New Models for X-Ray Synchrotron Radiation from the Remnant of Supernova 1006 AD

Galactic cosmic rays up to energies of around 10^15 eV are assumed to originate in supernova remnants (SNRs). The shock wave of a young SNR like SN 1006 AD can accelerate electrons to energies greater than 1 TeV, where they can produce synchrotron radiation in the X-ray band. A new model (SRESC) designed to model synchrotron X-rays from Type Ia supernovae can constrain values for the magnetic-field strength and electron scattering properties, with implications for the acceleration of the unseen ions which dominate the cosmic-ray energetics. New observations by ASCA, ROSAT, and RXTE have provided enormously improved data, which now extend to higher X-ray energies. These data allow much firmer constraints. We will describe model fits to these new data on SN 1006 AD, emphasizing the physical constraints that can be placed on SNRs and on the cosmic-ray acceleration process.Comment: 10 pages, 2 figures. to appear in "Cosmic Explosions", proceeding of the 10th Annual October Astrophysics Conference (ed. S.S. Holt and W. W. Zhang) LaTex aipproc.st

The Integral Burst Alert System (IBAS)

We describe the INTEGRAL Burst Alert System (IBAS): the automatic software for the rapid distribution of the coordinates of the Gamma-Ray Bursts detected by INTEGRAL. IBAS is implemented as a ground based system, working on the near-real time telemetry stream. During the first six months of operations, six GRB have been detected in the field of view of the INTEGRAL instruments and localized by IBAS. Positions with an accuracy of a few arcminutes are currently distributed by IBAS to the community for follow-up observations within a few tens of seconds of the event.Comment: 7 pages, latex, 5 figures, Accepted for publication on A&A Special Issue on First Science with INTEGRA

Criminal Law - Retroactivity - Jury Instructions - Consequences of a Verdict of Non Guilty by Reason of Insanity

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that its determination that a jury be informed of the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity not be applied retroactively and, more specifically, not to a case on direct appeal at the time of that decision. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Geschwendt, 500 Pa. 120, 454 A.2d 991 (1982)

Prosecutorial Discretion and the Current Status and Applicability of Accelerated Rehabiliative Disposition Under the Pennsylvania Criminal Justice System

Through pre-trial diversion programs, modern criminal justice systems have foregone criminal prosecution or incarceration of certain defendants in favor of correctional reform and social restoration. Under Pennsylvania\u27s diversion program, Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition, the defendants considered eligible for this alternative process are generally first offenders charged with nonviolent crimes. Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure 175 and 176 provide that it is the district attorney, exclusively, who determines which defendants are candidates for diversion. The author examines some of the more recent judicial attempts to define the proper scope of this discretionary power, as well as those attempting to determine the extent of prosecutorial power to deny expungement of a defendant\u27s arrest record following successful completion of the program

Defining Religious Discrimination in Employment: Has Reasonable Accommodation Survived \u3cem\u3eHardison\u3c/em\u3e?

Because the primary purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the elimination of racial discrimination, not surprisingly the Act\u27s legislative history left unclear the congressional intent of also including religion as an illegal ground for employment discrimination under Title VII. After 1964, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)\u27 and the courts struggled to interpret Title VII\u27s prohibition of religious discrimination. In 1972, Congress amended Title VII to explicitly protect religious conduct, as well as beliefs, provided the employer might reasonably accommodate the conduct without undue hardship to his business.\u27 In Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, however, the United States Supreme Court held that Title VII did not require an employer to accommodate employee Sabbatarian practices conflicting with the provisions of a bona fide seniority system. The Court interpreted the amended Title VII\u27s accommodation provision narrowly, holding, under a reverse religious discrimination rationale, that employers need not accommodate religious employees if the accommodation would discriminate against other employees.\u27 Regrettably, lower courts have oversimplified and inconsistently interpreted Hardison, once again confusing the measure of employers\u27 duty in religious discrimination cases