Heat conduction in graphene flakes with inhomogeneous mass interface

Using nonequilibrium molecular dynamics simulations, we study the heat conduction in graphene flakes composed by two regions. One region is mass-loaded and the other one is intact. It is found that the mass interface between the two regions greatly decreases the thermal conductivity, but it would not bring thermal rectification effect. The dependence of thermal conductivity upon the heat flux and the mass difference ratio are studied to confirm the generality of the result. The interfacial scattering of solitons is studied to explain the absence of rectification effect.Comment: 5 pages, 4 figure

Demonstrations, Security Zones, and First Amendment Protection of Special Places

There has been a marked increase in government suppression of public protests and demonstrations. Certain areas, such as public space near the White House, have been effectively placed off limits to demonstrators. Protestors are put out of sight, down the road, or otherwise away from the object of their protest. The Secret Service has created security zones insulating the President and his entourage from the sights and sounds of opposition marches and demonstrations. And police are using sophisticated tactics, such as surveillance, infiltration, disinformation, and pre-emptive arrests to undermine and frustrate the ability of protestors to conduct their marches and send their message to the larger public. While it may seem that 9/11 and the war on terrorism would make these actions more defensible than they might otherwise be, actually the opposite is true. Most of the demonstrations affected by government suppression tactics are just those troublesome popular risings - opposition to war, globalization economics, and loss of privacy and freedom - that serve to check government overreaching but which may find little outlet in mainstream forms of communication. Yet First Amendment doctrine, in particular the time, place, and manner test, has become too flabby and unstable to reliably counter the government\u27s sophisticated dilution of public dissent. To protect rights of protest and to restore integrity to the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition for redress of grievances, this symposium paper argues for rejecting the rigid dichotomy between content control and time, place and manner control, recasting of the time, place, and manner test as it relates to protests and demonstrations, and recognition of a First Amendment doctrine of special places

Demonstrations, Security Zones, and First Amendment Protection of Special Places

There has been a marked increase in government suppression of public protests and demonstrations. Certain areas, such as public space near the White House, have been effectively placed off limits to demonstrators. Protestors are put out of sight, down the road, or otherwise away from the object of their protest. The Secret Service has created security zones insulating the President and his entourage from the sights and sounds of opposition marches and demonstrations. And police are using sophisticated tactics, such as surveillance, infiltration, disinformation, and pre-emptive arrests to undermine and frustrate the ability of protestors to conduct their marches and send their message to the larger public. While it may seem that 9/11 and the war on terrorism would make these actions more defensible than they might otherwise be, actually the opposite is true. Most of the demonstrations affected by government suppression tactics are just those troublesome popular risings - opposition to war, globalization economics, and loss of privacy and freedom - that serve to check government overreaching but which may find little outlet in mainstream forms of communication. Yet First Amendment doctrine, in particular the time, place, and manner test, has become too flabby and unstable to reliably counter the government\u27s sophisticated dilution of public dissent. To protect rights of protest and to restore integrity to the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition for redress of grievances, this symposium paper argues for rejecting the rigid dichotomy between content control and time, place and manner control, recasting of the time, place, and manner test as it relates to protests and demonstrations, and recognition of a First Amendment doctrine of special places

Should Lawyers Participate in Rigged Systems: The Case of the Military Commissions

Lawyers often represent clients when the odds are long or a catastrophe likely. The facts might be harmful, the evidence overwhelming, or the law clearly on the side of the opponent. Still, we do the best we can. But what if the system is rigged? What if the system has the trappings of a fair fight, but is, in fact, skewed to one side and, by design, the lawyer cannot fully defend the client? What if the lawyer can only lend legitimacy to a process that at its core is biased, slanted in favor of the other side, or fundamentally unfair? Indeed what if the system is arranged to prevent the lawyer from zealously representing the client or compromises the lawyer\u27s undivided loyalty to the client? Should lawyers refuse to participate in such systems, or should they, should we, still do the best we can? These questions were at the heart of a debate among civilian lawyers who considered whether to represent the enemy combatants facing trial by military commissions in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Most prominently, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers advised its members that it would be unethical to represent an accused before the military commissions because the conditions imposed would make it impossible to provide adequate or ethical representation. This article argues in favor of the NACDL position and, in so doing, lays bare the complexity of the question of non-participation and the factors that can push in one direction or the other. Although the circumstances surrounding civilian participation in the military commission trials are quite unusual, this is not the first time that lawyers have had to face the dilemma of participation or non-participation, and historical examples are identified