A Critical Analysis of the Wetback Problem

Automobilpalatset i Jönköping, ritat av byggnadsingenjör Birger Lindström, uppfördes under åren 1929-1930 och var ett av de första parkeringshusen i Sverige. Förutom parkering fanns det utställningshallar och bilförsäljning, service och bensinstation-långt före bilismen var en del av folks vardag. Efter rivningshot byggnadsminnesmärktes huset år 2001.   Idag finns andra affärsverksamheter i gatuplan, resterande våningar står relativt tomma och mycket nedgånga. Automobilpalatset ägs av kommunen och det finns för närvarande ingen plan för förändring.   Jag vill i mitt förslag addera människan till Automobilpalatset. Stadsbilden och synen på bilen har förändrats sedan 1930. Det är inte rimligt i dagens samhälle att frånta en stadskärna den potential som Automobilpalatset besitter genom att förvanska byggnaden och låta den stå mestadels tom. Det känns inte heller längre modernt att parkera bilar i ett så kallat palats. Den unika arkitektur och kontext som man hittar i byggnaden borde istället till större del  öppnas upp för allmänheten. Att få ta del av dessa fantastiska rum skulle vara en upplevelse för besökaren och möjliggöra en mer levande attraktiv stadsbild.   Gatubilden under kvällen skulle förändras av att de stora fönstren äntligen fick lysa upp av de boende vilket skulle trygga platsen såväl som synliggöra huset på ett nytt sätt. Byggnadens komplexa uppbyggnad med split-level-plan skapar speciella situationer. Flexibilitet och robusthet liksom tydliga industrifunkisvärden i struktur, rymd och materialitet präglar huset. Utmaningen ligger bland annat i den djupa huskroppens stora mörka ytor och i det att väga mellan nytt och gammalt.“Automobilpalatset” in Jönköping , designed by engineer Birger Lindstrom and built 1929-1930, was one of the first car parks in Sweden . In addition to parkingspace , there were showrooms and car sales , service and a petrol station - long before the car was a part of people's everyday lives. After threats of demolition the building was named a heritage, to be protected, in 2001.   Today, there is other business related spaces at street level , while the remaining floors are relatively empty and in very bad shape . Automobilpalatset is owned by the municipality and there is currently no plan for changes.   In my proposal I wan’t to add people to this place. Cityscape and the opinion of cars has changed since 1930. It is not reasonable in today's society to deprive a city center the potential that this buildning possesses by distorting the building and leaving it empty . It's no longer fashionable to park cars in a so-called palace. The unique architecture and context that one finds in the building ought instead to be opened up and public. To take part of this amazing place would be an experience for the visitor and allow for a more vibrant attractive cityscape. The large windows, finally lit up by residents, would change how the building is looked up-on. The building complex structures with a split-level-plan creates special situations. Flexibility and robustness as well as the industrustrial modernist values ​​in structure , space and materiality characterizes the house. The challenge in restoring it lies in the deep volume and large dark surfaces, and in balancing between new and old

Platforms, Power, and the Antitrust Challenge: A Modest Proposal to Narrow the U.S.-Europe Divide

Big platforms dominate the new economy landscape. Colloquially known as GAFA [Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple] or FAANG [Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google], the high tech big data companies are charged with using the power of their platforms to squelch start-ups, appropriate rivals’ ideas, and take and commercialize the personal data of their users. Are the platforms violating the antitrust laws? Should they be broken up? Or are they the agents of progress in the new economy? On these points, the United States antitrust law and the European Union competition law may diverge. The Competition Directorate-General of the European Commission has brought proceedings against or is investigating Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook. Germany, under its own competition law, has condemned Facebook’s conduct. Meanwhile, in the United States, authorities are skeptical, but they have commenced investigations. This Article is a comparative analysis of U.S. and EU law regarding monopolization/abuse of dominance as background to understanding why EU law is aggressive and U.S. law may be meek in the treatment of the big tech platforms. First, it examines the factors that underlie the two perspectives. Second, it considers three cases or problems—Google/Comparative Shopping (EU), Facebook-Personal Data (Germany), and dominant platforms’ acquisitions of start-ups that are inchoate competitive threats, such as Facebook’s acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram. The Article considers what lessons the latest Supreme Court antitrust decision, Ohio v. American Express (AmEx), holds for the analysis of the big data antitrust issues. Third, it asks what U.S. antitrust law and enforcement should do. It concludes that U.S. antitrust law should reclaim its role as watchdog to stop abuses of economic power, and makes suggestions for U.S. antitrust law to meet the big-platform challenge in a modest but meaningful and practicable way. I. Introduction II. A Brief Comparison of U.S. and EU Law of Monopolization/Abuse of Dominance ... A. The United States ... B. Europe ... C. Presumptions and Divergences III. Implications for High Tech, Big Data IV. Three Examples of Alleged Platform Abuse ... A. Google/Comparative Shopping ... 1. EU Law ... 2. U.S. Law ... B. Facebook—Abuse of Data ... 1. German Law ... 2. U.S. Law ... C. Start-Ups: Nipping Competition in the Bud V. Proposals VI. Conclusio

An analysis of sex differences in fifth-grade children's preferences for school subjects: a phase of the research project subject preferences of fifth-grade children

Thesis (Ed.M.)--Boston Universit

Activation of human NK cells by Plasmodium-infected red blood cells.

This chapter describes a protocol to assess activation of human NK cells following in vitro stimulation with malaria-infected red blood cells. Activation is assessed by flow cytometry, staining for cell surface expression of CD69 and accumulation of intracellular IFN-γ. Procedures are described for in vitro propagation and purification of Plasmodium falciparum parasites, separation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from heparinized blood by density centrifugation, in vitro culture of PBMC and for staining and analysis of PBMC by flow cytometry. Some examples of typical FACS plots are shown

Reporting on Risk: How the Mass Media Portray Accidents, Diseases, Disasters and Other Hazards

The authors summarize their large survey of hazard stories, showing that characteristics of news media affect risk presentation

Adjustment of fifth grade social studies material on Mexico for children reading below grade level

Thesis (Ed.M.)--Boston Universit

Reply to Norsen's paper "Are there really two different Bell's theorems?"

Yes. That is my polemical reply to the titular question in Travis Norsen's self-styled "polemical response to Howard Wiseman's recent paper." Less polemically, I am pleased to see that on two of my positions --- that Bell's 1964 theorem is different from Bell's 1976 theorem, and that the former does not include Bell's one-paragraph heuristic presentation of the EPR argument --- Norsen has made significant concessions. In his response, Norsen admits that "Bell's recapitulation of the EPR argument in [the relevant] paragraph leaves something to be desired," that it "disappoints" and is "problematic". Moreover, Norsen makes other statements that imply, on the face of it, that he should have no objections to the title of my recent paper ("The Two Bell's Theorems of John Bell"). My principle aim in writing that paper was to try to bridge the gap between two interpretational camps, whom I call 'operationalists' and 'realists', by pointing out that they use the phrase "Bell's theorem" to mean different things: his 1964 theorem (assuming locality and determinism) and his 1976 theorem (assuming local causality), respectively. Thus, it is heartening that at least one person from one side has taken one step on my bridge. That said, there are several issues of contention with Norsen, which we (the two authors) address after discussing the extent of our agreement with Norsen. The most significant issues are: the indefiniteness of the word 'locality' prior to 1964; and the assumptions Einstein made in the paper quoted by Bell in 1964 and their relation to Bell's theorem.Comment: 13 pages (arXiv version) in http://www.ijqf.org/archives/209