THE RATE OF BINARY BLACK HOLE MERGERS INFERRED FROM ADVANCED LIGO OBSERVATIONS SURROUNDING GW150914

A transient gravitational-wave signal, GW150914, was identi fi ed in the twin Advanced LIGO detectors on 2015 September 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC. To asse ss the implications of this discovery, the detectors remained in operation with unchanged con fi gurations over a period of 39 days around the time of t he signal. At the detection statistic threshold corresponding to that observed for GW150914, our search of the 16 days of simultaneous two-detector observational data is estimated to have a false-alarm rate ( FAR ) of < ́ -- 4.9 10 yr 61 , yielding a p -value for GW150914 of < ́ - 210 7 . Parameter estimation follo w-up on this trigger identi fi es its source as a binary black hole ( BBH ) merger with component masses ( )( ) = - + - + mm M ,36,29 12 4 5 4 4 at redshift = - + z 0.09 0.04 0.03 ( median and 90% credible range ) . Here, we report on the constraints these observations place on the rate of BBH coalescences. Considering only GW150914, assuming that all BBHs in the universe have the same masses and spins as this event, imposing a search FAR threshold of 1 per 100 years, and assuming that the BBH merger rate is constant in the comoving frame, we infer a 90% credible range of merger rates between – -- 2 53 Gpc yr 31 ( comoving frame ) . Incorporating all search triggers that pass a much lower threshold while accounting for the uncerta inty in the astrophysical origin of each trigger, we estimate a higher rate, ranging from – -- 13 600 Gpc yr 31 depending on assumptions about the BBH mass distribution. All together, our various rate estimat es fall in the conservative range – -- 2 600 Gpc yr 31

The Fifteenth Amendment of the Irish Constitution Act 1995

peer-reviewedThe Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution Act 1995 removed the ban on divorce from the Irish Constitution. It was the second attempt at removing the ban; the first in 1986, ended with a substantial victory for the no-divorce campaigners. This was perhaps surprising: by the 1980s, Ireland stood apart; most other Western countries had long since introduced divorce laws. When the referendum came, one would have assumed that there would be a strong vote for divorce in Ireland. In fact, the proposal was easily defeated and the majority (including the majority of women) voted against removing the ban in 1986. By the time of the second referendum in 1995, a number of changes had taken place which had liberalised laws and altered attitudes to women. For example, women had won the right to sit on juries, and to use contraception, marital rape had been criminalised, gender discrimination had been legislated for, Mary Robinson had been elected as President of Ireland, and the Irish Supreme Court had allowed a 14-year-old rape victim to travel abroad for an abortion. 1 The 1995 campaign was presented as a women’s rights issue and a continuation of the fight for freedom of choice for women and while the proposal passed with only the narrowest of margins, the victory demonstrates, in a microcosmic sense, that the position and status of women in modern Ireland had changed forever.Not peer reviewe

Disciplining judges: The special position of district court judges

The only type of discipline provided for under the Constitution is removal.2 So theoretically, if a judge at Supreme, High or Circuit Court level in Ireland misbehaves, the only punishment available is to remove him/her from office. However, various provisions have been introduced since the beginning of the last century in order to provide some system for disciplining District Court judges. The first provision was introduced as part of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924.3PUBLISHEDpeer-reviewe