Music in Tolkien\u27s Works and Beyond (2019), edited by Julian Eilmann and Friedhelm Schneidewind

Book review, by Will Sherwood, of Music in the Works of Tolkien and Beyond (2019) edited by Julian Eilmann and Friedhelm Schneidewin

The Quasi-Steady State Assumption in an Enzymatically Open System

The quasi-steady state assumption (QSSA) forms the basis for rigorous mathematical justification of the Michaelis-Menten formalism commonly used in modeling a broad range of intracellular phenomena. A critical supposition of QSSA-based analyses is that the underlying biochemical reaction is enzymatically "closed," so that free enzyme is neither added to nor removed from the reaction over the relevant time period. Yet there are multiple circumstances in living cells under which this assumption may not hold, e.g. during translation of genetic elements or metabolic regulatory events. Here we consider a modified version of the most basic enzyme-catalyzed reaction which incorporates enzyme input and removal. We extend the QSSA to this enzymatically "open" system, computing inner approximations to its dynamics, and we compare the behavior of the full open system, our approximations, and the closed system under broad range of kinetic parameters. We also derive conditions under which our new approximations are provably valid; numerical simulations demonstrate that our approximations remain quite accurate even when these conditions are not satisfied. Finally, we investigate the possibility of damped oscillatory behavior in the enzymatically open reaction.Comment: 28 pages, 12 figure

Music in Tolkien\u27s Works and Beyond (2019), edited by Julian Eilmann and Friedhelm Schneidewind

Book review, by Will Sherwood, of Music in the Works of Tolkien and Beyond (2019) edited by Julian Eilmann and Friedhelm Schneidewin

Lesson Book: Piano

A Music Lesson Book for the correspondence courses offered through the Siegel-Myers Correspondence School of Music. Lessons: Piano, number 1 through 20https://digitalcommons.colum.edu/sherwood_smcs/1009/thumbnail.jp

Municipal Corporations: Contracts in Perpetuum

In 1905 the newly organized University of Florida was looking for a home. By statute the Board of Control was empowered to choose the site, and in so choosing, to take donations offered by municipalities wishing to be chosen. Through its Citizen\u27s Committee (an unofficial body with no real authority), the City of Gainesville, Florida, offered, in addition to substantial donations of buildings and lands, to furnish water to the University free of charge. The offer was accepted; the University of Florida, with an enrollment of 135 students, set up blackboards in Gainesville (population 3,633), and water began flowing through University pipes. The instant case was brought by the City of Gainesville, praying for a declaration of rights under the contract. In the interim between the “donation” and the suit, enrollment of the University had increased to 11,000 students. The City (population 26,861) alleged it had floated revenue bonds for its present waterworks, the revenue from the waterworks was insufficient to retire the bonds, new facilities were needed, but new bonds could not be sold under the present situation. The City’s contentions were: (1) the “Citizen’s Committee” had no authority to make the contract, and the contract, “ultra vires” in its inception, could not be ratified by subsequent actions of the City; (2) the term of the contract being indefinite, it was (a) void as against public policy as being “perpetual,” or (b) if construed as being for a “reasonable time,” the “reasonable time” had expired sometime during the past forty-five years; and (3) the present size of the University was not contemplated at the time the contract was made, and, as the contract places an uncontemplated burden upon the City of considerable magnitude, the City should be relieved from the contract. Held: Affirmed, the contract is enforceable

Are We Helping? A Discussion of the Effects of TRIO Program Intervention on K - 12 Appalachian Seniors: RESEARCH

Postsecondary education is quickly becoming a requirement for many flourishing and emerging career fields. Because of this, an increased focused on postsecondary enrollment and attainment has been seen in the education community, particularly in K-12 education systems. To that end, a large number of programs and organizations have begun to provide academic and college preparation assistance to these students in the form of academic advising, college coaching, and personal enrichment. Since the enactment of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, there has been a burgeoning population of such programs like the TRIO family. This article focuses on a group of graduating high school students who were participants in such a TRIO program. Their academic metrics as well as factors like demographics and TRIO program participation were examined, and although these results will not be a component of this work, they prompted additional questions concerning what could be done to provide more effective support for these students. Concurrently, suggestions for policy were provided and include an increased focus on individual student contact and mentoring relationships, as well as a stronger focus on academic preparation in line with the academic metrics measured in this study

The Final Judgment Rule and Appellate Review of Discovery Orders in Nebraska

In Lund v. Holbrook the Nebraska Supreme Court held that no appeal could be taken until after final judgment from an order requiring a party to turn over documents to his opponent for inspection and copying. The basis for the decision was a statute limiting the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court to the review of a “judgment rendered or final order.” “Final order” is defined by statute as one which “ . . . in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment.” The same rule would undoubtedly by applied to any other discovery order in Nebraska. This “final judgment” rule exists in some form in almost every state. The application of the rule in Lund v. Holbrook is in line with the rulings of the majority of states as to discovery orders. The purpose of the rule is to reduce the volume of appeals which would, in the absence of the rule, clog the calendars of appellate courts and cause interminable delay in litigation. Many states have modified the final judgment rule by statute to allow immediate appeal from specified orders which are not reviewable under the majority rule until after final judgment. The reason for these modifications may be either that the final judgment rule does not fulfill its purposes, or that the assumption underlying the rule (i.e., that the effect of any error on the part of the trial court can be remedied by a new trial) has proved to be untrue. The decision in Lund v. Holbrook illustrates another type of order, the discovery order, which may be worthy of consideration as justifying a departure from the final judgment rule. We propose to examine: (a) the effect of the final judgment rule in cases involving discovery orders, to determine whether departure from the final judgment rule is justified, (b) the means presently existing in Nebraska for avoiding the effect of the final judgment rule as to discovery orders, and (c) the desirability of, and possibilities for statutory modification of the final judgment rule as to discovery orders in Nebraska