Quadrant Model of Reality Book 6 Philosophy

Philosophy Chapter

Marshall Scott Poole’s model suggests that different groups employ different sequences in making decisions. In contrast to unitary sequence models, the multiple sequences model addresses decision making as a function of several contingency variables: task structure, group composition, and conflict management strategies. Poole developed a descriptive system for studying multiple sequences, beyond the abstract action descriptions of previous studies. From Bales’ Interaction Process Analysis System and Fisher’s Decision Proposal Coding System, Poole proposes 36 clusters of group activities for coding group interactions and 4 cluster-sets: proposal development, socioemotional concerns, conflict, and expressions of ambiguity. However, in his latter work, Poole rejected phasic models of group development and proposed a model of continuously developing threads of activity. In essence, discussions are not characterized by blocks of phases, one after another, but by intertwining tracks of activity and interaction. Poole suggests three activity tracks: task progress, relational, and topical focus. Interspersed with these are breakpoints, marking changes in the development of strands and links between them. Normal breakpoints pace the discussion with topic shifts and adjournments. Delays, another breakpoint, are holding patterns of recycling through information. Finally, disruptions break the discussion threads with conflict or task failure. Task track: The task track concerns the process by which the group accomplishes its goals, such as dealing doing problem analysis, designing solutions, etc. Relation track: The relation track deals with the interpersonal relationships between the group members. At times, the group may stop its work on the task and work instead on its relationships, share personal information or engage in joking. Topic track: The topic track includes a series of issues or concerns the group have over time Breakpoints: Breakpoints occur when a group switches from one track to another. Shifts in the conversation, adjournment, or postponement are examples of breakpoints.

McGrath's Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP) theory[edit] McGrath's (1991) work emphasized the notion that different teams might follow different developmental paths to reach the same outcome. He also suggested that teams engage in four modes of group activity: inception, technical problem solving, conflict resolution, and execution. According to this model, modes "are potential, not required, forms of activity" (p. 153) resulting in Modes I and IV (inception and execution) being involved in all group tasks and projects while Modes II (technical problem solving) and III (conflict resolution) may or may not be involved in any given group activity (Hare, 2003 uses the terms meaning, resources, integration, and goal attainment for these four modes). McGrath further suggested that all team projects begin with Mode I (goal choice) and end with Mode IV (goal attainment) but that Modes II and III may or may not be needed depending on the task and the history of the group’s activities. McGrath contended that for each identified function, groups can follow a variety of alternative "time-activity paths" in order to move from the initiation to the completion of a given function. Specifically, TIP theory states that there is a "default path" between two modes of activity which is "satisficing" or "least effort" path, and that such default path will "prevail unless conditions warrant some more complex path" (1991, p. 159). Mode I: Inception Inception and acceptance of a project (goal choice) Mode II: Technical Problem Solving Solution of technical issues (means choice) Mode III: Conflict Resolution Resolution of conflict, that is, of political issues (policy choice) Mode IV: Execution Execution of the performance requirements of the project (goal attainment) This model also states that groups adopt these four modes with respect to each of three team functions: production, well-being, and member support. In this sense, groups are seen as "always acting in one of the four modes with respect to each of the three functions, but they are not necessarily engaged in the same mode for all functions, nor are they necessarily engaged in the same mode for a given function on different projects that may be concurrent" (McGrath, 1991, p. 153). The following table illustrates the relationship between modes and functions.

This model also states that groups adopt these four modes with respect to each of three team functions: production, well-being, and member support. In this sense, groups are seen as "always acting in one of the four modes with respect to each of the three functions, but they are not necessarily engaged in the same mode for all functions, nor are they necessarily engaged in the same mode for a given function on different projects that may be concurrent" (McGrath, 1991, p. 153). The following table illustrates the relationship between modes and functions. Functions Production Well-being Member Support Mode I: Inception Production Demand/ Opportunity Interaction Demand/ Opportunity Inclusion Demand/ Opportunity Mode II: Problem Solving Technical Problem Solving Role Network Definition Position/ Status Attainment Mode III: Conflict Resolution Policy Conflict Resolution Power/ Payoff Distribution Contribution/ Payoff Relationships Mode IV: Execution Performance Interaction Participation

QMRSuppose that you were analyzing data related to a group of 50 people applying for a grant. Each grant proposal was read by two readers and each reader either said "Yes" or "No" to the proposal. Suppose the dis/agreement count data were as follows, where A and B are readers, data on the diagonal slanting left shows the count of agreements and the data on the diagonal slanting right, disagreements: B Yes No A Yes 20 5 No 10 15 Note that there were 20 proposals that were granted by both reader A and reader B, and 15 proposals that were rejected by both readers. Thus, the observed proportionate agreement is po = (20 + 15) / 50 = 0.70 To calculate pe (the probability of random agreement) we note that: Reader A said "Yes" to 25 applicants and "No" to 25 applicants. Thus reader A said "Yes" 50% of the time. Reader B said "Yes" to 30 applicants and "No" to 20 applicants. Thus reader B said "Yes" 60% of the time. Therefore the probability that both of them would say "Yes" randomly is 0.50 · 0.60 = 0.30 and the probability that both of them would say "No" is 0.50 · 0.40 = 0.20. Thus the overall probability of random agreement is Pr(e) = 0.3 + 0.2 = 0.5. So now applying our formula for Cohen's Kappa we get: \kappa ={\frac {p_{o}-p_{e}}{1-p_{e}}}={\frac {0.70-0.50}{1-0.50}}=0.40\! Same

A case sometimes considered to be a problem with Cohen's Kappa occurs when comparing the Kappa calculated for two pairs of raters with the two raters in each pair having the same percentage agreement but one pair give a similar number of ratings while the other pair give a very different number of ratings.[5] For instance, in the following two cases there is equal agreement between A and B (60 out of 100 in both cases) so we would expect the relative values of Cohen's Kappa to reflect this. However, calculating Cohen's Kappa for each: B Yes No A Yes 45 15 No 25 15 \kappa ={\frac {0.60-0.54}{1-0.54}}=0.1304 B Yes No A Yes 25 35 No 5 35 \kappa ={\frac {0.60-0.46}{1-0.46}}=0.2593 we find that it shows greater similarity between A and B in the second case, compared to the first. This is because while the percentage agreement is the same, the percentage agreement that would occur 'by chance' is significantly higher in the first case (0.54 compared to 0.46).

One test statistic that follows a chi-square distribution exactly is the test that the variance of a normally distributed population has a given value based on a sample variance. Such tests are uncommon in practice because the true variance of the population is usually unknown. However, there are several statistical tests where the chi-square distribution is approximately valid: Pearson's chi-square test[edit] Main article: Pearson's chi-square test Pearson's chi-square test, also known as the chi-square goodness-of-fit test or chi-square test for independence. When the chi-square test is mentioned without any modifiers or without other precluding context, this test is often meant (for an exact test used in place of χ², see Fisher's exact test). Yates's correction for continuity[edit] Main article: Yates's correction for continuity Using the chi-square distribution to interpret Pearson's chi-square statistic requires one to assume that the discrete probability of observed binomial frequencies in the table can be approximated by the continuous chi-square distribution. This assumption is not quite correct, and introduces some error. To reduce the error in approximation, Frank Yates suggested a correction for continuity that adjusts the formula for Pearson's chi-square test by subtracting 0.5 from the difference between each observed value and its expected value in a 2 × 2 contingency table.[1] This reduces the chi-square value obtained and thus increases its p-value. Other chi-square tests[edit] Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel chi-squared test. McNemar's test, used in certain 2 × 2 tables with pairing Tukey's test of additivity The portmanteau test in time-series analysis, testing for the presence of autocorrelation Likelihood-ratio tests in general statistical modelling, for testing whether there is evidence of the need to move from a simple model to a more complicated one (where the simple model is nested within the complicated one). Chi-squared test for variance in a normal population[edit] If a sample of size n is taken from a population having a normal distribution, then there is a result (see distribution of the sample variance) which allows a test to be made of whether the variance of the population has a pre-determined value. For example, a manufacturing process might have been in stable condition for a long period, allowing a value for the variance to be determined essentially without error. Suppose that a variant of the process is being tested, giving rise to a small sample of n product items whose variation is to be tested. The test statistic T in this instance could be set to be the sum of squares about the sample mean, divided by the nominal value for the variance (i.e. the value to be tested as holding). Then T has a chi-square distribution with n − 1 degrees of freedom. For example if the sample size is 21, the acceptance region for T for a significance level of 5% is the interval 9.59 to 34.17. Example chi-squared test for categorical data[edit] Suppose there is a city of 1 million residents with four neighborhoods: A, B, C, and D. A random sample of 650 residents of the city is taken and their occupation is recorded as "blue collar", "white collar", or "no collar". The null hypothesis is that each person's neighborhood of residence is independent of the person's occupational classification. The data are tabulated as: A B C D total White collar 90 60 104 95 349 Blue collar 30 50 51 20 151 No collar 30 40 45 35 150 Total 150 150 200 150 650 Let us take the sample living in neighborhood A, 150/650, to estimate what proportion of the whole 1 million people live in neighborhood A. Similarly we take 349/650 to estimate what proportion of the 1 million people are white-collar workers. By the assumption of independence under the hypothesis we should "expect" the number of white-collar workers in neighborhood A to be \frac{150}{650}\times\frac{349}{650}\times650 \approx 80.54. Then in that "cell" of the table, we have \frac{(\text{observed}-\text{expected})^2}{\text{expected}} = \frac{(90-80.54)^2}{80.54}. The sum of these quantities over all of the cells is the test statistic. Under the null hypothesis, it has approximately a chi-square distribution whose number of degrees of freedom are (\text{number of rows}-1)(\text{number of columns}-1) = (3-1)(4-1) = 6. \, If the test statistic is improbably large according to that chi-square distribution, then one rejects the null hypothesis of independence. A related issue is a test of homogeneity. Suppose that instead of giving every resident of each of the four neighborhoods an equal chance of inclusion in the sample, we decide in advance how many residents of each neighborhood to include. Then each resident has the same chance of being chosen as do all residents of the same neighborhood, but residents of different neighborhoods would have different probabilities of being chosen if the four sample sizes are not proportional to the populations of the four neighborhoods. In such a case, we would be testing "homogeneity" rather than "independence". The question is whether the proportions of blue-collar, white-collar, and no-collar workers in the four neighborhoods are the same. However, the test is done in the same way. Applications[edit] In cryptanalysis, chi-square test is used to compare the distribution of plaintext and (possibly) decrypted ciphertext. The lowest value of the test means that the decryption was successful with high probability.[2][3] This method can be generalized for solving modern cryptographic problems.[4]

Theoretical Anchoring[edit] The MCMI-III is based on evolutionary theory and is composed of four main domains/spheres:[2] Existence Adaptation Reproduction Abstraction

At the 1912 International Congress of Mathematicians, Edmund Landau listed four basic problems about primes. These problems were characterised in his speech as "unattackable at the present state of science" and are now known as Landau's problems. They are as follows: Goldbach's conjecture: Can every even integer greater than 2 be written as the sum of two primes? Twin prime conjecture: Are there infinitely many primes p such that p + 2 is prime? Legendre's conjecture: Does there always exist at least one prime between consecutive perfect squares? Are there infinitely many primes p such that p − 1 is a perfect square? In other words: Are there infinitely many primes of the form n2 + 1? (sequence A002496 in OEIS). As of 2015, all four problems are unresolved.

In mathematics, a Fermat number, named after Pierre de Fermat who first studied them, is a positive integer of the form F_{n} = 2^{(2^n)} + 1 where n is a nonnegative integer. The first few Fermat numbers are: 3, 5, 17, 257, 65537, 4294967297, 18446744073709551617, … (sequence A000215 in OEIS). If 2k + 1 is prime, and k > 0, it can be shown that k must be a power of two. (If k = ab where 1 ≤ a, b ≤ k and b is odd, then 2k + 1 = (2a)b + 1 ≡ (−1)b + 1 = 0 (mod 2a + 1). See below for a complete proof.) In other words, every prime of the form 2k + 1 (other than 2 = 20 + 1) is a Fermat number, and such primes are called Fermat primes. As of 2015, the only known Fermat primes are F0, F1, F2, F3, and F4 (sequence A019434 in OEIS). Notice how the first two are very similar. That is the duality. The third is different but not that much different. The fourth is a lot different. The fourth square is always different. The fifth is ultra transcendent.

In number theory, a Woodall number (Wn) is any natural number of the form

W_n = n \cdot 2^n - 1

for some natural number n. The first few Woodall numbers are:

1, 7, 23, 63, 159, 383, 895, … Again the first three are more similar. The fourth is different. The fifth is a lot different

QMRIn number theory, a Wagstaff prime is a prime number p of the form p={{2^{q}+1} \over 3} where q is an odd prime. Wagstaff primes are named after the mathematician Samuel S. Wagstaff Jr.; the prime pages credit François Morain for naming them in a lecture at the Eurocrypt 1990 conference. Wagstaff primes are related to the New Mersenne conjecture and have applications in cryptology.

The first few Wagstaff primes are: 3, 11, 43, 683, 2731, 43691, 174763, 2796203, 715827883, 2932031007403, 768614336404564651, … (sequence. Again the first three are relatively similar. The first two are very similar, being the duality. The fourth is a lot different. The fourth is always different. The fifth is ultra transcendent.

QMRIn mathematics, a superperfect number is a positive integer n that satisfies \sigma^2(n)=\sigma(\sigma(n))=2n\, , where σ is the divisor function. Superperfect numbers are a generalization of perfect numbers. The term was coined by Suryanarayana (1969).[1] The first few superperfect numbers are 2, 4, 16, 64, 4096, 65536, 262144, 1073741824, ... (sequence A019279 in OEIS). If n is an even superperfect number then n must be a power of 2, 2k, such that 2k+1-1 is a Mersenne prime.[1][2] It is not known whether there are any odd superperfect numbers. An odd superperfect number n would have to be a square number such that either n or σ(n) is divisible by at least three distinct primes.[2] There are no odd superperfect numbers below 7x1024.[1] Again notice the pattern. The first two very similar. The third a little different but similar. The fourth is differnet. The fifth is ultra transcendent. It is also interesting to note that these super perfect numbers have relevance to the quadrant model. Four is a quadrant. 2 is the division of the quadrant. 16 is the quadrant model. 64 is four quadrant models

Chrysippus developed a syllogistic or system of deduction in which he made use of five types of basic arguments or argument forms called indemonstrable syllogisms, which played the role of axioms, and four inference rules, called themata by means of which complex syllogisms could be reduced to these axioms.[30] The forms of the five indemonstrables were:[31] Name[32] Description Example square 1: Modus ponens If A, then B. A. Therefore, B. If it is day, it is light. It is day. Therefore, it is light. Square 2: Modus tollens If A, then B. Not B. Therefore, not A. If it is day, it is light. It is not light. Therefore, it is not day. Square 3: Modus ponendo tollens i Not both A and B. A. Therefore, not B. It is not both day and night. It is day. Therefore, it is not night. ii Either A or B. A. Therefore, not B. It is either day or night. It is day. Therefore, it is not night. Square 4: Modus tollendo ponens Either A or B. Not A. Therefore, B. It is either day or night. It is not day. Therefore, it is night. Of the four inference rules, only two survived. One, the so-called first thema, was a rule of antilogism. The other, the third thema, was a cut rule by which chain syllogisms could be reduced to simple syllogisms.[33] The purpose of Stoic syllogistic was not merely to create a formal system. It was also understood as the study of the operations of reason, the divine reason (logos) which governs the universe, of which human beings are a part.[34] The goal was to find valid rules of inference and forms of proof to help people find their way in life.[21]

Epictetus an ancient greek philosopher saidAppearances to the mind are of four kinds. Things either are what they appear to be; or they neither are, nor appear to be; or they are, and do not appear to be; or they are not, and yet appear to be. Rightly to aim in all these cases is the wise man's task.”

The Maserati Quattroporte is a four-door sports luxury saloon produced by Italian car manufacturer Maserati. The name translated from Italian literally means "four doors". There have been six generations of this car, with the first introduced in 1963, and the current model launched in 2013.

QMRIn geometry, an orthant[1] or hyperoctant[2] is the analogue in n-dimensional Euclidean space of a quadrant in the plane or an octant in three dimensions. In general an orthant in n-dimensions can be considered the intersection of n mutually orthogonal half-spaces. By permutations of half-space signs, there are 2n orthants in n-dimensional space. More specifically, a closed orthant in Rn is a subset defined by constraining each Cartesian coordinate to be nonnegative or nonpositive. Such a subset is defined by a system of inequalities: ε1x1 ≥ 0 ε2x2 ≥ 0 · · · εnxn ≥ 0, where each εi is +1 or −1. Similarly, an open orthant in Rn is a subset defined by a system of strict inequalities ε1x1 > 0 ε2x2 > 0 · · · εnxn > 0, where each εi is +1 or −1. By dimension: In one dimension, an orthant is a ray. In two dimensions, an orthant is a quadrant. In three dimensions, an orthant is an octant. John Conway defined the term n-orthoplex from orthant complex as a regular polytope in n-dimensions with 2n simplex facets, one per orthant.[3]

QMRThe Karnaugh map, also known as the K-map, is a method to simplify boolean algebra expressions. Maurice Karnaugh introduced it in 1953 as a refinement of Edward Veitch's 1952 Veitch diagram. The Karnaugh map reduces the need for extensive calculations by taking advantage of humans' pattern-recognition capability. It also permits the rapid identification and elimination of potential race conditions. The required boolean results are transferred from a truth table onto a two-dimensional grid where the cells are ordered in Gray code, and each cell position represents one combination of input conditions, while each cell value represents the corresponding output value. Optimal groups of 1s or 0s are identified, which represent the terms of a canonical form of the logic in the original truth table.[1] These terms can be used to write a minimal boolean expression representing the required logic. Karnaugh maps are used to simplify real-world logic requirements so that they can be implemented using a minimum number of physical logic gates. A sum-of-products expression can always be implemented using AND gates feeding into an OR gate, and a product-of-sums expression leads to OR gates feeding an AND gate.[2] Karnaugh maps can also be used to simplify logic expressions in software design. Boolean conditions, as used for example in conditional statements, can get very complicated, which makes the code difficult to read and to maintain. Once minimised, canonical sum-of-products and product-of-sums expressions can be implemented directly using AND and OR logic operators.[3] Carnage maps look like quadrants

QMRGEM's goal of a theory of cognition, therefore, is not a set of pictures. It is a set of insights into the data of cognitive activities, followed by a personal verification of those insights. In disciplines that study humans, GEM incorporates the moral dimension by addressing how we know values that lead to moral decisions. So, in GEM's model of the thinking and choosing person, consciousness has four levels - experience of data, understanding the data, judgment that one's understanding is correct, and decision to act on the resulting knowledge. These are referred to as levels of self-transcendence, meaning that they are the principal set of operations by which we transcend the solitary self and deal with the world beyond ourselves through our wonder and care. GEM builds on these realizations by the further personal discovery of certain innate norms at each of the four levels. On the level of experience, our attention is prepatterned, shifting our focus, often desultorily, among at least seven areas of interest - biological, sexual, practical, dramatic, aesthetic, intellectual, and mystical. On the level of understanding, our intellects pursue answers to questions of why and how and what for, excluding irrelevant data and half-baked ideas. On the level of judgment, our reason tests that our understanding makes sense of experience. On the level of decision, our consciences make value judgments and will bother us until we conform our actions to these judgments. Lonergan names these four innate norming processes "transcendental precepts." Briefly expressed, they are: Be attentive, Be Intelligent, Be reasonable, and Be responsible. But these expressions are not meant as formulated rules; they are English words that point to the internal operating norms by which anyone transcends himself or herself to live in reality. GEM uses the term authenticity to refer to the quality in persons who follow these norms. Any particular rules or principles or priorities or criteria we formulate about moral living stem ultimately from these unformulated, but pressing internal criteria for better and worse. Whether our formulations of moral stances are objectively good, honestly mistaken, or malevolently distorted, there are no more fundamental criteria by which we make moral judgments. Maxims, such as "Treat others as you want to be treated," cannot be ultimately fundamental, since it is not on any super-maxim that we selected this one. Nor do authorities provide us with our ultimate values, since there is no super-authority to name the authorities we ought to follow. Rather, we rely on the normative criteria of being attentive, intelligent, reasonable and responsible; howsoever they may have matured in us, by which we select all maxims and authorities. GEM includes many other elements in this analysis, including the roles of belief and inherited values, the dynamics of feelings and our inner symbolic worlds, the workings of bias, the rejection of true value in favor of mere satisfaction, and the commitment to love rather than hate.

InnerView™ is based on two variables universal to all posts, which are: The importance of interpersonal skills. If a post requires a great deal of public contact, the officer should possess a higher level of social skills, and vice versa. The complexity of duties. The more complex the duties, the more attentive to detail the employee must be. Combining these two dimensions allows us to classify four types of post assignments. In turn, these describe four distinct “types” of security officers. Matrix Officers who are comfortable with their posts report more job satisfaction, which contributes to better performance, lower turnover, and fewer problems all around. With InnerView™, Weiser sends you that “piece of the puzzle” most likely to stay put - and to succeed. puzzle InnerView™ is a simple online profile made up of one hundred questions on applicants’ experience, education, personality, work preferences, and special interests. Within minutes, InnerView™ provides specific recommendations for hiring and placement decisions. Currently, InnerView™ is the only tool available to screen specifically for security guards. In a difficult and sensitive business environment, InnerView™ provides an objective, reliable second opinion for selection and placement decisions. This is just a sample of the information InnerView™ produces: Valid assessment of an applicant’s likelihood to succeed in specific assignments (at specific sites); InnerView™ also pinpoints person-job mismatches Applicant’s reliability and attention to client needs. Whether or not a particular person is promotable Specific areas in which that person will succeed Applicant’s attitude toward honesty and theft, and likelihood of using or selling illicit drugs. Applicant’s tendency toward violence or argumentative behavior Applicant’s disposition in terms of courtesy, cooperation, high-level service, and the ability to get along with people. Applicant’s work ethic, including productivity, likelihood of doing work assigned, obeying policy, and responding to supervision. The Benefits of Using InnerView™ Saves time and pre-screens applicants so managers can spend more time with the most promising candidates, have more time to conduct effective interviews and check references. Increases productivity by matching people to posts where they will be most successful. Reduces turnover. Applicants with poor work ethic are eliminated “up front.” Those who are hired are placed in posts scientifically matched to their personalities, experience, and likes and dislikes, are more likely to stay. Identifies high potential and uncovers hidden talent. Helps evaluate recruiting sources, providing a quick and valid check on applicant flow. Helps avoid legal problems. Coupled with effective interviewing, Offers a fair, objective method to assist in hiring and development decisions.

The "short twentieth century", from 1914 to 1991, included the First World War, the Second World War and the Cold War. The First World War used modern technology to kill millions of soldiers. Victory by Britain, France, the United States and other allies drastically changed the map of Europe, ending four major land empires (the Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires) and leading to the creation of nation-states across Central and Eastern Europe

A four-poster bed is a bed with four vertical columns, one in each corner, that support a tester, or upper (usually rectangular) panel. There are a number of antique four-poster beds extant dating to the 16th century and earlier; many of these early beds are highly ornate and are made from oak. An example of such an early 16th-century four-poster resides in Crathes Castle, which was made for the original castle owners in the Burnett of Leys family. In popular culture[edit] The opening line of "Every Morning" by Sugar Ray is "Every morning there's a halo hanging from the corner of my girlfriend's four-post bed." The dormitories in the Harry Potter series have four-poster beds in them.

QMRThe Four-Stage Theory of the Republic of China or the Theory of the Four Stages of the Republic of China (Chinese: 中華民國四階段論; pinyin: Zhōnghuá Mínguó Sì Jiēduàn Lùn) is a controversial viewpoint proposed by Chen Shui-bian, the previous (10th and 11th terms) President of the Republic of China. It is a controversial viewpoint regarding the political status of the Republic of China, whose government retreated to Taiwan after the Chinese Civil War in 1949. The main idea of the theory is that the time line for the development of the Republic of China can be classified into four stages, which are: The Republic of China on the mainland. (Chinese: 中華民國在大陸) (1912–1949) The Republic of China arrival to Taiwan. (Chinese: 中華民國來臺灣) (before Lee Teng-hui's presidency) (1949–1988) The Republic of China on Taiwan. (Chinese: 中華民國在臺灣) (during Lee Teng-hui's presidency) (1988–2000) The Republic of China is Taiwan. (Chinese: 中華民國是臺灣) (during Chen Shui-bian's presidency) (2000–2008) By this theory, Chen pointed out that the Republic of China was then at the 4th stage. That is, Taiwan is an already independent state separated from mainland China, and is called the "Republic of China". This theory is welcomed by the mainstream of the Pan-Green coalition (led by the Democratic Progressive Party) in Taiwan, which supports eventual de jure Taiwan independence; but is not welcomed by most members of the Pan-Blue coalition (Kuomintang), which supports eventual reunifying Taiwan with mainland China as part of a single Chinese nation. Some members of the more strongly pro-independence Taiwan Solidarity Union also opposes this view since they deem the ROC to be an illegitimate foreign regime that should be replaced by the proposed 'Republic of Taiwan'. The Pan-Blue Coalition agrees with the first three stages, but disagrees with the fourth stage, and prefers to maintain the distinction between the "Republic of China" (the polity) and "Taiwan" (part of the territory the polity governs). The government of the People's Republic of China has also voiced opposition against fourth stage on the grounds that such an interpretation is a step closer to de jure Taiwan independence. (Officially, the PRC only recognizes the existence of the ROC until 1949.) During the Kuomintang (KMT) administration under Lee Teng-hui, the government frequently referred to the polity as the "Republic of China on Taiwan." This term was first publicly[dubious – discuss] and officially used in his speech at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States in 1995. It was used to identify the Republic of China with its remaining major component – the island of Taiwan, as opposed to its decades-long claim to all China since losing the civil war in 1949. Prior to this speech, government officials used "Republic of China" when the name of the state was used. Lee's usage is considered as a departure from the convention, as this usage can be interpreted in the sense that the Republic of China's sovereignty does not extend to mainland China. During the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration under Chen Shui-bian, he directed that all government publications and websites to use the form "Republic of China (Taiwan)." These two variations have been used under their respective administrations for the ROC petition to join the United Nations. Unlike the Cold War era when the ROC competed with the PRC as the legitimate representative of China (including Taiwan), during Chen Shui-bian's presidency, the ROC did not seek to be the representative of China (i.e. it does not seek the PRC's seat on the Security Council or its ouster) and stresses in its petitions that it was only seeking to represent the people of the land under its effective control. Gnome-searchtool.svg This section's factual accuracy is disputed. (September 2009) This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2009) In 1 April 2008, when the then President-elect Ma Ying-jeou met with President Chen Shui-bian for government handover matters, Chen expanded his four-stage theory and expressed the view that under Ma Ying-jeou's presidency the Republic of China will progress into the stage of: 5. Taiwan really is the Republic of China (Chinese: 臺灣就是中華民國) (2008-present) Ma Ying-jeou earlier during this meeting expressed the view that the Republic of China is an independent sovereign state, and currently its main territories are island groups of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu. Taiwan's official name is the Republic of China, and "Taiwan" is the name that common people use to refer to the Republic of China. During Ma Ying-jeou's presidency, all government publications and websites retain the form of "Republic of China (Taiwan)" in English, which it inherited from Chen Shui-bian's presidency, but the "(Taiwan)" remark to the Republic of China has been removed in the Chinese version. English speakers commonly refer to the Republic of China as "Taiwan" because the name "Republic of China" is not well known to English speakers, but as the name is known to the Chinese speaking population, the current administration believes "Taiwan" remark in Chinese version is no longer necessary.

The Four Seasons is a New American cuisine restaurant in New York City located at 99 East 52nd Street, in the Seagram Building in Midtown Manhattan.[1] The restaurant is owned by the Bronfman family, Alex von Bidder, and Julian Niccolini.[2]

Blackout was an American game show that aired on CBS from January 4 to April 1, 1988. The pilot was hosted by Robb Weller, but he was replaced for the series by Bob Goen. Johnny Gilbert was announcer for most of the run, with Jay Stewart (in his final announcing job) taking over for the last two weeks. The show was a Jay Wolpert production Two teams, each consisting of a contestant and a celebrity partner, played. One of the players was usually a returning champion and played from a yellow desk while the other player played from a red desk. The object of the game was to solve word puzzles that consisted of a sentence or short paragraph with four blank spaces. The four make one think of the quadrant four. Each blank represented a word, and the object of the game was for one of the players to guess the word based on clues provided by their partner. Both teams had what were referred to as "blackout buttons", which were used to block out various portions of the description in an attempt to hinder the opponents' ability to guess. Two rounds were played, with the celebrities giving the clues in the first round and the contestants doing so in the second. Play in the first round began with the red team being shown a word. The celebrity gave a twenty-second long description of the word, which was recorded, while his/her partner put a pair of headphones on and his/her portion of the desk was moved so the partner could not see or hear anything. After the celebrity was done describing the word, the contestant was brought back into play so he/she could hear the playback. The yellow team, meanwhile, would use their blackout button to block out a maximum of seven seconds of the recording. An additional second was added on if a cluegiver repeated a word at any point in their description. After the playback was finished, the contestant provided a guess based on the information he/she was able to hear. If he/she could not do so, the yellow team's contestant got a chance to guess and had the advantage of having heard the entire description. Correctly guessing the word won $100 for the player that did so and a chance to guess the puzzle. Saying the word, a form of it or part of it was illegal, and if either team did so $100 and a free guess were awarded to the other team. Otherwise, the word went up on the board and play continued until the puzzle was solved, with the team that did so earning a point. If the fourth word went unidentified, Goen would give a pre-written definition of it as a toss-up and the first player to buzz in with the right answer received the $100. In the second round the roles were reversed, with the contestants now serving as cluegivers, and the round started with the yellow team. The same rules applied, with the first team to solve the puzzle gaining the point. If the team that solved the first puzzle solved the second, they won the game and advanced to the Clue Screen for a chance at $10,000. If the game ended in a tie, an all-or-nothing tiebreaker was played. In this case, the contestant whose team guessed the most words or the winner of a backstage coin toss was given the option to either give the description of one final word or to black out the opponent. Both celebrities wore the headphones so neither knew what was going on. The cluegiver was given ten seconds to speak, the opponent was given three seconds of blackout time, and the one second penalty for repeating a word was still in play. Correctly identifying the subject won the game, while guessing wrong or giving an illegal clue resulted in an automatic loss.

The Big Payoff was a daytime and primetime game show that premiered on NBC in 1951, and ended its network run on CBS in 1959. It had a brief syndication revival in 1962.[1] NBC used The Big Payoff to replace the 15-minute show Miss Susan starring Susan Peters, which had gone off the air in December 1951. Contestants were selected from men who mailed in letters explaining why the women in their lives deserved prizes. The men were asked four questions (delivered on a silver tray by "Question Girl" Susan Sayers) in order to win prizes like a mink coat or a vacation. Late in the network run, the format changed to three competing couples. For the 1962 revival, there were only two couples. On Tuesdays, the format changed to the "Little Big Payoff" in which children sent in a letter in which they voiced the reason that they should appear. Four questions were asked, and prizes awarded for each correct answer.

Beat the Geeks is an American comedy game show that aired on Comedy Central from 2001 to 2002. The show was rerun on The Comedy Network in Canada and reruns currently air on G4techTV Canada and Prime in New Zealand. On the show, contestants face off in trivia matches against "geeks" who are well-versed in music, movies, and television, as well as a fourth guest geek with an alternate area of expertise which varies from episode to episode. The object is to outsmart the geek at their own subject; as a handicap, the geeks are given questions of considerably greater difficulty than the contestants. Beat the Geeks was taped at the Hollywood Center Studios. The fourth square is always different. The fourth geek's expertise changed from episode to episode. There were four rounds, like in many sports there are four quarters. First round[edit] In the first season, the three contestants compete against each other to answer eight questions, two from each category; the Geeks do not play in this round. The first four questions (one per category) are worth 5 points each, and the second four are worth 10 points each. Occasionally, the geeks would give a fact after the question. The format was changed for the second season, wherein the three contestants compete against each other and the Geeks to answer four pairs of questions, one from each category. The first question of each pair is a toss-up for the contestants, and is worth 10 points. The one who answers it then faces the relevant Geek to answer a follow-up question which they must ring in to answer. During this face-off, if the contestant rings in and gets the question wrong or the Geek rings in and gets it right, the contestant loses 5 points. However, if the contestant gets the question right or the Geek gets it wrong, the contestant wins another 10 points. In almost all episodes Blaine waited until the first follow-up question to explain this, using the line "here's how the follow-up works: if you beat the geek you get 10 points, if he beats you, he knocks you back five." In both seasons, the player with the fewest points after the round is eliminated. In the event of a tie, a numerical tiebreaker question is asked; the winner is the player who comes closer to the correct answer without going over. If both go over, the closest guess wins. Second round[edit] The remaining two contestants each play a head-to-head challenge against the Geek of their choice in order to win the Geek's medal. If the contestants begin the round tied, they are asked a toss-up question to determine who plays first. Otherwise, the player with the most points starts. Once a Geek has lost his medal to a contestant, he cannot be challenged again until the final round. Season 1[edit] In the first season, four questions are asked, alternating between the contestant and the Geek, whose questions are much more difficult. If the Geek gives a wrong answer, the contestant wins the challenge, scores points, and gets to wear the Geek's medal for the rest of the game. If the contestant misses a question, the challenge ends and the opponent may score 10 points by giving the correct answer. If all four questions are answered correctly, a Geek-off is played to decide the challenge. The player has 15 seconds to name as many items that fit a certain category as they can think of; the Geek must then do the same in a much harder category. If the Geek cannot come up with more answers, the contestant wins the challenge (ties are broken in the contestant's favor). Resident Geeks' medals are worth 20 points each, while the Guest Geek's medal awards 30. Season 2[edit] A maximum of four questions are asked as in Season 1. Now, though, if the contestant misses a question, the Geek must answer it correctly to win the challenge, and vice versa. The opponent does not get a chance to score from a missed question. If both sides miss the same questions or if all four questions are asked, a Geek-off is played. Resident and Guest Geek medals award 20 and 40 points, respectively. Third round[edit] The third round starts with two more head-to-head challenges, and the trailing player starts. Gameplay is the same as in the second round, with all medals worth 20 more points (40/50 in Season 1, 40/60 in Season 2). After these challenges are over, the Geek-qualizer is played to decide a winner. A list of titles is read to the contestant, who must decide whether each is related to movies, music, or TV. The list continues until the contestant gives an incorrect answer, fails to give an answer within two seconds, or exhausts the list. Then, if they have tied or exceeded their opponent's score, their opponent plays their own Geek-qualizer round with the same rules. The player with the most points after the Geek-qualizer advances to the final round. If there is a tie, a numerical tiebreaker question is asked; the winner is the player who comes closer to the correct answer without going over. Correct answers are worth 10 points each, with a maximum of 15 items in Season 1 and 16 in Season 2. Final Round: Geek to Geek Showdown[edit] In the final round, the contestant chooses one of the four Geeks to challenge. The contestant and Geek alternate questions, beginning with the contestant. Each turn, the host gives a category, then the player chooses whether to answer a 1 point (easiest), 2 point (harder), or 3 point (hardest) question; the Geek may not choose a point value lower than the contestant's previous question. If answered correctly, they earn the number of points chosen; otherwise there is no penalty. The first player to reach 7 points wins; if the contestant wins they are awarded $5,000 worth of prizes related to the category of Geek they challenged for the final round.

Animal Crack-Ups is an ABC game show which aired in primetime from August 8 to September 12, 1987, after which it aired on Saturday mornings from September 12, 1987 to December 30, 1989 and again from June 2 to September 1, 1990. It was produced by ABC Productions in association with Vin Di Bona Productions and hosted by Alan Thicke, who was on Growing Pains at the time. The program was based on a Japanese series, Waku Waku. The show's theme song was "Animals Are Just Like People Too", created by Thickovit music (Alan and Todd Thicke and Gary Pickus).[1] Four celebrities competed. Host Thicke introduced a video clip about an animal; at some point, the video was paused and Thicke asked a question about the clip. The celebrities give their answers, after which the remainder of the clip was played, revealing the answer. Any celebrities giving the correct answer received a point; score was kept by placing a stuffed animal (a monkey in the first season, a hedgehog in later seasons) in front of the celebrity's podium. The celeb with the most toy animals/points won the game and $2,500 for their favorite animal charity. If a tie occurred, the money was split between the charities. On segues to two commercial breaks, a hedgehog puppet named "Reggie the Heggie" (performed by Susan Blu) gave animal facts to the home viewers and read home-viewer mail.

American Gladiators featured four competitors, two men and two women, in most episodes. The players went through a series of seven physical challenges with the goal to eventually become the season's overall winner, referred to as the Grand Champion. This was determined by a season-long tournament. Season six used a format in which events were referred to as "rounds", because more than one game was played per round. Three games per show were played by both males and females and 3 were split between the males and females, two in one round. In split rounds, the men went first, then the women. Including the Eliminator, 10 events appeared in each episode, and the lineup of single and split rounds changed during the season. The sole exception to this format was in the semi-finals & Grand Championship; each round was a single event. There were four lineups used during the season: Lineup Event 1 Event 2 Event 3 Event 4 Event 5 Event 6 1 Pyramid Assault/Hang Tough Whiplash/Joust Gauntlet/Tug O War Snapback Powerball 2 Swingshot Assault/Breakthrough & Conquer Whiplash/Tug O War Snapback Pyramid Joust/Gauntlet 3 Powerball Whiplash/Hang Tough Skytrack Swingshot Assault/Breakthrough & Conquer Joust/Gauntlet 4 Swingshot Tug O War/Whiplash The Wall Hang Tough/Assault Powerball

All-Star Blitz is an American game show that aired on ABC from April 8 to December 20, 1985, with reruns airing on the USA Network from March 31 to December 26, 1986. Peter Marshall was the host and John Harlan was the announcer for the series, which was produced by Merrill Heatter Productions, in association with Peter Marshall Enterprises.[1] Contents [hide] 1 Main game 2 Blitz Bonanza 3 Broadcast history 4 References Main game[edit] Two contestants, one usually a returning champion, competed to uncover and solve hidden word puzzles with the help of a four-celebrity panel. The puzzles, which varied in length from two to six words, were concealed behind a grid of six monitors above the panel, and a star was positioned at the corner of each monitor. There were 12 stars in all, arranged in four columns of three with one column above each celebrity's seat. The object for the contestants was to light the stars around the monitors. To begin play, the home audience was shown how many words were in the puzzle and four stars were randomly lit (originally just two). The contestant in control, usually the challenger, chose a celebrity and a position (top, middle, bottom). The star in that position was lit, and Marshall then asked a question to the chosen celebrity. The contestant either had to correctly agree or disagree with the given answer, in much the same manner as Hollywood Squares and Battlestars. Choosing correctly allowed the contestant to keep control and pick again, but making a wrong decision passed control to the opposing player who could choose another star. Once all four stars around a monitor were lit, its part of the puzzle was uncovered and the contestant in control had the option to guess the puzzle or continue playing. An incorrect guess forfeited control to the opponent. Each part of the puzzle could only be uncovered with a correct agree/disagree choice, meaning that a celebrity could potentially have to answer multiple questions as control passed back and forth. Play continued on a puzzle until one player solved it or all six monitors were uncovered, with the player who uncovered the last monitor winning the game by default. The first contestant to solve two puzzles won the match and a prize package, and went on to play the Blitz Bonanza. Rather than featuring models, celebrity guests often modeled and demonstrated prizes while being described by the announcer, which would be preceded by a message on the game board monitors describing the prize(s). Each episode of All-Star Blitz was played to a time limit. If time was called during a puzzle, the contestant in control was given the option of whether or not to guess the puzzle. Choosing not to guess ended the game, and the solution to the puzzle was revealed. Guessing incorrectly gave the option to the opponent. Regardless of the decision and its outcome, play resumed on the next episode with either a new puzzle or the Blitz Bonanza as dictated by the rules. Blitz Bonanza[edit] In the Blitz Bonanza round, the champion was given one final puzzle to solve and was told how many words it contained (later, only the panel and the home audience were shown this information[2]). In order to reveal the puzzle pieces, the champion had four chances to spin a large wheel which controlled the light borders on the game board's six spaces. As the wheel spun, the light would move from one space to the next; once it stopped, the lit space would be uncovered. If the wheel stopped with the light on an already-uncovered space, however, that spin was wasted. The champion could thus uncover up to four spaces. If fewer than four spaces were uncovered after the last spin, the champion was given the option to leave the board as it was or give up the prize package he/she had won in the main game in exchange for one more spin. He/she then had 10 seconds to think while the celebrities secretly wrote down their guesses. A correct guess by the champion won a cash jackpot that started at $10,000. Originally, this jackpot increased by $5,000 for each day it went unclaimed, to a maximum of $25,000. Later, it increased by $2,500 for each unsuccessful attempt and was capped at $20,000. If the champion was incorrect, he/she won $250 for each celebrity who guessed the puzzle correctly. Champions could play the Blitz Bonanza a maximum of four times before retiring from the show.

All About Faces is a game show which ran from August 30, 1971 to September 1972; The series incorporated a "hidden camera" format similar to Candid Camera and Punk'd. The program was produced in Toronto by Screen Gems, at the studios of CFTO-TV. Richard Hayes was host, and the show's producer was Dan Enright. The show was short-lived, lasting only one season in US television syndication and on Canada's CTV. Format[edit] Two teams, each consisting of a celebrity and a friend or relative, would be shown a clip of an unsuspecting person placed in an embarrassing situation, recorded by a hidden camera, and as the film was frozen on a closeup of the person's face, the contestants had to wager on how the person would react. For example, a person in a taxicab is told by the driver that he is nearsighted and color blind; the contestants would guess whether the passenger would exit the cab or not. Each team started with $50 and could bet up to that amount in each round; the team with the most money after four rounds won the game, with their winnings donated to their favorite charity.

There were four rounds in the game, like basketball games are divided into four quarters.

500 Questions is an American game show broadcast on ABC. The show premiered on Wednesday, May 20, 2015, at 8:00 pm EDT,[1] and ran for seven straight weeknights, with a weekend break. ABC promoted it as a game show event, similar to ABC's original run of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, or more recently, NBC's Million Second Quiz. The show, hosted by CNN journalist Richard Quest, features contestants who try to answer 500 questions without getting three wrong in a row.[2] The series was renewed for a second season on October 1, 2015.[3] There are four types of questions, which are randomly distributed throughout the board. The type remains unknown until the question is selected. Regular questions: The contestant must correctly answer the question within a ten-second time limit. Multiple guesses are allowed, but the contestant only earns $1,000 for the question if the first response given is correct. Not providing a correct answer to the question within ten seconds results in a wrong. Battle questions: The contestant and challenger face off, going back and forth giving answers to a question with a limited number of correct answers. Before the question is revealed, the contestant chooses whether to go first or second based solely on the category. Only five seconds are allotted per response, and only the first answer is accepted. If the challenger gives an incorrect response, the battle ends and it counts as a correct answer for the contestant, who earns $1,000. An incorrect response from the contestant counts as a wrong answer. If all correct responses are given, the battle ends in a draw, the contestant does not earn $1,000, does not get a wrong, and does not have any accumulated wrongs eliminated. Top Ten Challenge questions: The contestant must provide five out of ten possible correct answers (incorrect guesses are allowed) within a fifteen-second time limit. Doing so earns $1,000, but if the contestant runs out of time, it counts as a wrong. Before the question is revealed, the contestant may pass this question to the challenger. If the challenger succeeds, the contestant receives a wrong; however, if the challenger fails, the contestant earns $1,000. Triple Threat questions: Triple Threat questions have three correct answers. The contestant must provide all three correct answers within a ten-second time limit to earn $3,000. Running out of time results in a wrong.

101 Ways to Leave a Game Show is an American game show hosted by Jeff Sutphen. The series premiered on June 21, 2011, on ABC and ran for six episodes in its only season. Matt Kunitz, the show's executive producer had stated "If we get a pickup, we'll do at least 12 more episodes."[1] The show was eventually not renewed for a second season due to low ratings. Contents [hide] 1 Rules 1.1 Main Game 1.2 The Drop of Terror 2 Episodes 3 The 101 Ways to Leave a Game Show 4 References 5 External links Rules[edit] Main Game[edit] The game featured eight players, but in this version, they were divided into two sets of four. Before the question is asked, the order of the contestants is determined with an educated guess question (such as "How many teeth does a lion have?") The one closest to the answer (in this case, 30) gets the first choice of answers from four picks (three in the second round), and the others in ascending order. If a player got an educated guess question exactly right, that contestant won a US $101 bonus.

20Q is an American game show based on the online artificial intelligence and handheld computer game of the same name. Licensed to and produced by Endemol USA, it premiered on June 13, 2009 during Big Saturday Night airing on GSN, and is hosted by Cat Deeley of So You Think You Can Dance with the voice of the computer (named Mr. Q) provided by Hal Sparks.

In Argentina, the name of the show is Flor de palabra; it is hosted by Florencia Pena and Richard Rubin of Beauty and the Geek.

The game is divided into four parts.

Preliminary game[edit]

The first part involves members of a randomly selected row of the studio audience. Mr. Q gives a category, and clues to the identity are revealed one at a time. The first contestant to come up with the correct answer qualifies to play the main game. Three qualifiers are determined in each preliminary round.

Main game[edit]

The three players then play the main game head-to-head. The computer gives a category, and then are given a choice of two questions. For example, if the category is Food and Drink, the questions would be "Is it caffeinated?" or "Is it served for breakfast?" A player in control asks either of the two questions, and if the answer is yes, that player retains control of the board; otherwise, s/he loses control. On each turn, after a question has been asked, the player can either choose a question that hasn't been played yet, or ask for a new pair of questions and ask one of those questions. If the player asks for 2 new questions she/he has to choose one of them. Or s/he can choose to attempt to come up with the correct answer. If correct, the player wins the game, $5,000, and a chance to play the semi final round against the winner of the second main game; a wrong answer loses control.

Semi-final[edit]

In the semi-final round, the players compete one at a time in the same category, with one player (via coin toss) on stage, and the other player offstage in a soundproof isolation booth. The first player is given a category, and then a series of clues. Every few seconds (signaled by two short low-pitched beeps), another clue appears on the screen. The player's objective is to guess the subject using as few clues as possible. The other player then plays the same category, and tries to come up with the answer in fewer clues. The player that can figure out the subject with fewer clues wins a prize and goes to the end game.

End game[edit]

In the end game, the player is given selection of two categories, and the computer must play the game as the contestant asks questions from a provided list of 20. While the computer can attempt to answer at any time, the contestant is only given one chance to guess the answer. At a critical point in the game, the computer goes into "sleep mode" and the host asks the contestant if s/he has any idea what the answer is, after which Mr. Q. awakens from his "nap". If the player buzzes in with the right answer before the computer does, s/he wins $20,000; if the computer is wrong, the human contestant gets one chance to win; should s/he be incorrect or the computer comes up with the right answer first, nothing additional is won.

Inside the NBA is the postgame show for NBA on TNT broadcasts. The program features host Ernie Johnson with analysts Charles Barkley, Kenny Smith and Shaquille O'Neal.These are the four people on the panel. Occasionally, Johnson, Smith, Barkley, and O'Neal are joined by analysts Chris Webber and Grant Hill. The show has won nine Emmy Awards, Ernie has won three as a studio host and Charles Barkley has won two as a studio analyst.

2 Minute Drill is an ESPN game show based on the general knowledge UK game show Mastermind. The program aired from September 11, 2000 to December 28, 2001. ESPN Classic currently airs reruns of the series daily at 11:30 AM Eastern. It has a four celebrity panel

The 4D was a prototype double deck electric multiple unit built for the Public Transport Corporation, Victoria, for operation on the Melbourne railway system. It remains the only double deck train ever to have run in Melbourne.

4D BIM, an acronym for 4D Building Information Modeling and a term widely used in the CAD industry, refers to the intelligent linking of individual 3D CAD components or assemblies with time- or schedule-related information.[1] The use of the term 4D is intended to refer to the fourth dimension: time, i.e. 4D is 3D plus schedule (time).[2] The construction of the 4D models enables the variousparticipants (from architects, designers, contractors to clients) of a construction project, to visualize the entire duration of a series of events and display the progress of construction activities through the lifetime of the project.[3][4][5] This BIM-centric approach towards project management technique has a very high potential to improve the project management and delivery of construction project, of any size or complexity.

4-D (3,5-methoxy-4-trideuteromethoxyphenethylamine) is a lesser-known recreational psychedelic drug. It is one of the few drugs that bears deuterium. It is a deuterated analog of mescaline. It may be prepared either as a sulfate salt or a hydrochloride salt. 4-D was first synthesized by Alexander Shulgin. In his book PiHKAL (Phenethylamines i Have Known And Loved), the dosage is listed as approximately 200–400 mg for the sulfate salt, and 178–356 mg for the hydrochloride salt. 4-D lasts for approximately 12 hours. It causes closed-eye visuals, mild open-eye visuals, color distortion, and mydriasis.[1] Very little data exists about the pharmacological properties, metabolism, and toxicity of 4-D. AB+AL+MC+HC=4D

Four Lanes (Cornish: Peder Bownder) is a village in west Cornwall, England, United Kingdom approximately three miles (5 kilometres) south of Redruth at grid reference SW 689 386 in the civil parish of Carn Brea.

Four Lane Ends Metro station is a station on the Tyne and Wear Metro network. It forms part of a major transport interchange located on the boundary of North Tyneside and Newcastle upon Tyne in England.

101 California four lanes

Four Lane Ends Metro station is a station on the Tyne and Wear Metro network. It forms part of a major transport interchange located on the boundary of North Tyneside and Newcastle upon Tyne in England.

Various interchange layouts Four-level stack: Used as a major junction, usually for freeway junctions. Roundabout interchange: Very common in the United Kingdom as either a junction or exit. Cloverleaf: Used mainly as a junction. Parclo (partial cloverleaf) interchange: often used to link a minor road with a junction. Trumpet interchange: a motorway "T" junction Safety

Four way interchanges look like quadrants Four-way interchanges[edit] Cloverleaf interchange[edit] Main article: Cloverleaf interchange Cloverleaf Typical cloverleaf interchange A cloverleaf interchange is typically a two-level, four-way interchange where all left turns are handled by loop ramps (right turns if traveling on the left). To go left (in right-hand traffic), vehicles first cross over or under the targeted route, then bear right onto a sharply curved ramp that turns roughly 270 degrees, merging onto the interchanging road from the right, and crossing the route just departed. Two major advantages of cloverleaves is that they require only one bridge, which makes such junctions inexpensive as long as land is plentiful, and that they often do not require any traffic signals to operate. A major shortcoming of cloverleaves, however, is weaving (see definition above), and consequently, the lower capacity of this design. Cloverleaves also use a considerable area of land, and are more often found along older highways, in rural areas and within cities with low population densities. A variant design separates all turning traffic into a parallel carriageway to minimize the problem of weaving. Collector and distributor roads are similar, but are usually separated from the main carriageway by a divider, such as a guard rail or Jersey barrier.

Stack interchanges look like quadrants Stack interchange[edit] Main article: Stack interchange Four-level stack A multi-level stack interchange in Shanghai, China. 31.226335°N 121.464606°E The Gravelly Hill Interchange in Birmingham, England - the original Spaghetti Junction 52.511114°N 1.864971°W A stack interchange is a four-way interchange whereby left turns are handled by semi-directional flyover/under ramps. To go left (right in countries with left-hand drive), vehicles first turn slightly right (on a right-turn off-ramp) to exit, then complete the turn via a ramp which crosses both highways, eventually merging with the right-turn on-ramp traffic from the opposite quadrant of the interchange. A stack interchange, then, has two pairs of left-turning ramps, which can be stacked in various configurations above, below, or between the two interchanging highways. Stacks do not suffer from the problem of weaving, and due to the semi-directional flyover ramps and directional ramps, they are generally safe and efficient at handling high traffic volumes in all directions. A standard stack interchange includes roads on four levels, also known as a four-level stack. There are some five-level stacks; however, these remain four-way interchanges, since the fifth level actually consists of dedicated ramps for HOV/bus lanes or frontage roads running through the interchange. Stacks are significantly more expensive and land consuming than other four-way interchanges, and additionally may suffer from objections of local residents, because of their high visual impact. Large stacks with multiple levels may have a complex appearance and are often colloquially described as Mixing Bowls, Mixmasters (for a Sunbeam Products brand of electric kitchen mixers), or as Spaghetti Bowls or Spaghetti Junctions (being compared to boiled spaghetti).

Cloverstack interchanges look like quadrants Cloverstack interchange[edit] Two-level cloverstack Samples: 2 level: 38.672712°N 90.029662°W 3 level: 55.88231°N 37.725785°E 3 level: 39.104988°N 94.679581°W Three-level cloverstack The Knooppunt Ridderkerk, a cloverstack interchange near Rotterdam, Netherlands. 51.874669°N 4.570748°E Cloverstack interchanges are hybrid interchanges, using loop ramps like cloverleaves to serve slower or less occupied traffic flow and flyover ramps like stack interchanges to serve faster and higher occupied traffic flow. If local and express ways serving the same directions and each roadway is connected righthand to the interchange, extra ramps are installed. The cloverstack design is commonly used to upgrade cloverleaf interchanges to increase their capacity and eliminate weaving.

Turbine interchanges look like quadrants Turbine interchange[edit] Two-level turbine, Samples: 35.192872°N 101.837085°W 30.253062°N 81.516259°W 25.056076°N 55.249332°E Hybrid:38.638646°N 90.449731°W Hybrid:42.487857°N 83.045667°W Turbine-stack hybrid The Jane Byrne Interchange in Chicago, Illinois, a notable turbine interchange 41.875577°N 87.645042°W Another alternative to the four-level stack interchange is the turbine interchange (also known as a whirlpool). The turbine/whirlpool interchange requires fewer levels (usually two or three) while retaining semi-directional ramps throughout, and has its left-turning ramps sweep around the center of the interchange in a spiral pattern in right-hand traffic. Turbine interchanges offer slightly less vehicle capacity because the ramps typically turn more often and change height quicker. They also require more land to construct than the typical four-level stack interchange. In areas with rolling or mountainous terrain, turbine interchanges can take advantage of the natural topography of the land due to the constant change in the height of their ramps, and hence these are commonly used in these areas where conditions apply, reducing construction costs compared to turbine interchanges built on level ground.

Roundabout interchanges look like quadrants Roundabout interchange[edit] Main article: Roundabout interchange Two level roundabout 50.556257°N 7.248577°E Three level roundabout 52.384416°N 4.707492°E Complex roundabout interchange Kleinpolderplein in the Netherlands, 51.931498°N 4.438479°E A further alternative found often is called a roundabout interchange. This is a normal roundabout except one (two-level) or both (three-level) mainlines pass under or over the whole interchange. The ramps of the interchanging highways meet at a roundabout or rotary on a separated level above, below, or in the middle of the two highways

Hybrid interchanges use a mixture of interchange types and are not uncommon. Their construction can consist of multiple interchange designs such as loop ramps, flyovers and roundabouts. A windmill interchange is similar to a turbine interchange, but it has much sharper turns, reducing its size and capacity. A variation of the windmill, called the diverging windmill, increases capacity by altering the direction of traffic flow of the interchanging highways, making the connecting ramps much more direct. The interchange is named for its similar overhead appearance to the blades of a windmill. The Vaanplein junction in the Netherlands was a windmill from its opening in 1977. Since then it was renovated into a complex hybrid, combining stack, windmill and trumpet elements. Divided volleyball interchanges create a wide median between the carriageways of the two interchanging highways, using this space for connecting ramps. Full diamond interchanges are large, multi-level interchanges that use flyover/under ramps to handle both right and left turns. One example is the junction of Interstate 40 and I-44 in Oklahoma City. On interchanges with U-turns, traffic intending to complete a left turn must either pass the interchange, make a U-turn and then exit right, or exit right first and then make a U-turn. There is a rarely used, unnamed type of interchange using a grade-separated design, similar to the at-grade design known as a "synchronized split-phasing intersection".[5] It is somewhat like the diverging windmill except that left turn exits use left directional ramps, which, as with the diverging windmill, merge on the left. One such interchange formerly existed between Interstate 95 and I-695 north of Baltimore, which has since been replaced by a four-level stack. There are few of these "synchronized split-phasing" interchanges, including one in Birmingham, Alabama between I-65 and I-20/I-59, locally called Malfunction Junction. A variation of this type exists in Grand Rapids, Michigan between Interstate 196 and US 131, where only the opposing carriageways of US 131 cross over each other, while the carriageways for I-196 do not cross over, but pass through the interchange on different levels. Windmill Samples: (until 1977) 51.865678°N 4.515036°E 45.408032°N 10.912722°E Diverging windmill Similar: 33.521505°N 86.826564°W 24.630868°N 46.803215°E Divided volleyball Similar: 39.040319°N 94.672888°W 19.087282°N 98.205712°W Full diamond Samples: 42.359067°N 83.076425°W 35.46046°N 97.575638°W U-turns Samples: 37.559940°N 127.072071°E 42.136216°N 72.625723°W Current design of Knooppunt Vaanplein, Netherlands, location: 51.865678°N 4.515036°E

Four way interchanges are about the highest interchange roads. The fourth is always different. The fifth is questionable.

An intersection is the junction at grade (that is to say, on the same level) of two or more roads either meeting or crossing. An intersection may be three-way (a T junction or Y junction – the latter also known as a fork if approached from the stem of the Y), four-way (often in the form of a crossroads), or have five (a 5-points) or more arms. Busy intersections are often controlled by traffic lights and/or a roundabout. Crossroads look like quadrants

Crossroads, or crossroad, or cross road may refer to: A junction (road) where four roads meet

Alternative intersection configurations can manage turning traffic to increase safety and intersection throughput.[5] These include the Michigan left, "superstreet" and continuous flow intersection.

The Voice is a reality television singing competition franchise. It is based on the reality singing competition The Voice of Holland, which was originally created by Dutch television producer John de Mol. Many other countries have adapted the format and began airing their own versions since 2011. It has become a rival to the Idols franchise and The X Factor. Contestants are aspiring singers drawn from public auditions. The show's format features four stages of competition. The first is the blind auditions, in which the four coaches, all noteworthy recording artists, listen to the contestants in chairs facing away from the stage so as to avoid seeing them. If a coach likes what they hear from that contestant, they press a button to rotate their chairs to signify that they are interested in working with that contestant. If more than one coach presses their button, the contestant chooses the coach he or she wants to work with. The blind auditions end when each coach has a set number of contestants to work with. Coaches will dedicate themselves to developing their singers mentally, musically and in some cases physically, giving them advice, and sharing the secrets of their success.