Question: Describe in great length, how the message was transmitted.
About the article "Attack on Pearl Harbor", section "Japanese declaration of war".

Candidate passages:
Enigma featured the major operational convenience of being symmetrical (or self-inverse).
This meant that decipherment worked in the same way as encipherment, so that when the ciphertext was typed in, the sequence of lamps that lit yielded the plaintext.
Identical setting of the machines at the transmitting and receiving ends was achieved by key setting procedures.
These varied from time to time and across different networks.
They consisted of "setting sheets" in a "codebook".
which were distributed to all users of a network, and were changed regularly.
The message key was transmitted in an "indicator" as part of the message preamble.
Confusingly, the word "key" was also used at Bletchley Park to describe the network that used the same Enigma setting sheets.
Initially these were recorded using coloured pencils and were given the names "red", "light blue" etc., and later the names of birds such as "kestrel".
During World War II the settings for most networks lasted for 24 hours, although towards the end of the war, some were changed more frequently.
The sheets had columns specifying, for each day of the month, the rotors to be used and their positions, the ring positions and the plugboard connections.
For security, the dates were in reverse chronological order down the page, so that each row could be cut off and destroyed when it was finished with.
Up until 15 September 1938, the transmitting operator indicated to the receiving operator(s) how to set their rotors, by choosing a three letter "message key" (the key specific to that message) and enciphering it twice using the specified initial ring positions (the "Grundstellung").
The resultant 6-letter indicator, was then transmitted before the enciphered text of the message.
Suppose that the specified "Grundstellung" was "RAO", and the chosen 3-letter message key was "IHL", the operator would set the rotors to "RAO" and encipher "IHL" twice.
The resultant ciphertext, say "OTUNSD", would be transmitted, followed by the message enciphered using message key "IHL".
The receiving operator would use the specified "Grundstellung RAO" to decipher the first six letters, yielding "IHLIHL".
The receiving operator, seeing the repeated message key would know that there had been no corruption and use "IHL" to decipher the message.
The weakness in this indicator procedure came from two factors.
First, use of a global "Grundstellung" —this was changed in September 1938 so that the operator selected his initial position to encrypt the message key, and sent the initial position in clear followed by the enciphered message key.
The second problem was the repetition of message key within the indicator, which was a serious security flaw.
The message setting was encoded twice, resulting in a relation between first and fourth, second and fifth, and third and sixth character.
This security problem enabled the Polish Cipher Bureau to break into the pre-war Enigma system as early as 1932.
On 1 May 1940 the Germans changed the procedures to encipher the message key only once. 
Evidence of the biasing power of the conduit metaphor can be found in fields outside of linguistics.
Information theory, with its concept-free algorithms and computers as models, would seem to be immune from effects arising from semantic pathology, because the framework shares many attributes with the toolmakers paradigm.
Nevertheless, there is evidence that use of the conduit metaphor has hampered investigators' attempts to develop the theory.
Communication is the transfer of information (a selection from a set of alternatives).
This set and a language ("code") relating the alternatives to physical signals are established.
A copy of each (an ""a priori" shared context") is placed with the sender and receiver.
A sequence of the alternatives (the "message") is selected for communication to the receiver, but the message itself is not sent.
The selected alternatives are related by the code to energy patterns (the "signal") that travel quickly and unmodified.
Mathematics is used to measure quantitatively how much the received signal narrows down the possible selections from stored alternatives.
The similarity between the frameworks of information theory and the toolmakers paradigm is that  the shared context corresponds to the repertoire members  the signal does not contain the message  the signal carries neither the alternatives nor a replica of the message  the signal in the former is the blueprint in the latter  the receiver uses the signal to duplicate the sender's selection process and recreate the message  if a signal is received and the shared context is damaged or missing, the proper selection cannot be made This analogy has withstood information theory's utility in simple, technical applications, but in biology, the social sciences, human language and behavior, it has been historically less successful.
These attempts foundered by misunderstanding the conceptual framework of the theory rather than its mathematics.
Reliance on ordinary language has made the information theory's insights less clear.
The negative impact of ordinary language on information theory's use in other fields can be traced to terms the founders themselves used to label parts of their paradigm, telegraphy.
The set of alternatives (repertoire members) were called the "alphabet."
While true for telegraphy, Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver used it as a nomenclature referring to any set of alternative states, behaviors, etc.
The alphabet confuses the distinction between signals and repertoire members in human communication.
Despite Weaver's particular interest in applying the theory to language, this fact went unrecognized.
Shannon and Weaver were also unaware that the choice of the term "message" to represent the selection of alternatives from the repertoire shared the same semantic pathology as "poem."
I got your message (MESSAGE1), but had no time to read it Okay, John, I get the message (MESSAGE2); let’s leave him alone Because MESSAGE1 is the "signal" and MESSAGE2 is the "repertoire members" in communication, the reasoning is faulty.
The ambiguity is trivial in the conduit-metaphor framework, but fatal for information theory, which is based on the idea that MESSAGE2 cannot be transmitted.
Although Shannon and Weaver noted the distinction between "received" and "transmitted" signals based on possible distortion and noise, they wrote the word "message" on the receiving end of their paradigm.
Weaver employed many conduit-metaphor expressions; for example, "How precisely do the transmitted symbols "convey" the desired meaning?” Reddy's.
He also contrasted two "messages, one of which is "heavily loaded with meaning" and the other of which is pure nonsense."
Weaver wrote as if repertoire members are sent, adding that the sender "changes the "message" into the "signal"" Weaver's.
A code specifies how two systems relate, without changing anything; it preserves in the receiver the organizational pattern of the sender.
Marks and sounds do not change into electrons, just as thoughts do not change into words.
Shannon correctly wrote, "The "receiver" ordinarily performs the inverse operation of that done by the transmitter, reconstructing the message from the signal."
But conduit metaphorisms continue to appear in the form of "encode" and "decode," defined as putting the repertoire members "into" code and taking them "out," respectively.
In addition, because the theory conceives of information as the ability to copy an organization via nonrandom selections, the term "information content" is itself a misnomer: signals do something but cannot contain anything.
The conduit metaphor has thus influenced the thinking of information theorists in a counterproductive way.
Confusion between the message and the signal persisted for two decades as theorists in other fields of inquiry drew on the insights of information theory.
Kenneth K. Sereno and C. David Mortensen wrote that "investigators have yet to establish a completely acceptable definition of communication."
"Those models based upon a mathematical conception describe communication as analogous to the operations of an information processing machine: an event occurs in which a "source" or "sender transmits a signal" or "message" through a "channel" to some "destination" or "receiver"."
Sereno & Mortensen's Additionally, when they state, "The theory was concerned with the problem of defining the quantity of information contained in a message to be transmitted…," information is contained in a transmitted "message."
If it refers to MESSAGE1, it is the conduit metaphor asserting that information is contained in the signals.
If it is MESSAGE2, it is the repertoire members that are sent in signals, which contain measurable information.
The insights of information theory have been challenged by using the conduit metaphor instead of the more accurate toolmakers paradigm, upon which its premises were initially based. 
In accordance with the SAE J1939 protocol, NMEA 2000 messages are sent as packets that consist of a header followed by (typically) 8 bytes of data.
The header for a message specifies the transmitting device, the device to which the message was sent (which may be all devices), the message priority, and the PGN (Parameter Group Number).
The PGN indicates which message is being sent, and thus how the data bytes should be interpreted to determine the values of the data fields that the message contains.
A parameter group definition may describe a data record that consists of more data than can be contained within a single CAN frame.
NMEA 2000 transfer methods include transmitting single-frame parameter groups and two methods of transmitting multi-frame parameter groups.
These transfer methods are compared below:The Multi-Packet protocol specified in ISO 11783-3 provides for the transmission of multi-frame parameter groups up to 1,785 bytes.
The protocol encapsulates the parameter group in a transport protocol, either globally or to a specific address.
In case of address specific transfer (RTS/CTS), the receiving device can control the data flow in accordance with the receiving device’s available resources.
In both cases (RTS/CTS) verus BAM.
the message being transferred is announced in the first message.
In case of CTS/RTS the receiver can refuse the message.
In case of a BAM the message can simply be ignored.
The Fast Packet protocol defined in NMEA 2000 provides a means to stream up to 223 bytes of data, with the advantage that each frame retains the parameter group identity and priority.
The first frame transmitted uses 2 bytes to identify sequential Fast Packet parameter groups and sequential frames within a single parameter group transmission.
The first byte contains a sequence counter to distinguish consecutive transmission of the same parameter groups and a frame counter set to frame zero.
The second byte in the first frame identifies the total size of the parameter group to follow.
Successive frames use just single data byte for the sequence counter and the frame counter.
Because many of the NMEA 2000 parameter groups exceed 8 bytes but do not require the 1,785-byte capacity of multi-packet, the default method of transmitting multi-frame parameter groups in NMEA 2000 is using the Fast Packet protocol.
Regardless of which protocol is used, multi-frame parameter groups are sent on a frame-by-frame basis and may be interspersed with other higher priority parameter groups using either protocol, or even single- frame parameter groups.
Each device is responsible for reassembling the parameter group once all the frames for the parameter group are transmitted. 
The majority of the real-time control systems used in aeronautics employ "big endian" processor architectures.
This data representation was therefore specified for CANaerospace as well.
With big endian data representation, the most significant bit of any datum is arranged leftmost and transmitted first on CANaerospace as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: "Big Endian" Data Representation for CANaerospaceCANaerospace uses a self-identifying message format which is realized by structuring the message payload as shown in Figure 3.
This structure defines a 4-byte message header and a 4-byte parameter section.
Figure 3: CANaerospace Self-Identifying Message FormatOn first sight the use of 50% of the CAN message payload for purposes other than transmitting operational data may seem like a waste of bandwidth.
However, the CANaerospace message header delivers valuable information which would require the use of message payload bytes also when realized otherwise: The header allows receiving stations to analyze received messages immediately with respect to origin, data type, integrity and creation time.
To accomplish this, no further information except the knowledge of the CAN identifier assignment for the particular system is needed.
The message header bytes have the following meaning: Node-ID: For ATM communication (EED, NOD), the Node Identifier specifies the transmitting node.
For PTP communication (NSH, NSL) it specifies the addressed node (client, server).
For PTP communication, Node_ID "0" is used to address all stations in the network (multicast).
Data Type: The Data Type specifies how the payload of the message shall be interpreted with respect to its data type (i.e.
floating-point data or number of bytes in case of integer data).
The corresponding data type code is taken from the CANaerospace data type list which allows also user-defined data type definitions.
Service Code: For Normal Operation Data (NOD) the Service Code delivers information about the integrity of the parameter transmitted with the message.
This may be the result of a continuous sensor built-in test, the current validity flag of a navigation signal or other parameter specific information.
In case of PTP communication the Service Code specifies the service for the corresponding client/server interaction.
Message Code: For Normal Operation Data (NOD) the Message Code is incremented by one for each message with a particular CAN identifier by the transmitting node.
After reaching the value of 255, the Message Code rolls over to zero.
This allows receiving stations to determine missing or delayed messages and to react accordingly.
Concerning PTP communication (NSH, NSL) the Message Code is used in conjunction with the Service Code to specify the service for the corresponding client/server interaction in more detail.
The above information contained in the CANaerospace message header contains important information to determine the integrity of the parameters for the use in flight safety critical systems and supports system redundancy.
Additionally, it significantly improves the interoperability between LRUs of different vendors and allows the monitoring of CANaerospace networks concerning the status of the LRUs attached to it.
For further interoperability, CANaerospace defines aerospace specific axis systems with the corresponding sign conventions and physical units.
Together with the predefined identifier assignment list, these definitions describe the traffic in a CANaerospace network unambiguously.
The CANaerospace Standard Identifier Assignment List reserves the CAN identifiers between 300 and 1799 and assigns parameters to them as shown in the excerpt of this list (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Excerpt from the Standard Identifier Assignment List of CANaerospace V 1.7System designers may use self-defined identifier assignment lists.
The mandatory "Node Identification Service" which each CANaerospace LRU has to respond to allows to scan the network for attached LRUs and their identifier assignment list code to avoid inconsistencies.
The CANaerospace Standard Identifier Assignment List as well as the lists for data types and units provide user-defined sections which may be used by system designers to expand these lists according to their needs. 
There was a METI message sent to HD 10307.
It was transmitted from Eurasia's largest radar, 70-meter Eupatoria Planetary Radar.
The message was named Cosmic Call 2, it was sent on July 6, 2003, and it will arrive at HD 10307 in September 2044.