Foreign LANDSAT station charge study

There are no author-identified significant results in this report

Selecting band combinations with thematic mapper data

A problem arises in making color composite images because there are 210 different possible color presentations of TM three-band images. A method is given for reducing that 210 to a single choice, decided by the statistics of a scene or subscene, and taking into full account any correlations that exist between different bands. Instead of using total variance as the measure for information content of the band triplets, the ellipsoid of maximum volume is selected which discourages selection of bands with high correlation. The band triplet is obtained by computing and ranking in order the determinants of each 3 x 3 principal submatrix of the original matrix M. After selection of the best triplet, the assignment of colors is made by using the actual variances (the diagonal elements of M): green (maximum variance), red (second largest variance), blue (smallest variance)

Does Work Stress Predict the Occurrence of Cold, Flu and Minor Illness Symptoms in Clinical Psychology Trainees?

Objectives: The present study examined the three/four-day lagged relationship between daily work stress and upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) and other minor illness symptoms. Methods: Twenty-four postgraduate clinical psychology trainees completed work stress, cold/flu symptoms and somatic symptoms checklists daily for four weeks. Results: Increases in work stress were observed two days prior to a cold/flu episode but not three or four days preceding a cold/flu episode. Work stress was unrelated to peaks in somatic symptom reporting. Conclusions: There was some evidence of a lagged relationship between work stress and symptoms, but not of the expected duration, suggesting that the relationship between work stress and URTI symptoms was not mediated by the immune system

ERTS-1 analysis in the Monterey Bay Area, using digital tapes

There are no author-identified significant results in this report

SOME EVIDENCE ON THE DECLINING EFFECT OF FARM CONSOLIDATION ON FARM REAL ESTATE PRICES

Land Economics/Use,

Congress Prescribes Preemption of State Tort-Reform Laws to Remedy Healthcare Crisis : An Improper Prognosis?

Say what you want about the tort-reform debate, but it has staying power. Over the last half-century, legislators and commentators have extensively debated every aspect of tort reform and the litigation crisis arguably giving rise to it, without resolving much of anything. Despite this ideological stalemate, tort-reform proponents have managed to push measures through every state legislature. With fifty tries come fifty results, and for the most part, fifty failures. But have all these efforts been in vain? As of yet, no. Although the healthcare system does not appear to be improving, the numerous tort-reform measures states have adopted provide valuable insight into the litigation crisis, even (perhaps especially) when those measures have no effect. But Congress is impatient, one of its many child-like qualities. In June 2017, the United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 1215—The Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017 (PACA). If enacted, PACA would impose comprehensive tort reform on states and, in many cases, preempt similar state laws currently in effect. For many legislators, regardless of political affiliation, this understandably raises federalism concerns. To appease these concerns, PACA\u27s drafters included provisions that appear deferential to similar state laws. However, when considered in context with the rest of the bill, PACA would likely preempt many state tort-reform provisions. This Article focuses on two PACA sections—the affidavit-of-merit section and the expert-witness-qualifications section. PACA adopts both sections from existing state statutes that have proven controversial and resulted in arguably absurd results. By analyzing state approaches in both areas, this Article concludes that these sections of PACA would preempt all similar state laws, setting a uniform federal standard. This uniformity, however, would come at a high price—an unprecedented encroachment on states’ rights in an area of traditional state regulation. Further, the inequitable and absurd results occurring in these states would occur nationwide if PACA is enacted

Congress Prescribes Preemption of State Tort-Reform Laws to Remedy Healthcare Crisis : An Improper Prognosis?

Say what you want about the tort-reform debate, but it has staying power. Over the last half-century, legislators and commentators have extensively debated every aspect of tort reform and the litigation crisis arguably giving rise to it, without resolving much of anything. Despite this ideological stalemate, tort-reform proponents have managed to push measures through every state legislature. With fifty tries come fifty results, and for the most part, fifty failures. But have all these efforts been in vain? As of yet, no. Although the healthcare system does not appear to be improving, the numerous tort-reform measures states have adopted provide valuable insight into the litigation crisis, even (perhaps especially) when those measures have no effect. But Congress is impatient, one of its many child-like qualities. In June 2017, the United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 1215—The Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017 (PACA). If enacted, PACA would impose comprehensive tort reform on states and, in many cases, preempt similar state laws currently in effect. For many legislators, regardless of political affiliation, this understandably raises federalism concerns. To appease these concerns, PACA\u27s drafters included provisions that appear deferential to similar state laws. However, when considered in context with the rest of the bill, PACA would likely preempt many state tort-reform provisions. This Article focuses on two PACA sections—the affidavit-of-merit section and the expert-witness-qualifications section. PACA adopts both sections from existing state statutes that have proven controversial and resulted in arguably absurd results. By analyzing state approaches in both areas, this Article concludes that these sections of PACA would preempt all similar state laws, setting a uniform federal standard. This uniformity, however, would come at a high price—an unprecedented encroachment on states’ rights in an area of traditional state regulation. Further, the inequitable and absurd results occurring in these states would occur nationwide if PACA is enacted

Congress Prescribes Preemption of State Tort-Reform Laws to Remedy Healthcare Crisis : An Improper Prognosis?

Say what you want about the tort-reform debate, but it has staying power. Over the last half-century, legislators and commentators have extensively debated every aspect of tort reform and the litigation crisis arguably giving rise to it, without resolving much of anything. Despite this ideological stalemate, tort-reform proponents have managed to push measures through every state legislature. With fifty tries come fifty results, and for the most part, fifty failures. But have all these efforts been in vain? As of yet, no. Although the healthcare system does not appear to be improving, the numerous tort-reform measures states have adopted provide valuable insight into the litigation crisis, even (perhaps especially) when those measures have no effect. But Congress is impatient, one of its many child-like qualities. In June 2017, the United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 1215—The Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017 (PACA). If enacted, PACA would impose comprehensive tort reform on states and, in many cases, preempt similar state laws currently in effect. For many legislators, regardless of political affiliation, this understandably raises federalism concerns. To appease these concerns, PACA\u27s drafters included provisions that appear deferential to similar state laws. However, when considered in context with the rest of the bill, PACA would likely preempt many state tort-reform provisions. This Article focuses on two PACA sections—the affidavit-of-merit section and the expert-witness-qualifications section. PACA adopts both sections from existing state statutes that have proven controversial and resulted in arguably absurd results. By analyzing state approaches in both areas, this Article concludes that these sections of PACA would preempt all similar state laws, setting a uniform federal standard. This uniformity, however, would come at a high price—an unprecedented encroachment on states’ rights in an area of traditional state regulation. Further, the inequitable and absurd results occurring in these states would occur nationwide if PACA is enacted

Contribution of LANDSAT-4 thematic mapper data to geologic exploration

The increased number of carefully selected narrow spectral bands and the increased spatial resolution of thematic mapper data over previously available satellite data contribute greatly to geologic exploration, both by providing spectral information that permits lithologic differentiation and recognition of alteration and spatial information that reveals structure. As vegetation and soil cover increase, the value of spectral components of TM data decreases relative to the value of the spatial component of the data. However, even in vegetated areas, the greater spectral breadth and discrimination of TM data permits improved recognition and mapping of spatial elements of the terrain. As our understanding of the spectral manifestations of the responses of soils and vegetation to unusual chemical environments increases, the value of spectral components of TM data to exploration will greatly improve in covered areas