How to Grow Strawberries in the Home Garden

PDF pages: 1

Top Quark Pairs at High Invariant Mass - A Model-Independent Discriminator of New Physics at the LHC

We study top quark pair production to probe new physics at the LHC. We propose reconstruction methods for $t\bar{t}$ semileptonic events and use them to reconstruct the $t\bar{t}$ invariant mass. The angular distribution of top quarks in their c.m. frame can determine the spin and production subprocess for each new physics resonance. Forward-backward asymmetry and CP-odd variables can be constructed to further delineate the nature of new physics. We parametrize the new resonances with a few generic parameters and show high invariant mass top pair production may provide an early indicator for new physics beyond the Standard Model.Comment: 5 pages, 4 figures; version to appear in PR

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SUCCESS OF FUEL ETHANOL PRODUCERS

Replaced with revised version of paper 08/24/04.Resource /Energy Economics and Policy,

Assessment of the environmental toxicity and carcinogenicity of tungsten-based shot.

The toxicity of elemental tungsten released from discharged shot was assessed against previous studies that established a 1% toxic threshold for soil organisms. Extremely heavy theoretical shot loadings of 69,000 shot/ha were used to generate estimated environmental concentrations (EEC) for two brands of tungsten-based shot containing 51% and 95% tungsten. The corresponding tungsten EEC values were 6.5–13.5 mg W/kg soil, far below the 1% toxic threshold. The same shot loading in water produced tungsten EEC values of 2.1–4.4 mg W/L, levels that are not toxic under experimental conditions. Pure tungsten has not been shown to exhibit carcinogenic properties when ingested or embedded in animal tissues, but nickel, with which it is often alloyed, has known carcinogenicity. Given the large number of waterfowl that carry shot embedded in their body, it is advisable to screen lead shot substitutes for their carcinogenic potential through intra-muscular implantation

Successorship and Collective Bargaining Agreements in Business Combinations and Acquisitions

Mergers, consolidations, and purchases of assets are important and frequent business transactions in our economy\u27 and involve a great deal of planning and negotiating by the enterprises concerned. Until recently,the rights of employees and their representative labor unions generally were not considered to be a factor in these plans. In 1964, however, the Supreme Court, in John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, held that common law privity-of-contract principles, which lower courts traditionally had invoked to preclude survival of employees\u27 rights, did not necessarily apply to collective bargaining agreements. Wiley was a nonunion corporation that had merged with a smaller unionized firm whose collective bargaining agreement contained a broad arbitration clause. The Court required Wiley to arbitrate the extent to which the agreement governed its responsibilities to the smaller company\u27s employees whom Wiley had hired. This decision was soon extended by lower federal courts to situations involving purchases of assets. The effect of Wiley and subsequent related cases has been to make the obligations of employers vis-a-vis their employees a significant consideration in planning business combinations and purchases. This article will examine the uncertain status of a new employer\u27s obligation to his employees after a change in business ownership and will analyze the impact that recent decisions will have on these important transactions

The eighteenth century discussion concerning the continuance of miracles after the apostolic age with special reference to the writings of Conyers Middleton

About the middle of the eighteenth century, an English theologian and Cambridge University Librarian, The Reverend Gonyers Middleton, D.D. (1683-17$0) presented three provocative works which challenged the position of the orthodox theologians that the genuine miraculous powers had continued in the Church for some time after the days of the Apostles. The title of the first publication, which appeared in April, 1747, states the conclusion that provoked a controversy An Introductory Discourse to a Larger Work, Designed Hereafter To Be Published Concerning the Miraculous Powers Which Are Supposed To Have Subsisted in the Christian Church from the Earliest Ages, through Several Successive Centuries: tending to show [sic] that we have no sufficient reason to believe upon the authority of the Primitive Fathers, that any such powers were continued to the Church after the Days of the Apostles. The second work, a brief publication which came off the, press in 1748, was entitled, Remarks on Two Pamphlets Lately Published, against Dr. Middleton's Introductory Discourse. The next year the third and fuller treatment was published: A Free Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers, Which Are Supposed To Have Subsisted in the Christian Church from the Earliest Ages, through Several Successive Centuries.The argument of these publications was in contradiction to the almost unanimous view of the English theologians that the Apostolic miraculous powers had continued through at least the first three centuries of the Church. The orthodox position was that the testimony of Scripture and that of the Fathers support the continuing of miracles, and other rational arguments are additional support. Middleton contended that these arguments are not adequate evidence, and, in fact, the testimony of the Fathers weighs against the miracles.Not only was Middleton's conclusion in disagreement with the traditional position, but his method of arriving at it was different. He used a historical method that was basically empirical and investigative, The tenor of theological discussion at his time was generally rationalistic. Rationalism had penetrated theology and had expended itself in reasonable Christianity. In connection with this penetration, the deistic controversy had developed, and in the course of this discussion, the orthodox; felt that they had satisfactorily defended both the reasonability of the Christian doctrines and the credibility of the miracles performed in confirmation of than. However, this was not the case. Many of the formerly reliable assumptions had been crippled, and several questions about the miracles had been left unanswered. Still, the sceptical note on which the controversy had ended aroused little further creative effort in defense of the freed.Middleton's publications were a postscript to the deistic discussions. He, along with David Hume(1711-1776), temporarily revived an interest in miracles, but enthusiasm for theological controversy was waning, and so only a few mediocre replies were offered to their bold criticism.This thesis examines Middleton's writings and evaluates the discussion which resulted over them. It begins by relating what his views were and how he presented them. Next comes a brief consideration of how he conflicted with the position of the traditional theologians, and how they reacted to his publications. This is followed by an Investigation of the background of theological discussion in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century in England, and a note about Middleton and his qualifications for undertaking his work* The next chapter, which concludes the first section of the thesis, looks at the various approaches which the theologians of the century were making to the question at hand.The second part of the thesis surveys the examination which Middleton made in support of his argument that the testimony on continuing miracles contains more fiction than fact.The third part discusses the effect which the controversy had on the ecclesiastical life and thought in England in the eighteenth century, and evaluates certain developments which have vindicated the method which Middleton suggested as legitimate and valuable in theological inquiry.Some value can be found in the discussion in the eighteenth century over continuing miracles, though it has to be looked for elsewhere than in the replies to Middleton} it has to be found, rather in the paths toward which his works pointed, than in the well-worn trails which his critics took