Interdisciplinary research concerning the nature and properties of ceramic materials

Interdisciplinary research on properties of ceramic materials with emphasis on refractory surface insulatio

Multidisciplinary research activity in the materials sciences with emphasis on ceramic materials Semiannual status report, Jun. 16 - Dec. 15, 1967

Effects of various energy environments on zirconium-oxygen-carbon system, solid state ceramics, surface properties, and ceramic materials processin

Vomiting Center reanalyzed: An electrical stimulation study

Electrical stimulation of the brainstem of 15 decerebrate cats produced stimulus-bound vomiting in only 4 animals. Vomiting was reproducible in only one cat. Effective stimulating sites were located in the solitary tract and reticular formation. Restricted localization of a vomiting center, stimulation of which evoked readily reproducible results, could not be obtained

Inefficiency

We introduce an ordinal model of efficiency measurement. Our primitive is a notion of efficiency that is comparative, but not cardinal or absolute. In this framework, we postulate axioms that we believe an ordinal efficiency measure should satisfy. Primary among these are choice consistency and planning consistency, which guide the measurement of efficiency in a firm with access to multiple technologies. Other axioms include symmetry, which states that the names of commodities do not matter, scale-invariance, which says that units of measurement of commodities does not matter, and strong monotonicity, which states that efficiency should decrease if the inputs and outputs remain static when the technology becomes unambiguously more efficient. These axioms characterize a unique ordinal efficiency measure which is represented by the coefficient of resource utilization. By replacing symmetry (the weakest of our axioms) with a very mild continuity condition, we obtain a family of path-based measures.Efficiency Measurement, Coefficient of Resource Utilization, Ordinal, Choice Consistency, Planning Consistency, Path-based

Legal Obstacles to Private Enforcement of Competition Law

Private enforcement of competition law serves many important goals, including deterrence of future anti-competitive harms and correction of past harms. This article sheds light on several potential legal obstacles to such enforcement which could prevent it from achieving its goals. The examples mainly build upon the experience of different jurisdictions with private litigation. It also suggests some possible solutions for dealing with or limiting such obstacles. As Europe is in the early stages of applying its Damages Directive and creating a private competition law enforcement regime, recognising – and possibly avoiding – obstacles to efficient private enforcement is both timely and important

A Group’s a Group, No Matter How Small: An Economic Analysis of Defamation

Consider the following: A Jews-for-Jesus bulletin reports, falsely, that a Jewish woman became “a believer in the tenets, the actions, and the philosophy of Jews for Jesus.” Does this publication constitute defamation? Should defamatoriness be determined in accordance with the views of the general non- Jewish community, with those of the Jewish minority, or with a normative ethical commitment? Our Article aims to provide the answers. Part I demonstrates that the de finition of defamatoriness in common law jurisdictions is essentially empirical and distinguishes between the two leading tests—the English test and the American test. Part II.A describes the English, or general community test, whereby a statemen t is defamatory if considered so by the “right thinking members of the public at large.” Part II.B details the American, or sectorial test, whereby a statement is defamatory if considered so by a substantial and respectable minority. A third possible empirical test, whereby the defamatory potential of a statement may be tested within a small group, has not been adopted in any jurisdiction. Part III, however, demonstrates that the small group test is an economically preferable option to both the English and American tests. Part III conducts two separate economic analyses of the alternative empirical tests for defamation. First, we study the relationship between the view of the community and the views of the individuals who comprise the community. We show that the defamation cases should be decided according to the unanimity rule: A statement may be conside red defamatory only when all individuals in the relevant community consider it so. Because this rule is implausible except in the case of the small group test, it suggests that both the English and American tests lack a solid theoretical foundation. Second, we study the costs and benefits associated with the various tests and find that the American sectorial test is no longer optimal. As a result, we argue that it is preferable to adopt the small group test when deciding cases of defamation

The Criminal Jury, Moral Judgments, and Political Representation

Was the sexual act consensual? Did the defendant have a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger of death by an attacker? Did the police use excessive force? Did the defendant act in a heinous or cruel manner? Did the defendant act with depraved indifference to human life? These are some of the questions that criminal juries encounter. Determinations of such questions involve a combination of factual and moral questions, both questions about what happened and questions about the evaluative significance of what happened. This feature of the criminal jury—that the jury routinely decides normative questions—is frequently noted but is rarely examined. What does it exactly mean when we say that juries make normative determinations, and what is the nature of the inquiry that the jurors are engaging in when they consider moral questions in this particular setting? More specifically, this Article asks whether a juror, when making moral judgments, should follow his or her individual moral beliefs or identify and implement the community’s perspective. Many things said about the criminal jury appear to support the view that the jurors should attempt to replicate the community’s perspective. It is often said, for instance, the criminal jury serves as the community’s conscience, representative, or fiduciary, and such formulations suggest an obligation on the part of the jurors to reproduce the community’s perspective. This Article argues that despite the popularity of such accounts, they are either too indeterminate to imply an obligation on the part of the jurors to reproduce the community’s perspective, or in conflict with the fundamental obligation of jurors to adjudicate fairly and accurately. This Article, therefore, concludes that we are better off jettisoning the talk of the criminal jury as the community’s conscience, representative, or fiduciary, at least in this context, and should instead embrace the notion that jurors fulfill their roles in the criminal justice system most effectively when they vote as individuals, not as representatives, by applying legal standards to particular situations and bringing a diversity of viewpoints to the task