Wednesday, February 27, 2008

This is a timeline of psychology.
See history of psychology for a description of the development of the subject, and psychology for a general description of the subject.
Also see timeline of psychotherapy.

Timeline of psychology Early history

Nineteenth century

1844 - Søren Kierkegaard published The Concept of Anxiety, the first exposition on anxiety.
1849 - Søren Kierkegaard published The Sickness Unto Death 1840s

1860 - Gustav Theodor Fechner wrote Elements of Psychophysics, establishing the subject of psychophysics.
1861 - Paul Broca discovered an area in the left cerebral hemisphere that is important for speech production (now known as Broca's area), marking the start of neuropsychology. 1860s

1874 - Wilhelm Wundt published his Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie (Principles of Psychiological Psychology), the first textbook of experimental psychology.
ca. 1875 - William James opened the first experimental psychology laboratory in the United States, though it was intended for classroom demonstration rather than original research.
1878 - G. Stanley Hall was awarded the first PhD on a psychological topic from Harvard (in philosophy).
1879 - Wilhelm Wundt opened the first experimental psychology laboratory at the University of Leipzig in Germany. 1870s

1883 - G. Stanley Hall opened the first American experimental psychology research laboratory at Johns Hopkins University.
1885 - Hermann Ebbinghaus published Über das Gedächtnis, a groundbreaking work where Ebbinghaus describes experiments on himself.
1886 - Sigmund Freud opened private practice in Vienna.
1887 - George Trumbull Ladd (Yale) published Elements of Physiological Psychology, the first American textbook to include a substantial amount of information on the new experimental form of the discipline.
1887 - James McKeen Cattell founded an experimental psychology laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania, only the 3rd in the United States (including William James' Harvard lab).
1887 - G. Stanley Hall founded the American Journal of Psychology with a $500 contribution supplied by Robert Pearsall Smith of the American Society for Psychical Research.
1888 - William Lowe Bryan founded the United States' 4th experimental psychology laboratory at Indiana University.
1888 - Joseph Jastrow founded the United States' 5th experimental psychology laboratory at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
1888 - G. Stanley Hall leaves Johns Hopkins for the presidency of the newly-founded Clark University.
1889 - James Mark Baldwin publishes the first volume of his Handbook of Psychology ("Sense and Intellect").
1889 - Edmund Clark Sanford, a former student of G. Stanley Hall, founded the United States' 6th experimental psychology laboratory at Clark University.
1889 - William Noyes founded the United States' 7th experimental psychology laboratory at the McLean Asylum in Waverley, Mass.
1889 - Harry Kirke Wolfe founded the United States' 8th experimental psychology laboratory at the University of Nebraska. 1880s

1890 - William James published Principles of Psychology.
1890 - James Hayden Tufts founded the United States' 9th experimental psychology laboratory at the University of Michigan.
1890 - G. T. W. Patrick founded the United States' 10th experimental psychology laboratory at the University of Iowa.
1890 - James McKeen Cattell left Pennsylvania for Columbia University where he founded the United States' 11th experimental psychology.
1890 - James Mark Baldwin founded the first permanent experimental psychology laboratory in the British Empire at the University of Toronto.
1891 - Frank Angell founded the United States' 12th experimental psychology laboratory at the Cornell University.
1891 - Mary Whiton Calkins founded the United States' 13th experimental psychology laboratory, the first by a woman, at Wellesley College.
1892 - G. Stanley Hall founded the American Psychological Association (APA).
1892 - Edward Bradford Titchener takes a professorship at Cornell University, replacing Frank Angell who has left for Stanford University.
1892 - Edward Wheeler Scripture founded the experimental psychology laboratory at Yale University, the 19th in United States.
1892-1893 - Charles A. Strong opened the experimental psychology laboratory at the University of Chicago, the 20th in the Uninted States, at which James Rowland Angell conducted the first experiments of functionalism in the 1896.
1894 - James McKeen Cattell and James Mark Baldwin found the Psychological Review to compete with Hall's American Journal of Psychology
1896 - The first psychological clinic was opened at the University of Pennsylvania by Lightner Witmer. Although often celebrated as marking the birth of clinical psychology, Witmer's clinic was focused primarily on educational matters.
1896 - Edward B. Titchener, student of Wilhelm Wundt and originator of the terms "structuralism" and "functionalism," published his An Outline of Psychology.
1898 - Edward Thorndike described the Law of effect. 1890s


1911 - Alfred Adler left Freud's Psychoanalytic Group to form his own school of thought, accusing Freud of overemphasizing sexuality and basing his theory on his own childhood.
1912 - Max Wertheimer published Experimental Studies of the Perception of Movement, considered the founding article of Gestalt psychology
1913 - Carl Jung departed from Freudian views and developed his own theories citing Freud's inability to acknowledge religion and spirituality. His new school of thought became known as Analytical Psychology.
1913 - Jacob L. Moreno applied Group Psychotherapy methods in Vienna. His new methods, which emphasised spontanaeity and interaction, later became known as Psychodrama and Sociometry.
1913 - John B. Watson published Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It, sometimes known as "The Behaviorist Manifesto". 1910s

1920 - John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner conducted the Little Albert experiment, using classical conditioning to make a young boy afraid of white rats.
1921 - Jacob L. Moreno conducted the first large scale public Psychodrama session at the Komoedienhaus, Vienna. He moves to New York in 1925.
1928 - Jean Piaget's book Judgement and Reasoning in the Child is published. 1920s

1934 - Lev Vygotsky's Thought and Language (a.k.a. Thinking and Speech) is first published (in Russian)
1938 - B.F. Skinner published his first major work, The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis, introducing behavior analysis. 1930s

1942 - Carl Rogers published 'Counseling and Psychotherapy' suggesting that respect and a non-judgmental approach to therapy is the foundation for effective treatment of mental health issues.
1943 - Abraham Maslow described his hierarchy of needs in the paper A Theory of Human Motivation, published in Psychological Review
1945 - The Journal of Clinical Psychology was founded.
1949 - Boulder Conference outlined scientist-practitioner model of clinical psychology, looking at the M.D. versus Ph.D. used by medical providers and researchers, respectively. 1940s

1950 - Rollo May published The Meaning of Anxiety.
1951 - Carl Rogers published his major work, Client-Centered Therapy.
1951 - In the Asch conformity experiments, Solomon Asch demonstrated the power of conformity in groups.
1951 - Lee Cronbach wrote about his measure of reliability, now known as Cronbach's alpha.
1952 - The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) was published by The American Psychiatric Association marking the beginning of modern mental illness classification.
1953 - B.F. Skinner outlined behavioral therapy, lending support for behavioral psychology via research in the literature.
1953 - Code of Ethics for Psychologists was developed by the American Psychological Association.
1954 - Abraham Maslow helped to found Humanistic psychology and later developed his famous Hierarchy of Needs.
1955 - Lee Cronbach published Construct Validity in Psychological Tests, popularizing the concept of Construct validity.
1956 - Rollo May published Existence, promoting Existential psychology.
1956 - Leon Festinger proposed his theory of Cognitive dissonance
1959 - Noam Chomsky published his review of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior, an event seen as by many as the start of the Cognitive revolution.
1959 - Lawrence Kohlberg wrote his doctoral dissertation, outlining his stages of moral development. 1950s

1961 - In the Bobo doll experiment, Albert Bandura studied behavioral patterns of aggression.
1963 - Stanley Milgram described his study of obedience to authority, now known as the Milgram experiment.
1967 - Aaron Beck published a psychological model of depression suggesting that thoughts play a significant role in the development and maintenance of depression.
1968 - DSM-II was published by the American Psychiatric Association.
1968 - First Doctor of Psychology (Psy.D.) professional degree program in Clinical Psychology was established in the Department of Psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
1969 - California School of Professional Psychology was established as the first freestanding school of professional psychology.
1969 - The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology was initiated by Abraham Maslow, Stanislav Grof and Anthony Sutich
1969 - John Bowlby published his Attachment theory.
1969 - Harry Harlow published his experiment on affection development in rhesus monkeys.
1969 - Joseph Wolpe published The Practice of Behavior Therapy. 1960s

1971 - The Stanford prison experiment, conducted by Philip Zimbardo and others at Stanford University, studied the human response to captivity. The experiment quickly got out of hand and was ended early.
1971 - Martin Shubik demonstrated the Dollar auction experiment, illustrating irrational choices.
1973 - Vail Conference of Graduate Educators in Psychology endorsed the scholar-practitioner training model.
1978 - Mary Ainsworth published a book about her work on Attachment theory and the Strange Situation experiment. 1970s

1980 - DSM-III published by the American Psychiatric Association.
1983 - Howard Gardner published Frames of Mind, introducing his theory of multiple intelligences
1987 - Erik Erikson published The Life Cycle Completed, expanding on his stage theory of psychosocial development. 1990s
2007 - Oliver Wyvill does assignment on Behavioural Psychology.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Ghost marks are trade marks which closely simulate ordinary words or phrases used in the course of trade, and which are not intended to be used as genuine trade marks.
In the case of Imperial Group v. Philip Morris 1982 FSR 72, the plaintiff endeavoured to register the trade mark "MERIT" for cigarette products, but was unable to do so on the grounds that the trade mark was too descriptive. Instead, it registered the mark "NERIT", without any intention of using the mark, but in order to prevent other traders from using the mark "MERIT" because it would be considered too similar to the registered mark "NERIT". The intention was the obtain a de facto monopoly over the unregisterable mark "MERIT".
The defendant began using the mark "MERIT" for cigarettes and was sued by the plaintiff for infringing its mark "NERIT".
The court struck down the registration for "NERIT" on the basis that the plaintiff had no genuine intention to use the mark (despite some "trivial and insubstantial" efforts at launching a NERIT-branded product).
Prior to the decision in Imperial Group, ghost marks were a commonplace tactical procedure for trade mark owners. Ghost marks are now rarely filed following this decision. A somewhat similar protection to that offered by ghost marks are available through the use of defensive trade marks.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Norwegian Campaign · WeserübungNorwegian campaign Elverum Authorization Midtskogen · Vinjesvingen Occupation and Resistance Camps · Telavåg Festung Norwegen Heavy water sabotage Post-war purge
Haakon VII · Nygaardsvold · CJ Hambro CG Fleischer · Otto Ruge · Max Manus Jens Chr. Hauge · Gunnar Sønsteby
Quisling · Jonas Lie · Henry Rinnan Josef Terboven · Wilhelm Rediess von Falkenhorst
Milorg · XU · Linge · Nortraship
Nasjonal Samling
The Norwegian Campaign, lasting from 9 April to 10 June 1940, led to the first direct land confrontation between the military forces of the AlliesUnited Kingdom and France — against Nazi Germany in World War II.
The primary reason for Germany seeking the occupation of Norway was Germany's dependence on Swedish iron ore shipped from the Norwegian port of Narvik. By securing access to Norwegian ports, Germany could obtain the iron ore supply it needed for war production despite the British naval blockade of Germany. Additionally, it allowed both the German and Allied forces to confront each other without large-scale trench warfare which both sides dreaded. Of particular importance as the Battle of the Atlantic escalated, Norwegian airbases, like that at Stavanger, allowed German reconnaissance aircraft to operate far out over the North Atlantic, without having to fly over, or near, Britain.
Though Germany decisively won the conflict, the Norwegian Campaign tied down most of the Kriegsmarine and several Heer divisions.

Value of Norway

Main article: Winter War Winter War
It was originally thought by German high command that having Norway remain neutral was in its interest. As long as the Allies did not enter Norwegian waters, there would be safe passage for merchant vessels traveling along the Norwegian coast to ship the ore that Germany was importing.
Grand Admiral Erich Raeder, however, argued for an invasion. He believed that the Norwegian ports offered the best facilities for German submarines for use in a siege of the British Isles, and that there was a possibility of the Allies landing in Scandinavia.
On 11 December 1939, Hitler and Raeder met with Vidkun Quisling, a pro-Nazi former Minister of Defense from Norway. Quisling reportedly told them that the threat of a British invasion of Norway was large, and that the Norwegian government would secretly support German occupation (the latter was untrue). He also informed them that he was in a position to ensure maximum cooperation with German forces, including a relaxation of the country's coastal guard and making military bases available. Three days later, Hitler ordered Oberkommando der Wehrmacht to begin investigating possible invasion plans of Norway.
During a second meeting with Quisling on 18 December, Hitler reiterated his desire to keep Norway neutral but indicated that should Allied forces extend the war to Scandinavia, he would counter appropriately. Suspicions arose that Quisling had overstated his strength for self-gain, and further plans for collaboration with him were dropped.

Vidkun Quisling and initial German investigation

Main article: Altmark Incident Altmark Incident

Initial plans
With the end of the Winter War, the Allies determined that any occupation of Norway or Sweden would likely do more harm than good, possibly driving the neutral countries into alliance with Germany. However, the new French prime minister, Paul Reynaud, took a more aggressive stance than his predecessor and wanted some form of action taken against Germany. Churchill was a strong agitator for attacking and occupying Norway, because he wanted the battles and fighting moved away from Britain and France to avoid devastation of their territory, as in the last war. He saw the way into Germany from the north.
It was agreed to utilize Churchill's naval mining offense, Operation Wilfred, designed to remove the sanctuary of the Leads and force transport ships into international waters where the Royal Navy could engage and destroy them. Accompanying this would be Plan R4, an operation where, upon almost certain German counteraction to Operation Wilfred, the Allies would then proceed to occupy Trondheim and Bergen, and destroy the Sola airfield.
The Allies disagreed over the additional Operation Royal Marine, where mines would also be placed in the Rhine River. While the British supported this operation, the French were against it, since they also depended on the Rhine and feared German reprisals on French soil. Because of this delay, Operation Wilfred, originally scheduled for 5 April, was delayed until 8 April when the British agreed to perform the Norwegian operations separately from those on the continent.

Allied plans

Main article: Operation Weserübung German plans

German invasion
The German invasion first started on 3 April 1940, when supply vessels began to head out in advance of the main force. The Allies initiated their plans on the following day, with sixteen Allied submarines ordered to the Skagerrak and Kattegat to serve as a screen and advance warning for a German response to Operation Wilfred, which was launched the following day when Admiral William Whitworth in HMS Renown set out from Scapa Flow for the Vestfjords with twelve destroyers.
On 7 April, bad weather began to develop in the region, blanketing the area with a thick fog and causing rough seas making travel difficult. Renown's force soon got caught in a heavy snowstorm, and HMS Glowworm, one of the destroyer escorts, had to drop out of formation to search for a man swept overboard. However, the weather aided the Germans, providing a screen for their forces, and in the early morning they sent out Gruppe 1 and Gruppe 2, who had the largest distance to travel.
Though the weather did make reconnaissance difficult, the two German groups were discovered 170 kilometres (105 mi) south of the Naze (the southernmost part of Norway) slightly after 08:00 by RAF patrols and reported as one cruiser and six destroyers. A trailing squad of bombers sent out to attack the German ships found them 125 kilometres (78 mi) farther north than they had been before. No damage was done during the attack, but the German groups strength was reassessed as being one battlecruiser, two cruisers and ten destroyers. Because of a strict enforcement of radio silence, the bombers were not able to report this until 17:30.
On learning of the German movement, the Admiralty came to the conclusion that the Germans were attempting to break the blockade that the Allies had placed on Germany and use their fleet to disrupt Atlantic trade routes. Admiral Sir Charles Forbes, Commander-in-Chief of the British Home Fleet, was notified of this and set out to intercept them at 20:15.
With both sides unaware of the magnitude of the situation, they proceeded as planned. The Renown arrived at the Vestfjords late that night and maintained position near the entrance while the minelaying destroyers proceeded to their task. Meanwhile, the Germans launched the remainder of their invasion force. The first direct contact between the two sides occurred the next morning without either side's intention.
The Glowworm, on its way to rejoin the Renown, happened to come up behind the Z 11 Bernd von Arnim and then the Z 18 Hans Lüdemann in the heavy fog around 08:00 on 8 April. Immediately a skirmish broke out and the German destroyers fled, signalling for help. The request was soon answered by the Admiral Hipper, which quickly crippled the Glowworm. Being too damaged to outrun the larger German ship, the Glowworm proceeded to ram it instead. Significant damage was done to Hipper's starboard, and Glowworm was destroyed by a close range salvo immediately afterwards. During its fight Glowworm had broken radio silence and informed the Admiralty of her situation. She was not able to complete her transmission though, and all the Admiralty knew was that the Glowworm had been confronted by a large German ship, shots were fired, and contact with the destroyer could not be reestablished. In response, the Admiralty ordered the Renown and its single destroyer escort (the other two had gone to friendly ports for fuel) to abandon its post at the Vestfjords and head to the Glowworm's last known location. At 10:45, the remaining eight destroyers of the minelaying force were ordered to join as well.
At noon, the Polish submarine Orzeł confronted and sank the German troop transport ship Rio de Janeiro in the Skagerrak. In the wreckage it discovered uniformed German soldiers and various military supplies. Though the Orzeł reported the incident to the Admiralty, they were too concerned by the situation with the Glowworm and the presumed German breakout to give it much thought and did not pass the information along. Many of the German soldiers from the wreck were rescued by Norwegian fishing boats and on interrogation disclosed that they were assigned to protect Bergen from the Allies. This information was passed on to Oslo where the Norwegian Parliament, Stortinget, dismissed it as ignorance on the part of the German soldiers and did not set about any defensive measures other than to alert the coastal guard.
At 14:00, Admiralty received word that aerial reconnaissance had located a group of German ships a considerable distance west-northwest of Trondheim, bearing west. This reinforced the notion that the Germans were indeed intending a break out, and the Home Fleet changed direction from northeast to northwest to again try to intercept. Additionally, Churchill cancelled Plan R4 and ordered the four cruisers carrying the soldiers and their supplies to disembark their cargo and join the Home Fleet. In actuality, the German ships, Gruppe 2, were only performing delaying circling manoeuvres in order to approach their destination of Trondheim at the designated time.
That night, after learning of numerous sightings of German ships south of Norway, Charles Forbes began to doubt the validity of the break out idea, and he ordered the Home Fleet to head south to the Skagerrak. He also ordered HMS Repulse, along with another cruiser and a few destroyers, to head north and join the Renown.
At 23:00, as Forbes was just learning of the incident with the Orzeł, Gruppe 5 was approached by the Norwegian patrol vessel Pol III at the entrance to the Oslofjord. The Pol III quickly sent an alarm to the costal batteries on Rauøy (Rauøy island) and opened fire on the torpedo boat Albatros with its single gun shortly before colliding with it. The Albatros and two of its companions responded with anti-aircraft fire, killing its captain and setting the ship on fire. Gruppe 5 continued into the Oslofjord and cleared the outer batteries without incident. Several of the smaller German ships then broke off in order to capture the bypassed fortifications along with Horten. This activity did not go unnoticed, and soon reports had reached Oslo, leading to a midnight session of the Storting. At this meeting, the assembly issued orders for a partial mobilization (to be delivered by post) and a statement that British and French ships were not to be fired upon.
At about this time, further north, the Renown was heading back to Vestfjord after reaching the Glowworm's last known location and not finding anything. Heavy seas had caused Whitworth to sail more north than normal and had separated him from his destroyers when he encountered the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. The Renown engaged the two battlecruisers and during the short battle Gneisenau had its fire-control system damaged, causing it and Scharnhorst to flee north. Renown attempted to pursue, but by 04:00 it lost sight of them in the poor weather.

Movement of fleets
In the Ofotfjord leading to Narvik, the ten German destroyers of Gruppe 1 made their approach. With the Renown and her escorts earlier diverted to investigate the Glowworm incident, no British ships stood in their way, and they entered the area unopposed. By the time they had reached the inner area near Narvik, most of the destroyers had peeled off from the main formation to capture the outer batteries of the Ofotfjord, leaving only three to contend with the two old Norwegian coastal battleships standing guard, Eidsvold and Norge. Though antiquated, the two coastal defence ships were quite capable of taking on the much more lightly armed and armored destroyers. After a quick parliance with the captain of the Eidsvold, the German ships opened fire preemptively on the coastal defence ship, sinking it after hitting it with three torpedoes. Norge entered into the fray shortly after and began to fire on the destroyers, but her marksmen were inexperienced and she did not hit the Germans ships before being sunk by a salvo of torpedoes from the German destroyers.
At Trondheim, Gruppe 2 also faced only minor resistance to their landings. In the Trondheimsfjord, the Admiral Hipper engaged the defensive batteries while its destroyers sped past them at 25 knots. A well placed shot by the Hipper severed the power cables for the searchlights and rendered the guns ineffective. Only one destroyer received a hit during the landing.
At Bergen, the defensive fortifications put up stiffer resistance to Gruppe 3's approach and the light cruiser Königsberg and the artillery training ship Bremse were damaged, the former seriously. The lack of working lights reduced the effectiveness of the guns though, and the landing ships were able to dock without much opposition. The fortifications were surrendered soon after, when Luftwaffe units arrived.
The fortifications at Kristiansand put up an even more resolute fight, twice repulsing the landing and damaging the Karlsruhe, nearly running the cruiser aground. Confusion soon sprung up though when the Norwegians received the order not to fire on British and French ships and the Germans began to use Norwegian codes they had captured at Horten. The Germans used this opportunity to quickly reach the harbour and unload their troops, capturing the town by 11:00.
Gruppe 5 encountered the most serious resistance at the inner defensive fortifications of the Oslofjord, in the vicinity of Drøbak. Blücher, leading the group, approached the forts assuming that they would be taken by surprise and not repond in time like many others in the outer fjord. It was not until the cruiser was at point blank range that fortress Oscarborg opened fire, connecting with every shot. Within a matter of minutes, Blücher was crippled and burning heavily. The damaged cruiser was soon finished off by a salvo from land-based torpedo tubes, sinking the ship which carried much of the administrative personnel intended both for the occupation of Norway and also for the headquarters of the army division assigned to seize Oslo. The cruiser Lützow, also damaged in the attack, was forced to retreat, with Gruppe 5, twelve miles south to Sonsbukten where it unloaded its troops. This distance delayed the arrival of the main German invasion force for Oslo by over 24 hours, though Oslo would still be captured less than twelve hours later by troops flown into the Fornebu airfield.
Nonetheless, the delay induced by the Norwegian forces gave time for the King, Parliament, and with them the national treasury, to flee to the north and eventually escape to Great Britain. As a result, Norway never surrendered, the Quisling government was rendered illicit, and Norway, with its large merchant marine, remained as an ally in the war, not a conquered territory.
Fornebu was originally supposed to be secured by paratroops an hour before the first troops were flown in, but the initial force became lost in the fog and did not arrive. Regardless, the airfield was not heavily defended and the German soldiers who did arrive captured it promptly. The Norwegian Fighter Wing based on Fornebu resisted with their Gloster Gladiator bi-plane fighters until ammunition ran out and then flew off to whatever secondary airfields available. The ground personnel of the Fighter Wing soon ran out of ammunition for their anti aircraft machine guns as well, in the general confusion and stress to make the fighters ready for action no one had the presence of mind or the time to issue small-arms ammunition for the personal weapons of the ground personell. Resistance at Fornebu came to an end. Norwegian attempts to mount a counter-attack was half-hearted and effectively came to nothing. On learning of this, Oslo itself was declared an open city and soon fully surrendered.
For Gruppe 6 at Egersund and the paratroops at Stavanger, there was no significant opposition and they quickly captured their targets.

The Wehrmacht crossed the Danish border around 04:15 on 9 April. In a coordinated operation, German troops disembarked at the docks of Langelinie in the Danish capital, Copenhagen, and began occupying the city. German Paratroops also captured the Aalborg airport. Simultaneously, an ultimatum was presented by the German ambassador to King Christian X. Reports describing the German plans had been submitted to the government a few days earlier but were ignored. The Danish army was small, ill-prepared and used obsolete equipment but resisted in several parts of the country; most importantly, the Royal Guards located at Amalienborg Palace in Copenhagen, and forces in the vicinity of Haderslev in South Jutland. By 06:30, King Christian X, having consulted with Prime Minister Thorvald Stauning, decided to capitulate, believing that further resistance would only result in a useless loss of Danish lives. The Danish public was taken completely by surprise by the occupation, and was instructed by the government to cooperate with the German authorities. Germany's occupation of Denmark was completed on 10 April and lasted until 5 May 1945.
An important part of the Danish commercial navy escaped the occupation, as Arnold Peter Møller, President of the Mærsk shipping company, on 8 April instructed his 36 ships on the high seas to move to Allied or neutral ports if at all possible.
In a pre-emptive move to prevent a German invasion, on 12 April 1940 British forces occupied the Faroe Islands, then a Danish amt (county). See: British occupation of the Faroe Islands in World War II.

Capture of Denmark
Soon after this, the German invasions at Trondheim, Bergen, Stavanger, as well as the skirmishes in the Oslofjords became known. Not willing to disperse too thinly due to the unknown location of the two German battlecruisers, the Home Fleet chose to focus on the nearby Bergen and dispatched an attack force. RAF reconnaissance soon reported stronger opposition than anticipated, and this, along with the possibility that the Germans might be controlling the shore defenses, caused them to recall the force and instead use the aircraft carrier HMS Furious to launch torpedo bombers at the enemy ships. The attack never commenced though, as Luftwaffe bombers launched an assault of their own against the Home Fleet first. This attack sank the destroyer HMS Gurkha and then forced the Home Fleet to withdraw north when their anti-aircraft measures proved ineffective. This German air superiority in the area led the British to decide that all southern regions had to be left to submarines and the RAF, while surface vessels would concentrate on the north.
In addition to the German landings in south and central Norway, the Admiralty was also informed via press reports that a single German destroyer was in Narvik. In response to this they ordered the 2nd Destroyer Flotilla, mostly consisting of ships previously serving as escort destroyers for Operation Wilfred, to engage. This flotilla, under the command of Captain Bernard Warburton-Lee, had already detached from the Renown during its pursuit of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, being ordered to guard the entrance to the Vestfjord. At 16:00 on 9 April, the flotilla sent an officer ashore at Tranøy fifty miles west of Narvik and learned from the locals that the German force was 4-6 destroyers and a submarine. Warburton-Lee sent these findings back to the Admiralty, concluding with his intention to attack the next day at "dawn, high water", which would give him the element of surprise and protection against any mines. This decision was approved by the Admiralty in a telegram that night.
Early the following morning, Warburton-Lee led his flagship, HMS Hardy, and four other destroyers into the Ofotfjord. At 04:30, he arrived at Narvik harbour and entered along with HMS Hunter and HMS Havock, leaving HMS Hotspur and HMS Hostile to guard the entrance and watch the shore batteries. The fog and snow were extremely heavy, allowing Warburton-Lee's force to approach undetected. When they arrived at the harbour itself they found five German destroyers and opened fire, starting the First Battle of Narvik. Warburton-Lee's ships made three passes on the enemy ships, being joined after the first by Hotspur and Hostile, and sank two of the destroyers, disabled one more, and sank six tankers and supply ships. The German commander, Commodore Friedrich Bonte, lost his life when his flagship Wilhelm Heidkamp was sunk. Warburton-Lee's flotilla then left the harbour, almost untouched.
At 06:00, the 2nd Destroyer Flotilla was making their way back to the entrance of the Vestfjord when from the Herjangsfjord behind them three German destroyers emerged, commanded by Commander Erich Bey, and a few minutes later two more arrived in front of them, surrounding Warburton-Lee's force. The Hardy was the first ship to be hit and was quickly taken out of action, beached by one of her officers after she was crippled. Hunter was the next ship put out of commission, coming to a dead halt in the water after several hits. Hotspur was then hit and received damage to her steering system, causing her to crash into the Hunter. Several more hits were registered on the pair until Hotspur was able to reverse out of the wreck. The Hostile and Havock meanwhile had raced ahead, but turned about and came back to aid the retreat of the Hotspur. The German ships having received a few hits and, more importantly, being critically short of fuel, were not able to pursue. As they exited the Ofotfjord, the three British destroyers managed to sink the German supply ship Rauenfels.
Shortly after the First Battle of Narvik, two more German ships were sunk by British forces. A long range attack by Fleet Air Arm from their base at Hatston in the Orkney Islands was made against Bergen and destroyed the disabled German light cruiser Königsberg; recorded as the first major warship sunk by aircraft. Additionally, the submarine HMS Truant sunk the light cruiser Karlsruhe on the night of 9 April shortly after it had left Kristiansand. The next day, 10 April, the Furious and the battleship HMS Warspite joined the Home Fleet and another air attack was made against Trondheim in hopes of sinking the Admiral Hipper. Admiral Hipper, however, had already managed to escape through the watch set up outside of the port and was on her way back to Germany when the attack was launched; none of the remaining German destroyers or support ships were hit in the assault. Better luck was had in the south when HMS Spearfish severely damaged the heavy cruiser Lützow at midnight on 11 April, putting the German ship out of commission for a year.
With it becoming more evident the German fleet had slipped out of Norwegian waters, Home Fleet continued north to Narvik in the hopes of catching the remaining destroyers. En route the ships suffered further harassment from German bombers, forcing them to divert course west away from the shoreline. By 12 April, they were in range of Narvik and an aerial attack on Narvik from Furious was attempted, but the results were disappointing. It was instead decided to send in the battleship Warspite and a powerful escort force, to be commanded by Whitworth.
On the morning of 13 April, Whitworth's force entered the Vestfjord using the Warspite's scouting aircraft to guide the way. Aside from locating two of the German destroyers, the scouting aircraft also sunk an enemy submarine, the first such occurrence. Warspite's destroyers travelled three miles in advance of the battleship and were the first to engage their German counterparts which had come to meet them, thus starting the Second Battle of Narvik. Though neither side inflicted notable damage, the German ships were running low on ammunition and were gradually pushed back to the harbour. By that afternoon, most attempted to flee up the Rombaksfjord, the only exception being the Künne which beached itself as it made for the Herjangsfjord and was destroyed by HMS Eskimo. Four British destroyers continued to chase the German ships up through the Rombaksfjord, the Eskimo soon damaged by the waiting opposition. However, the German situation was hopeless, having run out of fuel and ammunition, and by the time the remaining British ships arrived their crews had abandoned and scuttled their ships. By 18:30 the British ships were making their way out of the now cleared fjord.

Allied response
The German invasions for the most part achieved their goal of simultaneous assault and caught the Norwegian forces off guard, a situation not aided by the Norwegian Governments' order for only a partial mobilization. Not all was lost for the Allies though, as the repulsion of German Gruppe 5 in the Oslofjord gave a few additional hours of time which the Norwegians used to evacuate the Royal family and the Norwegian Government to Hamar. With the government now fugitive, Vidkun Quisling used the opportunity to take control of a radio broadcasting station and announce a coup, with himself as the new Prime Minister of Norway. His first official act, at 19:30 that day, was to cancel the mobilization order.
That evening, the Norwegian Government settled at Elverum, believing Hamar to be insecure. All German demands were rejected and the Elverum Authorization was passed should the need for a government-in-exile arise. However, the bleakness of the situation prompted them to agree to continued negotiations with the Germans, set for the following day. As a precaution Colonel Otto Ruge, Inspector General of the Norwegian Infantry, set up a roadblock about 110 kilometres (70 mi) north of Oslo, at Midtskogen, and soon encountered a small detachment of troops, led by the Air Attaché for the German Embassy, who were racing north in an attempt to settle the matter instantly by capturing King Haakon VII. A skirmish broke out and the Germans turned back after their air attaché was killed by Norwegian Royal Guards. On 10 April, the final negotiations between the Norwegians and Germans failed after the Norwegian delegates, led by Haakon VII, refused to accept the German demand for recognition of Quisling's new government.
One of the final acts of the Norwegian authorities before dispersement was the promotion of Otto Ruge to the rank of Major General and appointment to Commander-in-Chief of the Norwegian Army, responsible for overseeing the resistance to the German invasion. With the Germans in control of the largest cities, ports and airfields, as well as most of the arms depots and communication networks, repulsing them outright would be impossible. Ruge instead decided that his only chance lay in playing for time, stalling the Germans until reinforcements from the United Kingdom and France could arrive.
On 11 April, after receiving reinforcements in Oslo, General Falkenhorst's offensive began; its goal was to link up Germany's scattered forces before the Norwegian's could effectively mobilize or any major Allied intervention could take place. His first task was to secure the general Oslofjord area, then to use the 196th and 163rd infantry divisions to establish contact with the forces at Trondheim.
By 14 April, the Norwegian 1st Division, located east of the Oslofjord in the Østfold, had evacuated into Sweden and the Norwegian 3rd Division, based at Kristiansand, had surrendered. The Norwegian 4th Division, stationed around Bergen, evaded the initial German landings and were soon engaged in slowing the German troops moving eastward from the city; their effort was soon hampered by the fact that the main force of the division had to be transferred to Valdres to shore up for the critical situation on Østlandet. The Norwegian 5th Division at Trondheim had lost almost all of its stores when the invasion began and its commander had decided to remain at Steinkjer instead of attacking the Germans. The Norwegian 6th Division was located far to the north, close to the Finnish border and not in contact with any of the German occupied areas.
For General Ruge, only the Norwegian 2nd Division was available and he thus built his army around the unit. While a surge of volunteers grew the division from 3,000 to roughly 12,000 troops, and Ruge was further aided with 11.1 million kroner (4.5 million USD) smuggled to him, it would never be a force capable of direct offensive action against the Germans. Instead, he chose to focus the division at the head of the Gudbrandsdal and Østerdalen valleys which led from Oslo to Trondheim. From here he engaged the Germans where the terrain was favourable and used hit-and-run tactics, along with ambushes and selective demolitions to hinder the two German divisions northward movement. These could never hope to completely halt the Germans, who were soon using air support and small tank units to break Norwegian positions. By 20 April, the German forces had managed to advance to Elverum, 305 kilometres (190 mi) south of Trondheim. The constant combat had rendered the Norwegian forces exhausted and critically low on supplies.

Norwegian situation

Main article: Allied campaign in Norway Ground campaign
The original plans for the campaign in Central Norway called for a three pronged attack against Trondheim by Allied forces while the Norwegians contained the German forces to the south. It was called Operation Hammer, and would land Allied troops at Namsos to the north (Mauriceforce), Åndalsnes to the south (Sickleforce), and around Trondheim itself (Hammerforce). This plan was quickly changed though, as it was felt that a direct assault on Trondheim would be far too risky and therefore only the northern and southern forces would be used.
On 17 April, Mauriceforce, comprised primarily of the British 146th Infantry Brigade and commanded by Major General Adrian Carton de Wiart made their initial landings at Namsos. During the trip the force had been transferred to destroyers instead of bulky transport ships due to the narrow waters of the fjord leading to Namsos; in the confusion of the transfer a great deal of their supplies and even the brigade commander were misplaced. Another great problem for Mauriceforce was the lack of air support, something the Luftwaffe took full advantage off. Shortly after General de Wiart moved his forces out of Namsos, German bombers arrived and destroyed it, leaving the Norwegian without a base. Regardless, de Wiart moved 80 miles inland to Steinkjer where he was able to link up with the Norwegian 5th Division. Constant aerial harassment prevented any kind of offensive from taking place though, and on 21 April Mauriceforce was attacked by the German 181st Division from Trondheim. The Norwegian was forced to fall back from these assaults, leaving Steinkjer for the Germans.
Sickleforce, consisting primarily of the British 148th Infantry Brigade and commanded by Major General Bernard Paget, landed at Åndalsnes on 18 April. From Åndalsnes, the British force traveled via train to the village of Dombås with the intention of then traveling north to Trondheim; they were instead met there by General Ruge who informed them that the Norwegian forces could not contain the Germans travelling up the valleys for much longer. Knowing that a German breakthrough would both cut off supplies and leave Sickleforce surrounded, Paget diverted his force south to Lillehammer. They did not stay long though, as the 148th Brigade was soon attacked by Pellengahr's forces and forced to withdraw. As they retreated through the Tretten Valley, the 148th again came under attack and were effectively eliminated as a fighting unit. By this time, the British 15th Infantry Brigade had landed in Åndalsnes and had started to move south to relieve the 148th. The British encountered the pursuing German forces at Kvam, a municipality between Tretten and Dombås, and were pushed back to Kjorem, where they weathered further heavy assault.
By 28 April, with both groups checked by the Germans, it was decided to withdraw all Allied forces from Central Norway. Sickleforce, with the help of General Ruge, managed to return to Åndalsnes and escape by 2 May at 02:00, only a few hours before the German 196th Division captured the port. Mauriceforce, their convoys delayed by thick fog, were evacuated on 3 May, though two of their rescue ships, the French destroyer Bison and the British destroyer Afridi were sunk by Junkers Ju 87 dive bombers.
The failure of the central campaign is considered one of the direct causes of the Norway Debate, which resulted in the resignation of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and the appointment of Winston Churchill to the office.

Campaign in Central Norway
Along with the action against Trondheim, a second campaign was launched in the north with the objective of recapturing Narvik. Like the Central campaign, the Narvik expedition also faced numerous obstacles.
One of the first problems faced by the Allies was the fact that the command was not unified, or even truly organized. Naval forces in the area were led by Admiral of the Fleet William Boyle, 12th Earl of Cork who had been ordered to rid the area of the Germans as soon as possible. In contrast, the commander of the ground forces, Major General Pierse Mackesy, was ordered not to land his forces in any area strongly held by the Germans and to avoid damaging populated areas. The two met on 15 April to determine the best course of action. Boyle argued for an immediate assault on Narvik and Mackesy countered that such a move would lead to the decimation of his attacking troops. Boyle eventually conceded to Mackesy's viewpoint.
Mackesy's force, codenamed Rupertforce, consisted of the 24th Guards Brigade as well as French and Polish units. The main force began landing at Harstad, a small town on the island of Hinnøya, on 15 April, but because of confusion, bad weather, inadequate facilities, untactically packed transports and constant attacks by German bombers, unloading took well over a week to complete. In the meantime, the Royal Navy had started off on a considerably better note. On 15 April, it captured a German U-boat (U-49) which contained documents detailing the dispositions of all U-boats in the Norwegian Sea, effectively removing them as a threat.
After the Allied failure in Central Norway, more preparation was given to the northern forces, including two squadrons of carrier-transported fighters operating from Bardufoss Air Station, one of them consisting of Hurricanes, the orther of Gloster Gladiators.
By 28 May, the Allies had succeeded in recapturing Narvik from German forces, but the German invasion of France and the Low Countries had immensely altered the overall situation of the war and the importance of Norway was considerably lessened. Operation Alphabet, the general Allied retreat from Norway, had been approved on 24 May and by 8 June, after destroying rail lines and port facilities, all Allied troops had been evacuated. The Germans had launched Operation Juno to relieve pressure on the Narvik garrison and, after discovering the evacuation, shifted the mission to a hunt and sunk two British destroyers and the aircraft carrier HMS Glorious.

Norwegian campaign Campaign in northern Norway

Main article: Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany Occupation
The operation as planned was a decisive success for Germany. Both Denmark and Norway were occupied with relatively light casualties: 3,800 Germans killed and 1,600 wounded. Surprise was almost complete, particularly in Denmark, and only in the Narvik area did the invasion prove problematic. The Luftwaffe lost about 100 aircraft, or roughly 10% of the force committed.
At sea, however, the invasion proved a significant setback. The Kriegsmarine lost 1 heavy cruiser, 2 light cruisers, 10 destroyers, and 6 submarines, leaving the navy weakened during the summer months when Hitler was pursuing plans for an invasion of Great Britain.
The British also took some damage to their fleet, losing 1 aircraft carrier, 2 cruisers, 7 destroyers, and a submarine, but with their much larger fleet, they could absorb the naval losses to a much greater degree than Germany. Britain also gained use of the Norwegian merchant navy, one of the largest in the world.
The French navy lost 1 large destroyer during the campaign,
The British did achieve a partial success at Narvik. Shipping from the port was stopped for a period of six months, although the Allies had believed it would be out of operation for a year.
The German occupation of Norway was to prove a thorn in the side of the Allies during the next few years. Long-range aircraft based there meant that several squadrons of British fighters had to be kept in the north during the Battle of Britain, and German commerce raiders used Norway as a staging base to reach the North Atlantic with impunity. After Germany invaded Russia in 1941, air bases in Norway were also used to interdict the Allied arctic convoys there, inflicting painful losses to shipping.
The occupation of Norway would also come to be a burden for Germany, since the long, exposed coastline provided opportunities for commando raids later in the year. In addition, the country required a sizeable occupation force. This troop commitment peaked with 400,000 men by 1944, troops that could not be put to use during the Allied landings in France that year or on the Russian Front.


Timeline of the Norwegian Campaign
Norwegian Campaign order of battle Notes

Derry, T. K., The Campaign in Norway, 1954, H.M.S.O.
Dickens, Captain Peter, Narvik, 1974, H.M.S.O.
Elting, John R., Battles for Scandinavia, ISBN 0-8094-3397-4.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Exponential assembly
Exponential assembly is a theoretical nanofactory process patented by Zyvex.
It is called exponential assembly due to the exponential growth of replicators which will construct themselves through self-replication. Thus, in geometric progression, one becomes two, then two becomes four, and so on.
K. Eric Drexler emphasised the inherent exponential nature of the growth of any replicator based on molecular nanotechnology in Engines of Creation (Chapter 10, Limits to Growth), and coined the word assemblers.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

ASP.NET is a web application framework marketed by Microsoft that programmers can use to build dynamic web sites, web applications and XML web services. It is part of Microsoft's .NET platform and is the successor to Microsoft's Active Server Pages (ASP) technology.
ASP.NET is built on the Common Language Runtime, meaning programmers can write ASP.NET code using any Microsoft .NET language.

ASPX is a text file format used to create Webform pages; in programming jargon, the ASPX file typically contains static HTML or XHTML markup, as well as markup defining Web Controls and Web User Controls where the developers place all the required static and dynamic content for the web page. Additionally, dynamic code which runs on the server can be placed in a page within a block <% -- dynamic code -- %> which is similar to other web development technologies such as PHP, JSP, and ASP, but this practice is generally frowned upon by Microsoft except for the purposes of data binding since it requires more calls when rendering the page.
The method recommended by Microsoft for dealing with dynamic program code is to use the code-behind model, which places this code in a separate file or in a specially designated script tag. Code-behind files are typically named something to the effect of MyPage.aspx.cs or MyPage.aspx.vb based on the ASPX file name (this practice is automatic in Microsoft Visual Studio and other IDEs). When using this style of programming, the developer writes code to respond to different events, like the page being loaded, or a control being clicked, rather than a procedural walk through the document.

ASPX file format
ASP.NET uses a visited composites rendering technique. During compilation the template (.aspx) file is compiled into initialization code which will build a control tree (the composite) representing the original (static) template. Literal text goes into instances of the Literal control class, server controls are represented by instances of a specific control class. The initialization code is combined with user-written code (usually by the assembly of multiple partial classes) and results in a class specific for the page. The page doubles as the root of the control tree.
Actual requests for the page are processed through a number of steps. First, during the initialization steps, an instance of the page class is created and the initialization code is executed. This produces the initial control tree which is now typically manipulated by the methods of the page in the following steps. As each node in the tree is a control represented as an instance of a class, the code may change the tree structure as well as manipulate the properties/methods of the individual nodes. Finally, during the rendering step a visitor is used to visit every node in the tree, asking each node to render itself using the methods of the visitor.
After the request has been processed, the instance of the page class is discarded and with it the entire control tree.

Rendering technique
Other file extensions associated with different versions of ASP.NET include:
Global.asax, used for application-level logic and event handling
Web UserControls: custom controls to be placed onto web pages.
custom HTTP handlers
web service pages.
when enabled in web.config requesting trace.axd outputs application-level tracing. Also used for the special webresource axd handler which allows control/component developers to package a component/control complete with images, script, css etc. for deployment in a single file (an 'assembly')
browser capabilities files stored in XML format; introduced in version 3.0. ASP.NET 2 includes many of these by default, to support common web browsers. These specify which browsers have which capabilities, so that ASP.NET 2 can automatically customize and optimize its output accordingly. Special .browser files are available for free download to handle, for instance, the W3C Validator, so that it properly shows standards-compliant pages as being standards-compliant. Replaces the harder-to-use BrowserCaps section that was in machine.config and could be overridden in web.config in ASP.NET 1.x.
web.config is the only file in a specific Web application to use this extension by default (machine.config similarly affects the entire Web server and all applications on it), however ASP.NET provides facilities to create and consume other config files. These are stored in XML format, so as to allow configuration changes to be made with simplicity.
In ASP.NET 2 any cs/vb files placed inside the App_Code folder are dynamically compiled and available to the whole application.
Master Pages; introduced in version 2.0
sitemap configuration files
theme skin files.
resource files for internationalization and localization. Resource files can be global (for e.g. messages) or "local" which means specific for a single aspx or ascx or file.

Other files
In general the ASP.NET developer is free to create his/her own directory structure. Apart from a few reserved directory names the site can span any number of directories. The structure is typically reflected directly in the urls. Although ASP.NET provides means for intercepting the request at any point during processing, the developer is not forced to funnel requests through a central application or front controller.
The special directory names are:
holds site-specific browser definition files.
This is the "raw code" directory. The ASP.NET server will automatically compile files (and subdirectories) in this folder into an assembly which is accessible in the code of every page of the site. App_Code will typically be used for data access abstraction code, model code and business code. Also any site-specific http handlers and modules and web service implementation go in this directory. As an alternative to using App_Code the developer may opt to provide a separate assembly with precompiled code.
default directory for databases, such as Access mdb files and SQL Server mdf files. This directory is usually the only one with write access for the application.
Contains localized resource files for individual pages of the site. E.g. a file called holds localized resources for the french version of the CheckOut.aspx page. When the UI culture is set to french, ASP.NET will automatically find and use this file for localization.
Holds resx files with localized resources available to every page of the site. This is where the ASP.NET developer will typically store localized messages etc. which are used on more than one page.
holds alternative themes of the site.
holds discovery files and WSDL files for references to web services to be consumed in the site.

Directory structure
ASP.NET aims for performance benefits over other script-based technologies (including ASP Classic) by compiling the server-side code to one or more DLL files on the web server. This compilation happens automatically the first time a page is requested (which means the developer need not perform a separate compilation step for pages). This feature provides the ease of development offered by scripting languages with the performance benefits of a compiled binary. However, the compilation might cause a noticeable delay to the web user when the newly-edited page is first requested from the web server.
The ASPX and other resource files are placed in a virtual host on an Internet Information Services (or other compatible ASP.NET servers; see Other Implementations, below). The first time a client requests a page, the .NET framework parses and compiles the file(s) into a .NET assembly and sends the response; subsequent requests are served from the dll files. By default ASP.NET will compile the entire site in batches of 1000 files upon first request. If the compilation delay is causing problems, the batch size or the compilation strategy may be tweaked.
Developers can also choose to pre-compile their code before deployment, eliminating the need for just-in-time compilation in a production environment.

ASP.NET attempts to simplify developers' transition from Windows application development to web development by offering the ability to build pages composed of controls similar to a Windows user interface. A web control, such as a button or label, functions in very much the same way as its Windows counterpart: code can assign its properties and respond to its events. Controls know how to render themselves: whereas Windows controls draw themselves to the screen, web controls produce segments of HTML and JavaScript which form part of the resulting page sent to the end-user's browser.
ASP.NET encourages the programmer to develop applications using an event-driven GUI paradigm (event-driven GUI model), rather than in conventional web-scripting environments like ASP and PHP. The framework attempts to combine existing technologies such as JavaScript with internal components like "ViewState" to bring persistent (inter-request) state to the inherently stateless web environment.
Other differences compared to ASP classic are:

Compiled code means applications run faster with more design-time errors trapped at the development stage.
Significantly improved run-time error handling, making use of exception handling using try-catch blocks.
Similar metaphors to Windows applications such as controls and events, which make development of rich user interfaces, previously only found on the desktop, possible.
An extensive set of controls and class libraries allows the rapid building of applications, plus user-defined controls allow commonly used templates, such as menus. Layout of these controls on a page is easier because most of it can be done visually in most editors.
ASP.NET leverages the multi-language capabilities of the .NET CLR, allowing web pages to be coded in VB.NET, C#, J#, etc.
Ability to cache the whole page or just parts of it to improve performance.
Ability to use the code-behind development model to separate business logic from presentation.
If an ASP.NET application leaks memory, the ASP.NET runtime unloads the AppDomain hosting the erring application and reloads the application in a new AppDomain.
Session state in ASP.NET can be saved in a SQL Server database or in a separate process running on the same machine as the web server or on a different machine. That way session values are not lost when the web server is reset or the ASP.NET worker process is recycled.
Previous versions of ASP.NET (1.0 and 1.1) were criticized for their lack of standards compliance. The generated HTML and JavaScript sent to the client browser would not always validate against W3C/ECMA standards. In addition, the framework's browser detection feature sometimes incorrectly identified web browsers other than Microsoft's own Internet Explorer as "downlevel" and returned HTML/JavaScript to these clients that was crippled or broken. However, in version 2.0, all controls generate valid HTML 4.0, XHTML 1.0 (the default) or XHTML 1.1 output, depending on the site configuration. Detection of standards-compliant web browsers is more robust and support for Cascading Style Sheets is more extensive.
Web Server Controls: these are controls introduced by for providing the UI for the web form. These controls are state managed controls and are WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) controls. ASP.NET compared to ASP classic
Active Server Pages Classic (ASP) and ASP.NET can be run side-by-side in the same web application. This approach allows developers to migrate applications slowly instead of all at once. On IIS 6.0 and lower, pages written using different versions of the ASP framework can't share Session State without the use of third-party libraries. This criticism does not apply to ASP.NET and ASP applications running side by side on IIS 7. With IIS 7, modules may be run in an integrated pipeline that allows modules written in any language to be executed for any request.
In some cases ASP.NET runtime will recycle the worker process (e.g. if it becomes unresponsive or if an application runs amok and causes the worker process to use more than 60% of available RAM). It can also be configured to recycle the process proactively after a certain number of requests, time period etc. In these cases users may lose session state if the application is configured to use in-process sessions. If the application relies on session state to store authentication information (bad practice since cookie based authentication and membership is built into the framework) and the application is configured to use in-process sessions, the user may be logged out if the process is recycled.
ASP.NET 2.0 produces markup that passes W3C validation, but it is debatable as to whether this increases accessibility; one of the benefits of a semantic XHTML page + CSS representation. Several controls, such as the Login controls and the Wizard control, use HTML tables for layout by default. (Microsoft has now gone some way to solve this problem by releasing the ASP.NET 2.0 CSS Control Adapters, a free add-on that produces compliant accessible XHTML+CSS markup.) However, some controls still rely on JavaScript. The CSS Control Adapters do help override output, even if it is to improve HTML, not CSS.

Criticisms of ASP.NET
Fact: ASP.NET (and indeed, .NET as such) applications executes fully compiled. The misconception stems from the fact that this compilation is a two-step process, where ASP.NET is first compiled into intermediate language (IL). This can be done using a compiler such as the C# compiler. Only just before actual execution on the target machine does the .NET CLR take over and compile the IL into machine instructions optimized for the target architecture. The developer has no control of this process. The ASP.NET runtime will then cache the compiled code for subsequent executions.
Fact: ASP.NET is a highly abstracted framework for web development with feature rich components (widgets). Visual Studio will assist in configuring properties for these widgets, but in general they come with good defaults. Hence, VS has editors for special file formats, but no code generation in the sense that it spews out C# or VB.NET code which must be manually edited to suit different needs afterwards with the risk of losing custom changes when the code needs to be once again generated. In a number of places ASP.NET relies on metaprogramming, examples of this are: Compiling an .aspx markup file into a partial class, compiling a XML schema (representing a dataset) into .NET classes. One exception where code generation could be said to take place is when you define a dataset from an existing database by dragging and dropping tables from the database schema to the XML schema file.
Fact: An ASP.NET web site/application can easily be created using any text editor. Since compilation is handled by the server the markup files can be uploaded as source code to the server. Documentation (or experience) will be required to use the web controls/widgets in this way.

Misconception: "ASP.NET is interpreted or semi-interpreted"
Misconception: "ASP.NET relies heavily on code generation"
Misconception: "ASP.NET relies heavily on Visual Studio" Common misconceptions
Several available software packages exist for developing ASP.NET applications:

Microsoft Expression Web, part of the Microsoft Expression Studio application suite.
Visual Studio .NET or Visual Studio 2005 or Visual Web Developer 2005 Express Edition (for ASP.NET 2.0)
ASP.NET Web Matrix (ASP.NET 1.x only, was free, now no longer supported: replaced by the free Visual Web Developer 2005 Express Edition)
Macromedia Dreamweaver MX, Macromedia Dreamweaver MX 2004, or Macromedia Dreamweaver 8 (doesn't support ASP.NET 2.0 features, and produces very inefficient code for ASP.NET 1.x: also, code generation and ASP.NET features support through version 8.0.1 was little if any changed from version MX: version 8.0.2 does add changes to improve security against SQL injection attacks)
Macromedia HomeSite 5.5 (For ASP Tags)
Microsoft SharePoint Designer 12
Delphi 2006
MonoDevelop (Free/Open Source)
SharpDevelop (Free/Open Source) History
Various ASP.NET team members maintain blogs. Here are some of them:

Scott Guthrie, General Manager -
Nikhil Kothari, Architect -
Brian Goldfarb, Product Manager -
Shanku Niyogi, Product Unit Manager -
Bertrand Le Roy, Developer -
Harish Ranganathan, Developer Evangelist - ASP.NET team members

Active Server Pages (ASP) – ASP.NET's predecessor
ASP master pages
Yellow Screen of Death – ASP.NET's Exception page
Java Server Faces (JSF) – web application technology with a similar component based approach for the Java plattform
ASP.NET AJAX – Extension for AJAX enabled ASP.NET pages See also

Pro ASP.NET 2.0 in C# 2005, Matthew MacDonald, Apress, November 27, 2005. ISBN 1-59059-496-7
ASP.NET 2.0 Unleashed, Stephen Walther, Sams Publishing, June 6, 2006. ISBN 0-672-32823-2
Essential ASP.NET With Examples in C#, Fritz Onion, Addison-Wesley Professional, February 11, 2003. ISBN 0-201-76040-1
Programming ASP.NET, Jessy Liberty & Dan Hurwitz, O'Reilly, October, 2005. ISBN 0-596-00916-X
ASP.NET 2.0 Website Programming , Marco Bellinaso, Wrox, May, 2006. ISBN 0-7645-8464-2 Resources about ASP.NET

Mono - An open source .NET Framework implementation that runs on many platforms
UltiDev Cassini Web Server - A free web server that can be redistributed with ASP.NET 1.1 and 2.0 applications ASP.NET Links about ASP.NET Providers

Microsoft's ASP.NET 2.0 website
CSS friendly ASP.NET 2.0 control adapters
Visual Web Developer Express Edition 2005
Visual Web Developer Express Edition 2005 SP1 Download
Microsoft Expression Web Designer (Standards-compliant css-based design)