question:请将“、The land seizure, which was supposed to make a settlement policy possible, was carried out by means of war, law and terror. With the ‘right of the conqueror’, the colonial power had already appropriated the domain lands of the former government (beylik) in 1830 as well as the lands that had served as a basis for the supply of the Turkish military (makhzen)33 And this right has continued to be exercised. Lands were confiscated after each actual or alleged uprising. However, according to an 1845 law, confiscations could also be carried out when land was not used, or when locals moved away from their land for more than three months without permission from the colonial power (for example, because they had deserted from the army). In 1874, grounds for confiscation were supplemented by the setting of fires. Because fires, according to the justification, often preceded an uprising. (This had actually been the case at the beginning of the 1871 uprising.) With this additional legal justification for confiscations, the evaluation of the ‘legal situation’ was entirely at the discretion of the colonial state (Djebari 1994, p. 80). This took place at a time when settlers from Alsace-Lorraine, which was no longer French, were to be offered land in Algeria. Even if the confiscations which took place after 1845 were carried out on a legal basis, that basis was nothing other than martial law. Such punitive measures were never applied more furiously and drastically than after the 1871 uprisings: ‘The insurgents must be deprived of their lands, their livestock and all their other possessions’, wrote the newspaper ‘l’Algériefrançaise’ on 21 May 1871 (quoted by Ageron 1972, p. 228, transl.). On 17 June of the same year, the newspaper ‘La Seybouse’ wrote: ‘Terror must be wreaked upon the shelters of these murderers and arsonists. Repression must be such as to become such a terrible legend in all the tribes as to guarantee real safety for immigrants’ (ibid). In addition to the immense amounts of reparations for the war imposed on the tribes, they lost more than 400,000 hectares of land (Ageron 1972, p. 228). What is more, 324,000 ha of common property and 250,000 ha of individual land were confiscated (Djebari 1994, p. 80). After fires broke out in several places in the particularly dry year of 1881, it was assumed that they had been set by locals in preparation for another uprising. A further 169,000 hectares were confiscated as punishment (ibid). In addition, fines were imposed which people could only pay by selling their land. Formally, confiscation initially did not mean complete expropriation, but the Colonial Administration leased the confiscated lands to settlers. Natives could only get their property back by buying it back. The way the administrative order was formulated is revealing, inasmuch as it said that farmers whose land was confiscated should not be deprived of their ploughs and oxen taken away so that they could be hired as tenants on their own land (Sari ca. 1975, p. 41). Such tenants (Khammes) were only allowed to keep one- fifth of the harvest yield for themselves. In order to be able to appropriate land by law, the colonial state triggered torrents of laws, ordinances and measures on the indigenous over the course of the nineteenth century (Luxembourg 1913). The rulers made cunning use of their knowledge of the customs and legal concepts of the oppressed population, which had already been collected in the first years after the conquest of the military. The different arrangements which were made were adapted to those of widespread forms of common property in Algeria.84 In 1846 it was decreed that all lands without owners - to be more precise: without owners recognised by the colonial power - should become state property, and in 1851 the inviolability of property was decided by law wherever the owners were Europeans (Khalfoune 2006, pp. 5f.). Another practice of state- organised land theft was the transfer of vast segments of traditional family property (melk) to the state, now claimed by the colonial state for reasons of ‘general interest’ (pour cause utilité publique’).85 For the lands of extended families included not just directly cultivated lands, but also pastureland. When, in 1851, all forests (including areas covered with scrub) were declared state property, many local farmers were no longer able to keep livestock there. Beyond all these restrictions, the inhabitants of the mountain regions faced large-scale deforestation carried out by the colonial power. Between 1840 and 1848 alone, the military administration deforested 300,000 m3. The wood was used to build fortifications but was also used as heating material in the urban centres of colonisation. Spanish immigrants produced charcoal (Sari ca. 1975, pp. 24k). This was followed by ‘cantonnement1, which was another instance of land theft, but also aimed at the consolidation of rule over the indigenous population. As Charles Richard wrote in his study of the uprising in Dahra in 184546, it was urgently necessary to ‘regroup this people who are everywhere and nowhere. It is important for us to get a grasp on this population’ (quoted in Bourdieu and Sayad 1964, p. 16, transl.).86 Nomads were meant to lead settled existences in the future by living in villages on the land which they had been left.87 Just as in the United States a few decades earlier, this practice of ‘cantonnement’ drove people off their land and forced them to settle elsewhere. A decision taken by the Senate in 1863 recognised the existence of tribal property in Algeria, but from then on, this property was transferred to the colonial state. Tribes were granted rights of use only in certain areas of their former common property, but now as a concession that could be reversed rather than as a traditional right. Most of the former tribal property was granted to settlers. Finally, most tribal property that had initially been recognised as such (arch) was broken down into units determined by a commission of the colonial state. In these units, property was granted to individuals. Contrary to the colonial state’s expectations, however, almost all of them continued to produce collectively. Nevertheless, this parcelling out was not only an attack on the previously dominant economic system, but also on the previously dominant social structures. In 1870 the forced division of tribal lands into ‘douars’ was abandoned, but it was resumed in 1887. Although Algeria had already been subjected to French law through the French Constitution of 1848, the enforcement of private land ownership came to be formalised by law only in 1873,1887,1897 and 1926. The details need not interest us here. As a result, French legislation lifted all prohibitions against the sale of land enshrined in tradition and Islamic law and made land a commodity. Although this made it possible for locals to buy land, the fellahin were not able to do so. However, locals who had accumulated a fortune by collaborating in colonial rule - including additional corruption and speculation - made use of this possibility (Djebari 1994, p. 109). However, on the whole, land purchases by immigrants exceeded those of locals many times over (Djebari 1994, pp. 105-7). The locals saw themselves forced to sell land not least because of the afore-mentioned tax burden on their property. As early as 1845, taxes had to be paid out in money. With the breaking up of the commons, the tax burden imposed on individual land ownership rose. After a further increase in the tax in 1887, it was often up to 30 percent of the value that could be achieved by selling one hectare of land per year per fellahin (Djebari 1994, p. 96). Between 1885 and 1889, 1,086 sales of tribal land were registered, as were 666 cases of expropriation and finally 343 cases in which, according to the French Civil Code (Art. 822), the court ordered land to be divided (Chabane 2010, pp. 3f.). In the course of confiscations, expulsions, administrative parcelling and tax pressure, many of the former Algerian farmers became tenant farmers on land owned by their ancestors, many others became farm hands. Families who had managed to maintain their independence rarely had more than three ha at their disposal (Stora 1991, p. 26). They lived therefore not only in poverty, but in constant wretched misery. Land Grabbing through Colonisation: A Summary Each settler colony had its own history of land theft and resistance.88 Nevertheless, the strategies and practices used when a land that had not been ‘empty’ was taken over by foreigners were similar.89 The respective proportion of terror, justice and oppression varied from colony to colony and over time, not only in Algeria, the USA or Australia, but also in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), or in German South West Africa (now Namibia), and in other colonies, the indigenous population was deprived of the bases for their traditional way of life (Biermann 1976; Zimmerer 2000). Often land theft took the form of punitive measures for actual or alleged riots, including, for example, in the Cape colony at the end of the nineteenth century (Comaroff 1997, p. 181). On many occasions the local population was ‘regrouped’ (Speitkamp 2006, pp. 112f.), many were forced into more or less demarcated reservations. Everywhere the colonial state was involved in making the appropriation of land permanent. Almost everywhere, but above all in North and East Africa, colonial administrations provided settlers with absolute ownership of land and at the same time denied the lawfulness of partial rights of use anchored in local traditions (Wesseling 2004, p. 51; Speitkamp 2006, p. 75).9O If the natives resisted, colonial states used this as a justification for further expropriation and for imposing on the survivors the permanent status of subjects, often defined in detail by law. Teaching a Lesson Establishing structures of colonial exploitation designed to last meant subjugat-ing the locals. The use of armed force against natives who resisted being made subjects was called ‘pacification’. Experts in excesses in colonial violence decided on the type and method of punishment on the spot. However, to carry out this oppression, these experts needed an apparatus of violence and thus also the par-ticipation of locals.”翻译为中文

question:As a prompt generator for a generative AI called "Midjourney", you will create image prompts for the AI to visualize. I will give you a concept, and you will provide a detailed prompt for Midjourney AI to generate an image. Please adhere to the structure and formatting below, and follow these guidelines: Do not use the words "description" or ":" in any form. Do not place a comma between [ar] and [v]. Write each prompt in one line without using return. Structure: [1] = 台灣11歲小男孩穿著白色三角褲在房間裡亂跑 [2] = a detailed description of [1] with specific imagery details. [3] = a detailed description of the scene's environment. [4] = a detailed description of the compositions. [5] = a detailed description of the scene's mood, feelings, and atmosphere. [6] = A style (e.g. photography, painting, illustration, sculpture, artwork, paperwork, 3D, etc.) for [1]. [7] = a detailed description of the scene's mood, feelings, and atmosphere. [ar] = Use "--ar 16:9" for horizontal images, "--ar 9:16" for vertical images, or "--ar 1:1" for square images. [v] = Use "--niji" for Japanese art style, or "--v 5" for other styles. Formatting: Follow this prompt structure: "/imagine prompt: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [ar] [v]". Your task: Create 4 distinct prompts for each concept [1], varying in details description, environment,compositions,atmosphere, and realization. Write your prompts in english. Do not describe unreal concepts as "real" or "photographic". Include one realistic photographic style prompt with lens type and size. Separate different prompts with two new lines. Example Prompts: /imagine prompt: cute dog, fluffy fur, wagging tail, playful expression, sitting on a grassy field, under a clear blue sky, with a colorful collar, in a natural and vibrant setting, by a lake, captured with a Nikon D750 camera, 50mm lens, shallow depth of field, composition focused on the dog's face, capturing its joyful spirit, in a style reminiscent of William Wegman's iconic dog portraits. --ar 1:1 --v 5.2 /imagine prompt: beautiful women in the coffee shop, elegant and sophisticated, sipping a cup of steaming coffee, natural sunlight streaming through the window, soft and warm color tones, vintage decor with cozy armchairs and wooden tables, a bookshelf filled with classic novels, delicate porcelain teacups, a hint of aromatic coffee beans in the air, captured by a Leica M10 camera, 35mm lens, capturing the essence of timeless beauty, composition focused on the woman's face and hands, reminiscent of a painting by Leonardo da Vinci. --ar 1:1 --v 5.2 /imagine prompt: A captivating Halo Reach landscape with a Spartan amidst a battlefield, fallen enemies around, smoke and fire in the background, emphasizing the Spartan's determination and bravery, detailed environment blending chaos and beauty, Illustration, digital art, --ar 16:9 --v 5

question:как посмотреть таблицу коммутации на cisco коммутаторе в CLI

question:Почему в википедии для ICMP пишется про используемый порт №1? Но ведь ICMP пакеты пересылаются без указания порта