π

X
Y

(
R
)
⋈

π

X
Z

(
R
)
=
R

{\displaystyle \pi _{XY}(R)\bowtie \pi _{XZ}(R)=R}

 where Z = U − XY are the rest of the attributes. (Unions of attribute sets are customarily denoted by mere juxtapositions in database theory.) An important notion in this context is a candidate key, defined as a minimal set of attributes that functionally determine all of the attributes in a relation. The functional dependencies, along with the attribute domains, are selected so as to generate constraints that would exclude as much data inappropriate to the user domain from the system as possible.

A notion of logical implication is defined for functional dependencies in the following way: a set of functional dependencies

Σ

{\displaystyle \Sigma }

 logically implies another set of dependencies

Γ

{\displaystyle \Gamma }

, if any relation R satisfying all dependencies from

Σ

{\displaystyle \Sigma }

 also satisfies all dependencies from

Γ

{\displaystyle \Gamma }

; this is usually written

Σ
⊨
Γ

{\displaystyle \Sigma \models \Gamma }

. The notion of logical implication for functional dependencies admits a sound and complete finite axiomatization, known as Armstrong's axioms.

Suppose one is designing a system to track vehicles and the capacity of their engines. Each vehicle has a unique vehicle identification number (VIN). One would write VIN → EngineCapacity because it would be inappropriate for a vehicle's engine to have more than one capacity. (Assuming, in this case, that vehicles only have one engine.) Transversely, EngineCapacity → VIN is incorrect because there could be many vehicles with the same engine capacity.

This functional dependency may suggest that the attribute EngineCapacity be placed in a relation with candidate key VIN. However, that may not always be appropriate. For example, if that functional dependency occurs as a result of the transitive functional dependencies VIN → VehicleModel and VehicleModel → EngineCapacity then that would not result in a normalized relation.

This example illustrates the concept of functional dependency. The situation modelled is that of college students visiting one or more lectures in each of which they are assigned a teaching assistant (TA). Let's further assume that every student is in some semester and is identified by a unique integer ID.

We notice that whenever two rows in this table feature the same StudentID, they also necessarily have the same Semester values. This basic fact can be expressed by a functional dependency:

Note that if a row was added where the student had a different value of semester that the FD would no longer exist. This means that the FD is implied by the data as it is possible to have values that would invalidate the FD.

Other nontrivial functional dependencies can be identified, for example:

The latter expresses the fact that the set {StudentID, Lecture} is a superkey of the relation.

A classic example of functional dependency is the employee, department model. The following table

This case represents an example where multiple functional dependencies are embedded in a single representation of data. Note that because an employee can only be a member of one department, the unique ID of that employee determines the department.

In addition to this relationship, the table also has a functional dependency through a non-key attribute

This example demonstrates that even though there exists a FD Employee ID â†’ Department ID - the employee ID would not be a logical key for determination of the department ID. The process of normalization of the data would recognize all FD's and allow the designer to construct tables and relationships that are more logical based on the data.

Given that X, Y, and Z are sets of attributes in a relation R, one can derive several properties of functional dependencies. Among the most important are the following, usually called Armstrong's axioms:[3]

"Reflexivity" can be weakened to just

X
→
∅

{\displaystyle X\rightarrow \varnothing }

, i.e. it is an actual axiom, where the other two are proper inference rules, more precisely giving rise to the following rules of syntactic consequence:[4]

⊢
X
→
∅

{\displaystyle \vdash X\rightarrow \varnothing }

X
→
Y
⊢
X
Z
→
Y
Z

{\displaystyle X\rightarrow Y\vdash XZ\rightarrow YZ}

X
→
Y
,
Y
→
Z
⊢
X
→
Z

{\displaystyle X\rightarrow Y,Y\rightarrow Z\vdash X\rightarrow Z}

.

These three rules are a sound and complete axiomatization of functional dependencies. This axiomatization is sometimes described as finite because the number of inference rules is finite,[5] with the caveat that the axiom and rules of inference are all schemata, meaning that the X, Y and Z range over all ground terms (attribute sets).[4]

From these rules, we can derive these secondary rules:[3]

The union and decomposition rules can be combined in a logical equivalence stating that X → YZ, holds iff X → Y and X → Z. This is sometimes called the splitting/combining rule.[6]

Another rule that is sometimes handy is:[7]

The closure is essentially the full set of values that can be determined from a set of known values for a given relationship using its functional dependencies. You use Armstrong's axioms to provide a proof - i.e. Reflexivity, Augmentation, Transitivity.

Given

R

{\displaystyle R}

 and

F

{\displaystyle F}

 a set of FD’s that holds in

R

{\displaystyle R}

: The closure of

F

{\displaystyle F}

 in

R

{\displaystyle R}

 (denoted

F

{\displaystyle F}

+) is the set of all FD’s that are logically implied by

F

{\displaystyle F}

Closure of a set of attributes X with respect to

F

{\displaystyle F}

 is the set X+ of all attributes that are functionally determined by X using

F

{\displaystyle F}

+.

Imagine the following list of FD's. We are going to calculate a closure for A from this relationship.

1. A → B
2. B → C  3. AB → D

The closure would be as follows:

a) A → A ( by Armstrong's reflexivity )
b) A → AB ( by 1. and (a ))
c) A → ABD ( by (b), 3, and Armstrong's transitivity )
d) A → ABCD ( by (c), and 2 )

The closure is therefore A â†’ ABCD. By calculating the closure of A, we have validated that A is also a good candidate key as its closure is every single data value in the relationship.

Definition:

F

{\displaystyle F}

 covers

G

{\displaystyle G}

 if every FD in

G

{\displaystyle G}

 can be inferred from

F

{\displaystyle F}

.

F

{\displaystyle F}

 covers

G

{\displaystyle G}

 if

G

{\displaystyle G}

+ âŠ†

F

{\displaystyle F}

+
Every set of functional dependencies has a canonical cover.

Two sets of FDs

F

{\displaystyle F}

 and

G

{\displaystyle G}

 over schema

R

{\displaystyle R}

 are equivalent, written

F

{\displaystyle F}

 ≡

G

{\displaystyle G}

, if

F

{\displaystyle F}

+ =

G

{\displaystyle G}

+. If

F

{\displaystyle F}

 ≡

G

{\displaystyle G}

, then

F

{\displaystyle F}

 is a cover for

G

{\displaystyle G}

 and vice versa. In other words, equivalent sets of functional dependencies are called covers of each other.

A set

F

{\displaystyle F}

 of FDs is nonredundant if there is no proper subset

F
′

{\displaystyle F'}

 of

F

{\displaystyle F}

 with

F
′

{\displaystyle F'}

 ≡

F

{\displaystyle F}

. If such an

F
′

{\displaystyle F'}

 exists,

F

{\displaystyle F}

 is redundant.

F

{\displaystyle F}

 is a nonredundant cover for

G

{\displaystyle G}

 if

F

{\displaystyle F}

 is a cover for

G

{\displaystyle G}

 and

F

{\displaystyle F}

 is nonredundant.
An alternative characterization of nonredundancy is that

F

{\displaystyle F}

 is nonredundant if there is no FD X → Y in

F

{\displaystyle F}

 such that

F

{\displaystyle F}

 - {X → Y}

⊨

{\displaystyle \models }

 X → Y. Call an FD X → Y in

F

{\displaystyle F}

 redundant in

F

{\displaystyle F}

 if

F

{\displaystyle F}

 - {X → Y}

⊨

{\displaystyle \models }

 X → Y.

An important property (yielding an immediate application) of functional dependencies is that if R is a relation with columns named from some set of attributes U and R satisfies some functional dependency X → Y then

R
=

π

X
Y

(
R
)
⋈

π

X
Z

(
R
)

{\displaystyle R=\pi _{XY}(R)\bowtie \pi _{XZ}(R)}

 where Z = U − XY. Intuitively, if a functional dependency X → Y holds in R, then the relation can be safely split in two relations alongside the column X (which is a key for

π

X
Y

(
R
)
⋈

π

X
Z

(
R
)

{\displaystyle \pi _{XY}(R)\bowtie \pi _{XZ}(R)}

) ensuring that when the two parts are joined back no data is lost, i.e. a functional dependency provides a simple way to construct a lossless-join decomposition of R in two smaller relations. This fact is sometimes called Heath’s theorem; it is one of the early results in database theory.[8]

Heath’s theorem effectively says we can pull out the values of Y from the big relation R and store them into one,

π

X
Y

(
R
)

{\displaystyle \pi _{XY}(R)}

, which has no value repetitions in the row for X and is effectively a lookup table for Y keyed by X and consequently has only one place to update the Y corresponding to each X unlike the "big" relation R where there are potentially many copies of each X, each one with its copy of Y which need to be kept synchronized on updates. (This elimination of redundancy is an advantage in OLTP contexts, where many changes are expected, but not so much in OLAP contexts, which involve mostly queries.) Heath’s decomposition leaves only X to act as a foreign key in the remainder of the big table

π

X
Z

(
R
)

{\displaystyle \pi _{XZ}(R)}

.

Functional dependencies however should not be confused with inclusion dependencies, which are the formalism for foreign keys; even though they are used for normalization, functional dependencies express constraints over one relation (schema), whereas inclusion dependencies express constraints between relation schemas in a database schema. Furthermore, the two notions do not even intersect in the classification of dependencies: functional dependencies are equality-generating dependencies whereas inclusion dependencies are tuple-generating dependencies. Enforcing referential constraints after relation schema decomposition (normalization) requires a new formalism, i.e. inclusion dependencies. In the decomposition resulting from Heath's theorem, there's nothing preventing the insertion of tuples in

π

X
Z

(
R
)

{\displaystyle \pi _{XZ}(R)}

 having some value of X not found in

π

X
Y

(
R
)

{\displaystyle \pi _{XY}(R)}

.

Normal forms are database normalization levels which determine the "goodness" of a table. Generally, the third normal form is considered to be a "good" standard for a relational database.[citation needed]

Normalization aims to free the database from update, insertion and deletion anomalies. It also ensures that when a new value is introduced into the relation, it has minimal effect on the database, and thus minimal effect on the applications using the database.[citation needed]

A functional depending set S is irreducible if the set has the following three properties:

Sets of Functional Dependencies(FD) with these properties are also called canonical or minimal.


the main character in clueless was named after which famous superstar

Cheryl "Cher" Horowitz is a well-intentioned but superficial girl, who is attractive, popular and extremely wealthy. A few months shy of her sixteenth birthday, she has risen to the top of the high school social scene. She lives in a Beverly Hills mansion with her father Mel, a ferocious $500-an-hour litigator; her mother died from a freak accident during a routine liposuction procedure when Cher was a baby. Cher's best friend is Dionne Davenport, who is also rich, pretty, and hip, and understands what it's like to be envied. Though Dionne has a long-term relationship with popular student Murray, Cher claims that this is a pointless endeavor on Dionne's part.

Clueless (film)

Clueless is a 1995 American coming-of-age romantic comedy film written and directed by Amy Heckerling. It stars Alicia Silverstone, Stacey Dash, Paul Rudd and Brittany Murphy, and was produced by Scott Rudin and Robert Lawrence. It is loosely based on Jane Austen's 1815 novel Emma, updating the setting to modern-day Beverly Hills.[4][5] The film's director, Heckerling studied real Beverly Hills high school students to get the lingo and feel for how real teens in the 1990s talked. The famous quote "as if!" came from Heckerling's study of these teens.

The film grossed $56 million in the United States, received generally positive reviews from critics, and has developed a cult following.[6][7][8][9] The film was followed by a spin-off television sitcom and series of books.

Among the few people to find fault with Cher is Josh, her socially conscious ex-stepbrother, who visits her during a break from college. Josh and Cher spar continually but without animosity; she mocks his scruffy idealism, while he teases her for being selfish, vain, and superficial, and says that her only direction in life is "toward the mall". Cher plays matchmaker for two lonely, nerdy, hard-grading teachers, Mr. Hall and Miss Geist. She achieves her superficial purpose, to make them relax their grading standards so she can renegotiate a bad report card; but when she sees their newfound happiness, she realizes she enjoys doing good deeds. Cher decides to give back to the community by "adopting" a "tragically unhip" new girl at school, Tai Frasier. Cher and Dionne give Tai a makeover and initiate her into the mysteries of popularity. Cher also tries to extinguish the attraction between Tai and Travis Birkenstock, an amiable skateboarding slacker, and to steer her toward Elton, a popular rich snob.

Her second matchmaking scheme backfires when Elton rejects Tai and attempts to seduce Cher. When a handsome new student named Christian arrives at their school, Cher takes a shine to him and attempts to secure him as her boyfriend. Eventually, Murray spells it out to her and Dionne that Christian is not interested in her because he is gay.

Despite the failure of this endeavor, Cher remains on good terms with Christian, primarily due to her admiration of his taste in art and fashion. Matters take a turn for the worse when Cher's "project" works too well, and Tai's popularity surpasses her own. The situation reaches crisis stage after Cher fails her driver's test and can't "renegotiate" the result. When she returns home, crushed, Tai confides that she's taken a fancy to Josh and wants Cher to help her "get" him. Cher says she doesn't think Josh is right for Tai, and they quarrel, ending with Tai calling Cher a "virgin who can't drive". Feeling "totally clueless", Cher reflects on her priorities and her repeated failures to understand or appreciate the people in her life.

After much soul searching, Cher realizes she loves Josh. She begins making awkward but sincere efforts to live a more purposeful life, including captaining the school's Pismo Beach disaster relief effort. Cher and Josh eventually admit their feelings for one another, culminating in a tender kiss.

In the end, Mr. Hall and Miss Geist wed; Cher's friendships with Tai and Dionne are solidified; Tai and Travis are in love; and Cher wins a $200 bet for catching the bouquet at the wedding. She embraces Josh, and they kiss as the film closes.

The film's central characters are:

Principal photography for the film took place between November 21-December 31, 1994.[11] The film had a 40-day filming schedule. Producers sat in on classes at Beverly Hills High School to get a feel for the student culture. Herb Hall, the real drama teacher at Beverly Hills High School, played the principal in the film. Scenes depicting the high school campus, including the tennis courts, the outdoor cafeteria, the quad, and various classrooms were filmed at Occidental College in Los Angeles. The mall scenes were filmed at Westfield Fashion Square in Sherman Oaks, CA.

Clueless opened theatrically in 1,653 theaters on July 19, 1995.[3]

Later that year, it was released on VHS and Laserdisc on December 19, 1995 by Paramount Home Video.

The film was first released to DVD on October 19, 1999; the special features only included 2 theatrical trailers.

The film was reissued in a special 10th anniversary DVD "Whatever! Edition" on August 30, 2005. The new issue included featurettes and cast interviews, including:

The film was released on Blu-ray Disc for the first time on May 1, 2012. Special features were carried over from the "Whatever!" edition of 2005, and included a new trivia track.

The film became a surprise sleeper hit of 1995, grossing $10,612,443 on its opening weekend, ranking second behind Apollo 13. The film grossed $56,631,572 during its theatrical run, becoming the 32nd highest-grossing film of 1995 and bringing the then-largely-unknown Silverstone to international attention. It also developed a strong cult following after its release.[citation needed].[12][13][14]

The film was well received by critics. Review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes gives it a score of 81% based on reviews from 57 critics and judged it "Certified Fresh" with an average rating of 6.9/10, the site's critical consensus reads: "A funny and clever reshaping of Emma, Clueless offers a soft satire that pokes as much fun at teen films as it does at the Beverly Hills glitterati."[15] On Metacritic, the film has a 68 out of 100 rating based on 18 reviews, indicating "generally positive reviews".[16]

The film was viewed to be the start of impactful teen flicks that had strong influences over fashion trends and lingo. Fashion as a form of self-expression played an important role in the narrative and character development of the film, television series, and novels, something Alice Leppert examines. ^[17]

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film three-and-a-half out of four stars.[18] Janet Maslin of The New York Times notes "Even if Clueless runs out of gas before it's over, most of it is as eye-catching and cheery as its star."[19] Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gave the film four stars, contrasting it to the more adult-oriented film about teenagers released around the same time, Kids, stating "The materialism in Clueless is almost as scary as the hopelessness in Kids."[20]

In 2008, Entertainment Weekly selected Clueless as one of the "New Classics," a list of 100 released between 1983 and 2008,[21] Clueless was ranked 42nd.[22]

In 2008, Entertainment Weekly named it the 19th best comedy of the past 25 years.[23]

American Film Institute recognition:

After the death of Brittany Murphy, Silverstone stated that she "always felt connected to [Murphy] as [they] shared a very special experience in [their] lives together."[26] Following Murphy's death, Silverstone reported in an interview: "I loved working with Brittany. She was so talented, so warm, and so sweet."[26]

Heckerling later described Silverstone as having "that Marilyn Monroe thing" as a "pretty, sweet blonde who, in spite of being the American ideal, people still really like."[27]

The surviving cast reunited in 2012 for an issue of Entertainment Weekly.[28]

Heckerling later reunited with both Silverstone and Shawn for the vampire comedy Vamps.

Clueless was the main inspiration for Australian rapper Iggy Azalea's music video to her U.S. number one hit single "Fancy" featuring Charli XCX, with many visuals as well as costumes inspired by the film.[29][30] The video is filled with remakes of classic Clueless scenes, and the outfits are reinvented to channel the famous stylings of the film with a slightly modern edge.[31] "Fancy" was also shot in the same Los Angeles high school where Clueless was filmed.[32]

The film was very known for the characters catchy phrases and vocabulary, "Cher's verbal style is also marked by ironic contrasts between current slang and historical references, as when she compares Tai to "those Botticelli chicks." The characterization through their verbal speech was can be seen as enjoyable to audiences [33]

In 2015, to celebrate the film's twentieth anniversary, pop culture writer Jen Chaney published a book titled As If!: The Oral History of Clueless, based on exclusive interviews with Amy Heckerling, Alicia Silverstone, and other cast and crew members. Excerpts from the book were published in Vanity Fair.[34][35]

In 1996, the producers created a spinoff television series, which followed the continuing adventures of Cher and her friends. Several cast members from the film went on to star in the series, with the notable exceptions of Silverstone (who went on to sign a film deal with Columbia-TriStar worth $10 million) and Rudd (whose film career began to take off). Silverstone was replaced in the series with actress Rachel Blanchard.

Simon Spotlight Entertainment spun off a collection of paperback books, from 1995-1999, aimed at adolescent readers.[citation needed]


how did the soviets first attempt to stem the flow of refugees leaving east germany for west berlin

From 1945 onwards, unauthorised crossers of the inner German border risked being shot by Soviet or East German border guards. The use of deadly force was termed the Schießbefehl ("order to fire" or "command to shoot"). It was formally in force as early as 1948, when regulations concerning the use of firearms on the border were promulgated. A regulation issued to East German police 27 May 1952 stipulated that "failure to obey the orders of the Border Patrol will be met by the use of arms." From the 1960s through to the end of the 1980s, the border guards were given daily verbal orders (Vergatterung) to "track down, arrest or annihilate border violators." The GDR formally codified its regulations on the use of deadly force in March 1982, when the State Border Law mandated that firearms were to be used as the "maximum measure in the use of force" against individuals who "publicly attempt to break through the state border".[23] The GDR's leadership explicitly endorsed the use of deadly force. General Heinz Hoffmann, the GDR Minister of Defence, declared in August 1966 that "anyone who does not respect our border will feel the bullet." In 1974, Erich Honecker, as Chairman of the National Defense Council of East Germany, ordered: "Firearms are to be ruthlessly used in the event of attempts to break through the border, and the comrades who have successfully used their firearms are to be commended."[24]

Escape attempts and victims of the inner German border

There were numerous escape attempts and victims of the inner German border during its 45 years of existence from 1945 to 1990.

Between 1945 and 1988, around 4 million East Germans migrated to the West. 3.454 million of them left between 1945 and the construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961. The great majority simply walked across the border or, after 1952, exited through West Berlin. After the border was fortified and the Berlin Wall was constructed, the number of illegal border crossings fell drastically. The numbers fell further as the border defenses were improved over the subsequent decades. In 1961, 8,507 people fled across the border, most of them through West Berlin. The construction of the Berlin Wall that year reduced the number of escapees by 75% to around 2,300 per annum for the rest of the decade. The Wall changed Berlin from being one of the easiest places to cross the border, from the East, to being one of the most difficult.[1] The number of escapees fell further to 868 per annum during the 1970s and to only 334 per annum between 1980 and 1988. However, escapees were never more than a small minority of the total number of emigrants from East Germany. Far more people left the country after being granted official permits, by fleeing through third countries or by being ransomed by the West German government. During the 1980s, only about 1% of those who left East Germany did so by escaping across the border.[2]

Escapees had various motives for attempting to flee East Germany. The vast majority had an essentially economic motive: they wished to improve their living conditions and opportunities in the West. Some fled for political reasons, but many were impelled to leave by specific social and political events. The imposition of collective agriculture and the crushing of the 1953 East German uprising prompted thousands to flee to the West, as did further coercive economic restructuring in 1960. Thousands of those who fled did so to escape the clearance of their villages along the border. By the 1980s, the number of escape attempts was rising again as East Germany's economy stagnated and living conditions deteriorated.[3]

Attempts to flee across the border were carefully studied and recorded by the East German authorities to identify possible weak points. These would be addressed by strengthening the fortifications in vulnerable areas. The East German Army (NVA) and the Ministry for State Security (Stasi) carried out statistical surveys to identify trends. In one example, a study was carried out by the NVA at the end of the 1970s to review attempted "border breaches" (Grenzdurchbrüche). It found that 4,956 people had attempted to escape across the border between 1 January 1974 and 30 November 1979. Of those, 3,984 people (80.4%) were arrested by the People's Police in the Sperrzone, the outer restricted zone. 205 people (4.1%) were caught at the signal fence. Within the inner security zone, the Schutzstreifen, a further 743 people (15%) were arrested by the border guards. 48 people (1%) were stopped – i.e. killed or injured – by landmines and 43 people (0.9%) by SM-70 directional mines on the border fence. A further 67 people (1.35%) were intercepted at the border fence (shot and/or arrested). The study highlighted the effectiveness of the SM-70 as a means of stopping people getting across the fence. A total of 229 people – just 4.6% of attempted escapees, representing less than one in twenty – made it across the border fence. Of these, the largest number (129, or 55% of successful escapees) succeeded in making it across the fence in unmined sectors. 89 people (39% of escapees) managed to cross both the minefields and the border fence, but just 12 people (6% of the total) succeeded in getting past the SM-70s.[4]

Escape attempts were severely punished by the East German state. From 1953, the regime described the act of escaping as Republikflucht (literally "flight from the Republic"), by analogy with the existing military term Fahnenflucht ("desertion"). A successful escapee was not a Flüchtling ("refugee") but a Republikflüchtiger ("Republic-deserter"). Those who attempted to escape were called Sperrbrecher (literally "blockade runners" but more loosely translated as "border violators").[3] Those who helped escapees were not Fluchthelfer ("escape helpers"), the Western term, but Menschenhändler ("human traffickers").[5] Such ideologically coloured language enabled the regime to portray border crossers as little better than traitors and criminals.[6] An East German propaganda booklet published in 1955 outlined the official view of escapees:

Both from the moral standpoint as well as in terms of the interests of the whole German nation, leaving the GDR is an act of political and moral backwardness and depravity.

Those who let themselves be recruited objectively serve West German Reaction and militarism, whether they know it or not. Is it not despicable when for the sake of a few alluring job offers or other false promises about a "guaranteed future" one leaves a country in which the seed for a new and more beautiful life is sprouting, and is already showing the first fruits, for the place that favors a new war and destruction?

Is it not an act of political depravity when citizens, whether young people, workers, or members of the intelligentsia, leave and betray what our people have created through common labor in our republic to offer themselves to the American or British secret services or work for the West German factory owners, Junkers, or militarists? Does not leaving the land of progress for the morass of an historically outdated social order demonstrate political backwardness and blindness?...

[W]orkers throughout Germany will demand punishment for those who today leave the German Democratic Republic, the strong bastion of the fight for peace, to serve the deadly enemy of the German people, the imperialists and militarists.[7]

Republikflucht became a crime in 1957, punishable by heavy fines and up to three years' imprisonment. Any act associated with an escape attempt was subject to this legislation. Those caught in the act were often tried for espionage as well and given proportionately harsher sentences.[8] More than 75,000 people – an average of more than seven people a day – were imprisoned for attempting to escape across the border, serving an average of one to two years' imprisonment. Border guards who attempted to escape were treated much more harshly and were on average imprisoned for five years.[9] Those who helped escapees were also subject to punishment, facing prison terms or deportation to internal exile in faraway towns. Some 50,000 East Germans suffered this fate between 1952 and 1989.[10]

Refugees used a variety of methods to escape across the border. The great majority crossed on foot, though some took more unusual routes. One of the most spectacular was the balloon escape in September 1979 of eight people from two families in a home-made hot-air balloon. Their flight involved an ascent to more than 2,500 metres (8,200 ft) before landing near the West German town of Naila,[11] inspiring the film Night Crossing. Other escapees relied more on physical strength and endurance. An escapee in 1987 used meat hooks to scale the border fences,[12] while in 1971 a doctor swam 45 kilometres (28 mi) across the Baltic Sea from Rostock almost to the Danish island of Lolland, before he was picked up by a West German yacht.[13] Another escapee used an air mattress to escape across the Baltic in 1987.[14] Mass escapes were rare. One of the few that succeeded took place on 2 October 1961, when 53 people from the border village of Böseckendorf – a quarter of the village's population – escaped en masse, followed by another 13 inhabitants in February 1963.[15] An unusual mass escape occurred in September 1964 when 14 East Germans, including eleven children, were smuggled across the border in a refrigerated truck. They were able to escape detection by being concealed under the carcasses of slaughtered and stuffed pigs being transported to the West.[16]

Those working on or near the border were occasionally able to use their privileged access and knowledge to escape. For the border guards, this presented special dangers, as their colleagues were under orders to shoot without warning if an escape attempt was made. The dilemmas they faced were highlighted in the May 1969 defection of a soldier and a non-commissioned officer (NCO) of the Grenztruppen. When the NCO made his escape, the soldier, JÃ¼rgen Lange, decided not to shoot him. As this exposed Lange to severe punishment by his superiors for disobeying the order to shoot, Lange made his own escape ten minutes later. When he reached the West German side, Lange found that his rifle had been sabotaged by his NCO to prevent him firing in the first place.[17] Soviet soldiers also sometimes escaped across the border, though this was very rare. Only eight such defections succeeded between 1953 and 1984.[18]

The traffic was not one-way; thousands of people a year migrated from West Germany to East Germany. The East German press described such individuals as "west zone refugees" who were fleeing "political pressure", "growing unlawfulness" or "worsening economic conditions". Research carried out by the West German government found more prosaic reasons, such as marital problems, family estrangement and the homesickness of those who had lived in East Germany in the past.[19] A number of Allied military personnel, including British, French, German and United States troops, also defected.[20] By the end of the Cold War, as many as 300 United States citizens were thought to have defected across the Iron Curtain for a variety of reasons[21] – whether to escape criminal charges, for political reasons or because (as the St. Petersburg Times put it) "girl-hungry GI's [were tempted] with seductive sirens, who usually desert the love-lorn soldier once he is across the border." The fate of such defectors varied considerably. Some were sent straight to labour camps on charges of espionage. Others committed suicide, while a few were able to find wives and work on the eastern side of the border.[22]

East German border guards had a standard procedure to follow if they detected unauthorised individuals in the border zone. (Though the West Germans referred to the control strip as a "death strip", deadly force could be used at any location along the border – it did not depend on an individual's being in, or crossing, the control strip.) If the individual was less than 100 metres (330 ft) away, the border guard would first order: "Stop! Border sentry! Hands up!" ("Halt! Grenzposten! Hände hoch!") or "Stop, stand still, or I will shoot!" ("Halt! Stehenbleiben, oder ich schieße!"). If the individual was further away or on the Western side of the border fence the guard was authorised to shoot without warning. If the escapee was a fellow border guard, he could be shot immediately from any distance without prior warning. Border guards were instructed not to shoot if innocent bystanders might be hit or if the escapee had made it into West German territory, or if the line of fire was into West Germany. In practice, though, shots fired from East Germany often landed in West German territory.[25]

The border guards were under considerable pressure to obey the Schießbefehl. If they shot escapees they were rewarded with medals, bonuses and sometimes promotion. In one typical example, the killers of one would-be escapee in East Berlin in February 1972 were rewarded by being decorated with the "Order of Merit of the Border Troops of the GDR" and a bonus of 150 marks.[26] By contrast, failure to shoot or suspicion that a shooter had deliberately missed was punished.[27]

The Schießbefehl was, not surprisingly, very controversial in the West and was singled out for criticism by the West Germans. The West German authorities established a "Central Recording Office" to record details of deaths on the border, with the ultimate aim of prosecuting the offenders. This significantly discomfited the East German authorities, who repeatedly but unsuccessfully demanded the office's closure.[28] The GDR authorities occasionally suspended the Schießbefehl on occasions when it would have been politically inconvenient to have to explain dead refugees, such as during a visit to the GDR by the French foreign minister in 1985.[23] It was also a problem for many of the East German border guards and was the motivating factor behind a number of escapes, when guards facing a crisis of confidence defected because of their unwillingness to shoot fellow citizens.[27]

It is not known how many people died on the inner German border or who they were, as East Germany treated such information as a closely guarded secret. But numbers have risen steadily since unification, as evidence has been gathered from East German records. Current unofficial estimates put the figure at up to 1,100Â people,[29] though officially released figures give a lower count for the death toll before and after the Berlin Wall was built.

(1) Figures from the Arbeitsgemeinschaft 13. August
(2) Figures from the Zentrale Erfassungsstelle für Regierungs- und Vereinigungskriminalität

There were many ways to die on the inner German border. Some escapees were shot by the border guards, while others were killed by mines and booby-traps. A substantial number drowned while trying to cross the Baltic and the Elbe river. Some died of heart attacks during their escape attempts; in one incident, a baby died after its parents gave it sleeping pills to keep it quiet during the crossing.[31]

Not all of those killed on the border were attempting to escape. On 13 October 1961, Westfälische Rundschau journalist Kurt Lichtenstein was shot on the border near the village of Zicherie after he attempted to speak with East German farm workers. His death aroused condemnation across the political spectrum in West Germany; he was a former parliamentary representative of the German Communist Party.[32] The incident prompted students from Braunschweig to erect a sign on the border protesting the killing.[33] An apparent mix-up over papers at a border crossing point led to the shooting of Benito Corghi, an Italian truck driver, in August 1976. Corghi was a member of the Italian Communist Party, which denounced the killing. The episode severely embarrassed the East German government and produced an unusual apology.[34] In one notorious shooting on 1 May 1976, a former East German political prisoner, Michael Gartenschläger, who had fled to the West some years before, was ambushed and killed by a Stasi commando squad on the border near Büchen as he tried to dismantle an SM-70 anti-personnel mine. When his body was buried it was described merely as an "unknown body fished out of the water". The Stasi's after-action report, however, declared that "before he could carry out the act [of removing the mine], Gartenschläger was liquidated by security forces of the GDR".[35]

Twenty-five East German border guards died after being shot from the Western side of the border or by resisting escapees or (often accidentally) by their own colleagues.[36] The East German government described them as "victims of armed assaults and imperialist provocations against the state border of the GDR"[37] and alleged that "bandits" in the West took potshots at border guards doing their duty – a version of events that was uncorroborated by Western accounts of border incidents.

The two sides commemorated their dead in significantly different ways. Various mostly unofficial memorials were set up on the western side by people seeking to commemorate victims of the border. West Germans such as Michael Gartenschläger and Kurt Lichtenstein were commemorated with signs and memorials, some of which were supported by the government. After the policy of détente was initiated in the 1970s this became politically inconvenient and state support for border memorials largely ceased. The taboo in East Germany surrounding escapees meant that the great majority of deaths went unpublicised and uncommemorated. The border guards who died on the frontier were, however, portrayed as "martyrs" by the East German regime. Four stone memorials were erected in East Berlin to mark their deaths.[38] The regime named schools, barracks and other public facilities after the dead guards and used their memorials as places of pilgrimage to signify that (as a slogan put it) "their deaths are our commitment" to maintaining the border. After 1989 the memorials were vandalised, neglected and ultimately removed.[39]

Few East German escapees were commemorated in the West, not least because their identities were mostly unknown until after 1989. One notable exception was Helmut Kleinert, a 23-year-old from Quedlinburg in Saxony-Anhalt who was machine-gunned to death on 1 August 1963 as he and his 22-year-old pregnant wife attempted to cross the border near Hohegeiß in the Harz mountains.[40] A memorial dedicated to "The Unknown" was soon erected by local people on the western side of the border. When Kleinert's identity became known in the West, his name was added to the memorial. It became something of a shrine with piles of flowers and wreaths deposited by visitors. The East German regime strongly objected and erected a watchtower nearby, from which threats and communist propaganda were broadcast across the border. Ultimately, in August 1971, the memorial was replaced by a stone set 150 metres (490 ft) away and out of sight of the border.[41]


vieques an island off the shore of puerto rico has been the site of

Vieques is best known internationally as the site of a series of protests against the United States Navy's use of the island as a bombing range and testing ground, which led to the Navy's departure in 2003. Today the former navy land is a national wildlife refuge, with numerous beaches that still retain the names given by the Navy, including Red Beach, Blue Beach and Green Beach. The beaches are commonly listed among the top beaches in the Caribbean for their azure-colored waters and white sands.

Vieques, Puerto Rico

Vieques (/viːˈeɪkɪs/; Spanish pronunciation: [ˈbjekes], locally [ˈbjẽke]), in full Isla de Vieques, is an island–municipality of Puerto Rico (U.S.) in the northeastern Caribbean, part of an island grouping sometimes known as the Spanish Virgin Islands. Vieques is part of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and retains strong influences from 400 years of Spanish presence in the island.

Vieques lies about 8 miles (13 km) east of the Puerto Rican mainland, and measures about 21 miles (34 km) long by 4 miles (6 km) wide. Its most populated barrio is Isabel Segunda (sometimes written "Isabel II"), the administrative center on the northern side of the island. The population of Vieques was 9,301 at the 2010 Census.

The island's name is a Spanish spelling of an American Indian word (likely Taíno) said to mean "small island". It also has the nickname "Isla Nena", usually translated from Spanish as "Little Girl Island", alluding to its perception as Puerto Rico's little sister. During the colonial period, the British name was "Crab Island".

Archaeological evidence suggests that Vieques was first inhabited by ancient American Indian peoples who traveled from continental America perhaps between 3000 BC and 2000 BC. However, estimates of these prehistoric dates of inhabitation vary widely. These tribes had a Stone Age culture and were probably fishermen and hunter-gatherers.

Excavations at the Puerto Ferro site by Luis Chanlatte and Yvonne Narganes[2] uncovered a fragmented human skeleton in a large hearth area. Radiocarbon dating of shells found in the hearth indicate a burial date of c.1900 BCE. This skeleton, popularly known as El Hombre de Puerto Ferro, was buried at the center of a group of large boulders near the south-central coast of Vieques, approximately one kilometer northwest of the Bioluminescent Bay. Linear arrays of smaller stones radiating from the central boulders are apparent at the site today, but their age and reason for placement are unknown.

Further waves of settlement by Native Americans followed over many centuries. The Arawak-speaking Saladoid (or Igneri) people, thought to have originated in modern-day Venezuela, arrived in the region perhaps around 200 BC (again estimates vary). These tribes, noted for their pottery, stone carving, and other artifacts, eventually merged with groups from Hispaniola and Cuba, to form what is now called the Taíno culture. This culture flourished in the region from around 1000 AD, and survived on Vieques until the arrival of the Europeans in the late 15th century.

The European discovery of Vieques is sometimes credited to Christopher Columbus, who landed in Puerto Rico in 1493. It does not seem to be certain whether Columbus personally visited Vieques, but in any case the island was soon claimed by the Spanish. During the early 16th century Vieques became a center of Taíno rebellion against the European invaders, prompting the Spanish to send armed forces to the island to quell the resistance. The native Taíno population was decimated, and its people either killed, imprisoned or enslaved by the Spanish.

The Spanish did not, however, permanently colonise Vieques at this time, and for the next three hundred years it remained a lawless outpost, frequented by pirates and outlaws. As European powers fought for control in the region, a series of attempts by the French, English and Danish to colonise the island in the 17th and 18th centuries were repulsed by the Spanish. The island also received considerable attention as a possible colony from Scotland, and after numerous attempts to buy the island proved unsuccessful, the Scottish fleet, en route to Darien in 1698, made landfall and took possession of the island in the name of the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and The Indies. Scottish sovereignty of the island proved short-lived however, as a Danish ship arrived shortly afterwards and claimed the island. From 1689-1693, the island was controlled by Brandenburg-Prussia as the "Isle of Crabs" (German: Krabbeninsel).

At the beginning of the 19th century, the Spanish took steps to permanently settle and secure the island. In 1811, Don Salvador Meléndez, then governor of Puerto Rico, sent military commander Juan Rosselló to begin what would become the annexation of Vieques by the Puerto Ricans.[3] In 1832, under an agreement with the Spanish Puerto Rican administration, Frenchman Teófilo José Jaime María Le Guillou became Governor of Vieques, and undertook to impose order on the anarchic province. He was instrumental in the establishment of large plantations, marking a period of social and economic change for the island. Le Guillou is now remembered as the "founder" of Vieques (though this title is also sometimes conferred on Francisco Saínz, governor from 1843 to 1852, who founded Isabel Segunda, the "town of Vieques", named after Queen Isabel II of Spain). Vieques was formally annexed to Puerto Rico in 1854.

In 1816, Vieques was briefly visited by Simón Bolívar when his ship ran aground there while fleeing defeat in Venezuela.[4]

During the second part of the 19th century, thousands of black immigrants came to Vieques to work on the sugarcane plantations. They arrived from the nearby islands of St. Thomas, Nevis, Saint Kitts, Saint Croix, and many other Caribbean islands, some of them arrived as slaves and some as independent economic migrants.[clarification needed] By the time of settlement of Vieques the Eastern Caribbean was post-Emancipation but some arrived as contract labor. Since this time black people have formed an important part of Viequesâ€™ society.

In 1898, after Spain's defeat in the Spanish–American War, Vieques, along with mainland Puerto Rico, was ceded to the United States.

In the 1920s and 1930s, the sugar industry, on which Vieques was totally dependent, went into decline due to falling sugar prices and industrial unrest. Many locals were forced to move to mainland Puerto Rico or Saint Croix to look for work.

In 1941, while Europe was in the midst of World War II, the United States Navy purchased or seized about two thirds of Vieques as an extension to the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station nearby on the Puerto Rican mainland. The original purpose of the base (never implemented) was to provide a safe haven for the British fleet should Britain fall to Nazi Germany. Much of the land was bought from the owners of large farms and sugar cane plantations, and the purchase triggered the final demise of the sugar industry. Many agricultural workers, who had no formal title to the land they occupied, were evicted.[5]

After the war, the US Navy continued to use the island for military exercises, and as a firing range and testing ground for munitions.

The continuing post-war presence in Vieques of the United States Navy drew protests from the local community, angry at the expropriation of their land and the environmental impact of weapons testing. The locals' discontent was exacerbated by the island's perilous economic condition.

Protests came to a head in 1999 when Vieques native David Sanes, a civilian employee of the United States Navy, was killed by a jet bomb that the Navy said misfired. Sanes had been working as a security guard. A popular campaign of civil disobedience resurged; not since the mid-1970s had Viequenses come together en masse to protest the target practices.[6] The locals took to the ocean in their small fishing boats and successfully stopped the US Navy's military exercises, for a short period, until the US Navy and two US Coast Guard cutters began controlling access to the island and escorting boaters away from Vieques.

The Vieques issue became something of a cause célèbre, and local protesters were joined by sympathetic groups and prominent individuals from the mainland United States and abroad, including political leaders Rubén Berríos, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, singers Danny Rivera, Willie Colón[7] and Ricky Martin, actors Edward James Olmos and Jimmy Smits, boxer Félix 'Tito' Trinidad, baseball superstar Carlos Delgado, writers Ana Lydia Vega and Giannina Braschi, and Guatemala's Nobel Prize winner Rigoberta Menchú. Kennedy's son, Aidan Caohman "Vieques" Kennedy,[8] was born while his father served jail time in Puerto Rico for his role in the protests. The problems arising from the US Navy base have also featured in songs by various musicians, including Puerto Rican rock band Puya, rapper Immortal Technique and reggaeton artist Tego Calderón. In popular culture, one subplot of "The Two Bartlets" episode of The West Wing dealt with a protest on the bombing range led by a friend of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Josh Lyman; this character was modeled on future West Wing star Jimmy Smits, a native of Puerto Rico who was repeatedly arrested for his leading of protests there.

As a result of this pressure, in May 2003, the Navy withdrew from Vieques, and much of the island was designated a National Wildlife Refuge under the control of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Closure of Roosevelt Roads Naval Station followed in 2004.and prior to Hurricane Maria the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station was reopened after closed

Vieques is a municipio of Puerto Rico, translated as "municipality" and in this context roughly equivalent to "township". It is in the Puerto Rican electoral district of Carolina. Local government is under the leadership of a mayor, presently Víctor Emeric.

The city[clarification needed] belongs to the Puerto Rico Senatorial district VIII, which is represented by two Senators. In 2012, Pedro A. Rodríguez and Luis Daniel Rivera were elected as District Senators.[9]

Administratively Vieques is divided into eight wards (barrios), including the town of Isabel Segunda:

Vieques measures about 21 miles (34 km) east-west, and three to four miles (6.4 km) north-south. It has a land area of 52 square miles (130 km2) and is located about ten miles (16 km) to the east of Puerto Rico. To the north of Vieques is the Atlantic Ocean, and to the south the Caribbean. The island of Culebra is about 10 miles (16 km) north of Vieques, and the United States Virgin Islands lie to the east. Vieques and Culebra, together with various small islets, make up the so-called Spanish Virgin Islands, sometimes known as the Passage Islands.[citation needed]

The former US Navy lands, now wildlife reserves, occupy the entire eastern and western ends of Vieques, with the former live weapons testing site (known as the "LIA", or "Live Impact Area") at the extreme eastern tip.[11] These areas are unpopulated. The former civilian area occupies very roughly the central third of the island and contains the towns of Isabel Segunda on the north coast, and Esperanza on the south.

Vieques has a terrain of rolling hills, with a central ridge running east-west. The highest point is Monte Pirata ("Pirate Mount") at 987 feet (301Â m). Geologically the island is composed of a mixture of volcanic bedrock, sedimentary rocks such as limestone and sandstone, and alluvial deposits of gravel, sand, silt, and clay. There are no permanent rivers or streams. Much former agricultural land has been reclaimed by nature due to prolonged disuse, and, apart from some small-scale farming in the central region, the island is largely covered by brush and subtropical dry forest. Around the coast lie palm-fringed sandy beaches interspersed with lagoons, mangrove swamps, salt flats and coral reefs.[citation needed]

A series of nearshore islets and rocks are part of the municipality of Vieques, clockwise starting at the northernmost:

The Bioluminescent Bay (also known as Puerto Mosquito, Mosquito Bay, or "The Bio Bay"), is considered the best example of a bioluminescent bay in the United States and is listed as a national natural landmark, one of five in Puerto Rico. The luminescence in the bay is caused by a micro-organism, the dinoflagellate Pyrodinium bahamense, which glows whenever the water is disturbed, leaving a trail of neon blue.

A combination of factors creates the necessary conditions for bioluminescence: red mangrove trees surround the water (the organisms have been related to mangrove forests[12] although mangrove is not necessarily associated with this species[13]); a complete lack of modern development around the bay; the water is cool enough and deep enough; and a small channel to the ocean keeps the dinoflagellates in the bay. This small channel was created artificially, being the result of attempts by the occupants of Spanish ships to choke off the bay from the ocean. The Spanish believed that the bioluminescence they encountered there while first exploring the area, was the work of the devil ('El Diablo') and tried to block ocean water from entering the bay by dropping huge boulders in the channel.[citation needed] The Spanish only succeeded in preserving and increasing the luminescence in the now isolated bay.

Kayaking is permitted in the bay and may be arranged through local vendors.

Vieques has a warm, relatively dry, tropical to sub-tropical climate. Temperatures vary little throughout the year, with average daily maxima ranging from 82 °F (28 °C) in January to 87 °F (31 °C) in July.[14] Average daily minima are about 10 °F (−12 °C) lower. Rainfall averages around 45 to 55 inches (1,100 to 1,400 millimetres) per year, with the months of May and September–November being the wettest. The west of the island receives significantly more rainfall than the east. Prevailing winds are easterly.

Vieques is prone to tropical storms and at risk from hurricanes from June to November. In 1989 Hurricane Hugo caused considerable damage to the island,[15] and in 2017 Hurricane Maria also caused major damage.[16]

According to the 2010 US census,[17] the total population of Vieques was 9,301. 94.3% of the population are Hispanic or Latino (of any race). Natives of Vieques are known as Viequenses.

Both Spanish and English are recognized as official languages. Spanish is the primary language of most inhabitants.

The sugar industry, once the mainstay of the island's economy, declined during the early decades of the twentieth century, and finally collapsed in the 1940s when the US Navy took over much of the land on which the sugar cane plantations stood. After an initial naval construction phase, opportunities for making a living on the island were largely limited to fishing or subsistence farming on reduced area. Crops grown on the island include avocados, bananas, coconuts, grains, papayas and sweet potatoes. A small number of permanent local jobs were provided by the US Navy. Since the 1970s General Electric has employed a few hundred workers at a manufacturing plant. Unemployment was widespread, with consequent social problems. The 2000 US census reported a median household income in 1999 dollars of $9,331 (compared to $41,994 for the USA as a whole), and 35.8% of the population of 16 years and over in the labor force (compared to 63.9% for the USA as a whole).[17]

Like the rest of Puerto Rico, the island's currency is the US dollar.

Following the 2003 departure of the US Navy, efforts have been made to redevelop the island's agricultural economy, to clean up contaminated areas of the former bombing ranges, and to develop Vieques as a tourist destination. The Navy clean-up is currently the largest employer on the island, and has contributed over 20 million dollars directly into the local economy over the last 5 years through salaries, housing, vehicles, taxes, and services. The Navy has provided specialized training to several local islanders, who may be able to parlay this training into a career after the clean-up is over.

For sixty years the majority of Vieques was closed off by the US Navy, and the island remained almost entirely undeveloped for tourism. This lack of development is now marketed as a key attraction. Vieques is promoted under an ecotourism banner as a sleepy, unspoiled island of rural "old world" charm and pristine deserted beaches, and is rapidly becoming a popular destination.

Since the Navy's departure, tensions on the island have been low, although land speculation by foreign developers and fears of overdevelopment have caused some resentment among local residents, and there are occasional reports of lingering anti-American sentiment.[19]

The lands previously owned by the Navy have been turned over to the U.S. National Fish and Wildlife Service and the authorities of Puerto Rico and Vieques for management. The immediate bombing range area on the eastern tip of the island suffers from severe contamination, but the remaining areas are mostly open to the public, including many beautiful beaches that were inaccessible to civilians while the military was conducting training maneuvers.

Snorkeling is excellent, especially at Blue Beach (BahÃa de la Chiva). Aside from archeological sites, such as La Hueca, and deserted beaches, a unique feature of Vieques is the presence of two pristine bioluminescent bays, including Mosquito Bay. Vieques is also famous for its feral paso fino horses, which roam free over parts of the island.[19] These are descended from stock originally brought by European colonisers.

In 2011, TripAdvisor listed Vieques among the Top 25 Beaches in the World, writing "If you prefer your beaches without the accompanying commercial developments, Isla de Vieques is your tanning turf, with more than 40 beaches and not one traffic light."[20]

Vieques is served by Antonio Rivera Rodríguez Airport, which currently accommodates only small propeller-driven aircraft. Services to the island run from San Juan's Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport, Ceiba Airport or Isla Grande Airport (20- to 30-minute flight). Flights are also available between Vieques and Saint Croix and Saint Thomas.

Also, a ferry runs from Fajardo several times a day. The ferry service is administered by the Autoridad de Transporte MarÃtimo (ATM) in Puerto Rico.[21]

There have been claims linking Vieques' higher cancer rate[22] to the long history of US weapons testing on the island.

Milivi Adams was a girl from Vieques who developed and died of cancer and became a symbol in the battle against the presence of the military.[23][24] Her face had appeared many times on the covers of Puerto Rican newspapers and magazines, and there were posters with her picture on them on many of Vieques' street corners.[citation needed] The daughter of Zuleyka Calderon and Jose Adams,[25] Milivi was diagnosed with cancer at the age of two years. Although many people blamed the military's bomb testings in Vieques as the source of her cancer, this has not been proven.[26] Given a month to live at the age of three, her cancer went into remission, but at the age of four reappeared, in her brain. She was flown to the United States by her parents, in hopes that treatment would help her; she fought infections, and after the last one, doctors told her parents that her body would not resist another infection treatment. She returned to Puerto Rico, where she died on the morning of NovemberÂ 17, 2002.[27]

Nayda Figueroa, an epidemiologist for Puerto Rico's Cancer Registry, stated that research showed Vieques' cancer rate from 1995 to 1999 was 31 percent higher than for the main island.

Michael Thun, head of epidemiological research at the American Cancer Society, cautioned that the variations in the rates could be attributed to chance, given the small population on Vieques.[28] A 2000 Nuclear Regulatory Commission report concluded that "the public had not been exposed to depleted uranium contamination above normal background (naturally occurring) levels".[29]

Surveys of the wreckage of a target ship in a shallow bay at the bombing range, however, revealed its identity to be that of the USSÂ Killen, a target ship in nuclear tests in the Pacific in 1958. By 2002, it was evident that thousands of tons of steel that had originally been irradiated in the 1958 nuclear tests was missing from the wreckage in the bay. That steel has been missing for over 35 years and is still unaccounted for by the US Navy, Environmental Protection Agency and US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Hundreds of steel drums of unknown origin were found among the wreckage. Their identity and contents have not been adequately verified.[citation needed]

In response to concerns about potential contamination from toxic metals and other chemicals, the ATSDR conducted a number of surveys in 1999â€“2002 to test Vieques' soil, water supply, air, fish and shellfish for harmful substances. The general conclusion of the ATSDR survey was that no public health hazard existed as a result of the Navy's activities.[29] However, scientists have pointed out that fish samples were drawn from local markets, which often import fish from other areas. Also sample sizes from each location were too small to provide compelling evidence for the lack of a public health danger (Wargo, Green Intelligence). The conclusions of the ATSDR report have more recently, as of 2009[update], been questioned and discredited. A review is underway.[30][31][32]

Casa Pueblo, a Puerto Rican environmental group, reported "a series of studies pertaining to the flora and fauna of Vieques that clearly demonstrates sequestration of high levels of toxic elements in plant and animal tissue samples. Consequently, the ecological food web of the Vieques Island has been adversely impacted."[33]

A view towards NavÃo Beach from a nearby sea cave

A view from the Malecón (promenade) in Esperanza towards Cayo de Afuera

Playa Caracas (Red Beach)

Festival Viequense (2007)

Isabella II, Vieques. Puerto Rico

Fort Count of Mirasol. Vieques, PR

Playa Negra. Vieques, PR

Playa Negra. Vieques, PR

Playa Negra. Vieques, PR

Wild horses on Playa Negra. Vieques, PR

Playa Negra. Vieques, PR

Playa Negra. Vieques, PR

Esperanza, Vieques. Puerto Rico.

Esperanza, Vieques. Puerto Rico.

Vieques, PR


when did the buccaneers leave the nfc north

The NFC North is a division of the National Football League (NFL)'s National Football Conference (NFC), based in the Upper Midwest region of the United States. Nicknamed the "Black & Blue Division" for the rough and tough rivalry games between the teams, it currently has four members: the Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, Green Bay Packers, and Minnesota Vikings. The NFC North was previously known as the NFC Central from 1970 to 2001. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers were previously members, from 1977, one year after they joined the league as an expansion team, until 2001 when they moved to the NFC South.

NFC North

The division was created in 1967 as the Central Division of the NFL's Western Conference and existed for three seasons before the AFL–NFL merger. After the merger, it was renamed the NFC Central and retained that name until the NFL split into eight divisions in 2002. The four current division teams have been together in the same division or conference since the Vikings joined the league in 1961. The Bears, Lions and Packers have been in the same division or conference since the NFL began a conference format in 1933. Largely because the four teams have played each other at least twice a year, with the exception of the strike-shortened 1982 season, for more than half a century (more than 80 years in the case of the Bears, Lions and Packers), the entire division is considered one very large rivalry.

Based on the combined ages of its current teams, the NFC North is the oldest division in the NFL, at a combined 336 years old. The Bears are 96 years old (founded in 1919 in Decatur, Illinois; moved to Chicago in 1921), the Packers are also 96 years old (founded in 1919, but turned professional in 1921), the Lions are 88 years old (founded 1929 in Portsmouth, Ohio; moved to Detroit in 1934), and the Vikings are 56 years old (founded 1961). The division has a total of 11 Super Bowl appearances. The Packers have the most appearances in the Super Bowl with 5, the most recent happening at the conclusion of the 2010 season. The Bears and the Packers have the only Super Bowl wins of this division, a total of 5 (4 for the Packers and 1 for the Bears). Of the top 10 NFL teams with the highest winning percentage throughout its franchise history, three of them are in the NFC North (the Bears, the Packers, and the Vikings). The Lions however, have one of the lowest winning percentages in the NFL, including the first winless 16-game season in NFL history, in 2008.[1]

Entering 2014 the Bears led the division with an overall record of 730–534–42, victory in Super Bowl XX[2] and eight pre-Super Bowl league titles; Chicago's overall playoff record is 17–18. The Packers hold an overall record of 698–537–36 with an overall playoff record of 30–18, four Super Bowl titles in five Super Bowl appearances, and nine pre-Super Bowl league titles - bringing the Packers to a total of 13 World Championships, currently the most in the NFL. The Lions hold a record of 517–620–32, four league championships, and a 7–11 playoff record. As the youngest (in terms of franchise age) team in the division, the Vikings hold a record of 431–365–9, a playoff record of 19–27, and had won a league title the season before the merger (although they subsequently lost Super Bowl IV).

This division earned the moniker "Black and Blue Division" due to its intense rivalries and physical style of play, and this nickname is still used regularly today. It is also known as the "Frostbite Division" as all teams played home games in late season winter cold until the mid-1970s. The division is also humorously called the "Frozen North", although Detroit has played its home games indoors since 1975, and Minnesota also did so from 1982 to 2013 and returned to indoor home games at U.S. Bank Stadium in 2016. ESPN sportscaster Chris Berman often refers to this division as the "NFC Norris" because of its geographical similarity to the National Hockey League's former Norris Division.

Place cursor over year for division champ or Super Bowl team.

+ A players' strike in 1982 reduced the regular season to nine games, so the league used a special 16-team playoff tournament just for this year. Division standings were ignored; Green Bay had the best record of the division teams.

(1966â€“2016 seasons)

To sort table above, click button to right of heading.

(1920â€“2016 seasons)