A Man’s Right to Choose His Surname in Marriage: A Proposal

[...] a brief history of marital and naming practices will outline how these two concepts have shifted to a primarily private issue today, as compared with the Middle Ages, when they were primarily public issues highly concerned with property matters. [...] naming involves important issues in the construction of one\u27s identity

What is science for? The Lighthill report on artificial intelligence reinterpreted

This paper uses a case study of a 1970s controversy in artificial-intelligence (AI) research to explore how scientists understand the relationships between research and practical applications. It is part of a project that seeks to map such relationships in order to enable better policy recommendations to be grounded empirically through historical evidence. In 1972 the mathematician James Lighthill submitted a report, published in 1973, on the state of artificial-intelligence research under way in the United Kingdom. The criticisms made in the report have been held to be a major cause behind the dramatic slowing down (subsequently called an ‘AI winter’) of such research. This paper has two aims, one narrow and one broad. The narrow aim is to inquire into the causes, motivations and content of the Lighthill report. I argue that behind James Lighthill's criticisms of a central part of artificial intelligence was a principle he held throughout his career – that the best research was tightly coupled to practical problem solving. I also show that the Science Research Council provided a preliminary steer to the direction of this apparently independent report. The broader aim of the paper is to map some of the ways that scientists (and in Lighthill's case, a mathematician) have articulated and justified relationships between research and practical, real-world problems, an issue previously identified as central to historical analysis of modern science. The paper therefore offers some deepened historical case studies of the processes identified in Agar's ‘working-worlds’ model

Index of Volume 45

Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession,

"The Real Wage And The Marginal Product of Labor"

As I see it, the errors in Keynes's analysis in Chapter Two of the General Theorv were his acceptance of diminishing returns in the short-period relation between output and labor employed and of perfect competition in the product market. These "errors," however, are easily corrected and do not alter Keynes's basic and correct ideas--that employment is determined by aggregate demand, that real wages are determined by aggregate demand given the degree of competition and the level of capital utilization and other determinants of the productivity of labor, and that the supply of labor, at least below full employment, has no effect on either employment or real wages. I would like to reiterate that the formulation we have established here is "Ricardian" rather than neoclassical. Basically all we have said is that the mark-up represents a deduction from the product of labor and that since the mark-up is certainly not procyclical and productivity probably is procyclical, as the "margin" of production is extended, real wages rise. Sraffa (1960, pp. v-vi) has argued that such a use of the term "marginal" is spurious, since the true application of the term "requires attention to be focused on change," while this use of the term, as in Ricardo's discussion of the margin of cultivation, need only be a matter of differences in quality among existing productive facilities rather than changes in scale or in input proportions. We have come a long way from the neoclassical idea of a marginal product of labor, but this should not make either us or Keynes embarrassed about Chapter Two of the General Theory, one of the most interesting and important chapters in the book. Lawlor, Darity, and Horn (1987) noted that Sraffa (1926) had pointed out that the determination of prices and quantities by the interaction of supply and demand necessitates an independence between supply and demand which does not obtain except under very restrictive conditions. Sraffa (1960) extends this argument by showing that scarcity, as in scarce factors of production, is not necessary to determine value and in fact cannot determine value independently of income distribution. Keynes's and Kalecki's work shows that when we take effective demand into account, output is determined solely by demand and distribution by the conditions of competition. Kalecki's and Keynes's work can thus be taken as an Hegelian "supersession" of classical and neoclassical economics when we realize that workers cannot bargain in terms of a real wage and that output not saleable will soon no longer be produced.

Criminal Practice, and Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States

When John Lowe asked me to review his book, I confess that I was surprised. Having just authored two books on Virginia Criminal Procedure, I considered John and myself to be competitors. However, after examining his book I now understand that our books serve different purposes and in fact complement each other

What to Read: A Biased Guide to AI Literacy for the Beginner

Acknowledgements. It was Ken Forbus' idea, and he, Howie Shrobe, Dan Weld, and John Batali read various drafts. Dan Huttenlocher and Tom Knight helped with the speech recognition section. The science fiction section was prepared with the aid of my SF/AI editorial board, consisting of Carl Feynman and David Wallace, and of the ArpaNet SF-Lovers community. Even so, all responsibility rests with me.This note tries to provide a quick guide to AI literacy for the beginning AI hacker and for the experienced AI hacker or two whose scholarship isn't what it should be. most will recognize it as the same old list of classic papers, give or take a few that I feel to be under- or over-rated. It is not guaranteed to be thorough or balanced or anything like that.MIT Artificial Intelligence Laborator

Impersonal efficiency and the dangers of a fully automated securities exchange

This report identifies impersonal efficiency as a driver of market automation during the past four decades, and speculates about the future problems it might pose. The ideology of impersonal efficiency is rooted in a mistrust of financial intermediaries such as floor brokers and specialists. Impersonal efficiency has guided the development of market automation towards transparency and impersonality, at the expense of human trading floors. The result has been an erosion of the informal norms and human judgment that characterize less anonymous markets. We call impersonal efficiency an ideology because we do not think that impersonal markets are always superior to markets built on social ties. This report traces the historical origins of this ideology, considers the problems it has already created in the recent Flash Crash of 2010, and asks what potential risks it might pose in the future

On Campus, November 2, 1992

A Newsletter for Faculty and Staff of Coastal Carolina College. Volume 1, Number 17https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/on-campus/1016/thumbnail.jp

Separation, Custody, and Estate Planning Issues Relating to Companion Animals

This article first discusses the domestication of companion animals, including the impact of anthropomorphism and neoteny on how animals are viewed in U.S. society. Second, it reviews the current legal status of animals. Third, it considers the voluntary and involuntary separation of companion animals from their human families. Fourth, it examines custody issues in the context of the placement of animals after the divorce of the human family members. Finally, it analyzes estate planning issues relating to companion animals