Tracking 3-D body motion for docking and robot control

An advanced method of tracking three-dimensional motion of bodies has been developed. This system has the potential to dynamically characterize machine and other structural motion, even in the presence of structural flexibility, thus facilitating closed loop structural motion control. The system's operation is based on the concept that the intersection of three planes defines a point. Three rotating planes of laser light, fixed and moving photovoltaic diode targets, and a pipe-lined architecture of analog and digital electronics are used to locate multiple targets whose number is only limited by available computer memory. Data collection rates are a function of the laser scan rotation speed and are currently selectable up to 480 Hz. The tested performance on a preliminary prototype designed for 0.1 in accuracy (for tracking human motion) at a 480 Hz data rate includes a worst case resolution of 0.8 mm (0.03 inches), a repeatability of plus or minus 0.635 mm (plus or minus 0.025 inches), and an absolute accuracy of plus or minus 2.0 mm (plus or minus 0.08 inches) within an eight cubic meter volume with all results applicable at the 95 percent level of confidence along each coordinate region. The full six degrees of freedom of a body can be computed by attaching three or more target detectors to the body of interest

Expressing Permission

This paper proposes a semantics for free choice permission that explains both the non-classical behavior of modals and disjunction in sentences used to grant permission, and their classical behavior under negation. It also explains why permissions can expire when new information comes in and why free choice arises even when modals scope under disjunction. On the proposed approach, deontic modals update preference orderings, and connectives operate on these updates rather than propositions. The success of this approach stems from its capacity to capture the difference between expressing the preferences that give rise to permissions and conveying propositions about those preferences

Evidence-Based Sentencing and the Scientific Rationalization of Discrimination

This paper critiques, on legal and empirical grounds, the growing trend of basing criminal sentences on actuarial recidivism risk prediction instruments that include demographic and socioeconomic variables. I argue that this practice violates the Equal Protection Clause and is bad policy: an explicit embrace of otherwise-condemned discrimination, sanitized by scientific language. To demonstrate that this practice should be subject to heightened constitutional scrutiny, I comprehensively review the relevant case law, much of which has been ignored by existing literature. To demonstrate that it cannot survive that scrutiny and is undesirable policy, I review the empirical evidence underlying the instruments. I show that they provide wildly imprecise individual risk predictions, that there is no compelling evidence that they outperform judges’ informal predictions, that less discriminatory alternatives would likely perform as well, and that the instruments do not even address the right question: the effect of a given sentencing decision on recidivism risk. Finally, I also present new, suggestive empirical evidence, based on a randomized experiment using fictional cases, that these instruments should not be expected merely to substitute actuarial predictions for less scientific risk assessments, but instead to increase the weight given to recidivism risk versus other sentencing considerations

Sentence Reduction as a Remedy for Prosecutorial Misconduct

Current remedies for prosecutorial misconduct, such as reversal of conviction or dismissal of charges, are rarely granted by courts and thus do not deter prosecutors effectively. Further, such all-or-nothing remedial schemes are often problematic from corrective and expressive perspectives, especially when misconduct has not affected the trial verdict. When granted, these remedies produce windfalls to guilty defendants and provoke public resentment, undermining their expressive value in condemning misconduct. To avoid these windfalls, courts refuse to grant any remedy at all, either refusing to recognize violations or deeming them harmless. This often leaves significant non-conviction-related harms unremedied and egregious prosecutorial misconduct uncondemned and undeterred. This Article proposes adding sentence reduction to current remedial schemes, arguing that this would provide courts with an intermediate remedy that they would be more willing to grant. The Article demonstrates that several prosecutorial incentives combine to make sentence reduction an effective deterrent. Moreover, because sentence reduction could be tailored to the magnitude of the violation, it could resolve the windfall dilemma and serve as an effective corrective and expressive remedy

Rethinking \u27Effective Remedies\u27: Remedial Deterrence in International Courts

One of the bedrock principles of contemporary international law is that victims of human rights violations have a right to an effective remedy. International courts usually hold that effective remedies must at least make the victim whole, and they sometimes adopt even stronger remedial rules for particular categories of human rights violations. Moreover, courts have refused to permit departure from these rules on the basis of competing social interests. Human rights scholars have not questioned this approach, frequently pushing for even stronger judicial remedies for rights violations. Yet in many cases, strong and inflexible remedial rules can perversely undermine human rights enforcement. Institutional constraints often make it impractical or highly costly for international courts to issue remedies for the violations they recognize. Inflexible remedial rules raise the collateral costs of providing remedies and often drive courts to circumvent those costs by narrowing their substantive interpretations of rights, raising the prejudice threshold required to trigger a remedy or erecting procedural hurdles that allow them to avoid considering the claim at all. This Article illustrates these remedial deterrence effects primarily with examples from the procedural rights case law of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and for the former Yugoslavia - two courts that face particularly stark remedial costs. It then argues that similar dynamics are likely at other international courts, though their degree, form, and consequences will vary based on each court\u27s particular objectives and constraints

Two old women: culturally relevant literature discussions in the 4th grade

Thesis (M.A.) University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2019Two Old Women: Literature Discussions in the 4th Grade is a teacher action research study exploring the connections between the reading of culturally relevant texts, and the relationship between the roles of the teacher and students. As a teacher at the Alaska Native Cultural Charter School in the Anchorage School District, I strive to include culturally rich Indigenous literature in the classroom so students can experience traditional oral narratives in a written format. Our school strives to build student excellence through traditional cultural learning with a focus on Alaska Native Values, and this thematic story by Velma Wallis encompasses those traditions. In this teacher action research study, I collected data through audio recordings, video recordings, student artifacts, and a teacher journal in a span of eight weeks. These data were analyzed using the constructivist grounded theory. I found that utilizing a culturally relevant text in a western format allows students the opportunity to learn about culture, traditions, and how these continue to shape ideas and thinking today. Through this research, I found that using culturally relevant literature allowed students to access their funds of knowledge, but this process takes time and practice between teacher and students. The students stated that they loved this book and ultimately, they read some common truths about themselves and their community

Did Booker Increase Sentencing Disparity? Why the Evidence Is Unpersuasive

The Sentencing Commission’s recent report on the effects of United States v.Booker makes a number of very worri- some claims.The most alarming is that the gap in sen- tences between otherwise similar Black and White men has nearly quadrupled: from 4.5 percent before Booker, to 15 percent after it, to 19.5 percent after United States v. Kimbrough and United States v.Gall. 1 The Commission further claims that interjudge disparity has increased in two-thirds of the federal districts, and that interdistrict variation has also increased.2 If its findings were accurate, and if these changes could be causally attributed to Booker and its successors, it would clearly raise very serious policy concerns. The Commission evidently believes that Booker has in fact created a problem, because it concludes by pro- posing changes that would essentially undo Booker and restore presumptive guidelines

Evidence-Based Sentencing and the Scientific Rationalization of Discrimination

This paper critiques, on legal and empirical grounds, the growing trend of basing criminal sentences on actuarial recidivism risk prediction instruments that include demographic and socioeconomic variables. I argue that this practice violates the Equal Protection Clause and is bad policy: an explicit embrace of otherwise-condemned discrimination, sanitized by scientific language. To demonstrate that this practice should be subject to heightened constitutional scrutiny, I comprehensively review the relevant case law, much of which has been ignored by existing literature. To demonstrate that it cannot survive that scrutiny and is undesirable policy, I review the empirical evidence underlying the instruments. I show that they provide wildly imprecise individual risk predictions, that there is no compelling evidence that they outperform judges’ informal predictions, that less discriminatory alternatives would likely perform as well, and that the instruments do not even address the right question: the effect of a given sentencing decision on recidivism risk. Finally, I also present new, suggestive empirical evidence, based on a randomized experiment using fictional cases, that these instruments should not be expected merely to substitute actuarial predictions for less scientific risk assessments, but instead to increase the weight given to recidivism risk versus other sentencing considerations