Pattern Formation of Ion Channels with State Dependent Electrophoretic Charges and Diffusion Constants in Fluid Membranes

A model of mobile, charged ion channels in a fluid membrane is studied. The channels may switch between an open and a closed state according to a simple two-state kinetics with constant rates. The effective electrophoretic charge and the diffusion constant of the channels may be different in the closed and in the open state. The system is modeled by densities of channel species, obeying simple equations of electro-diffusion. The lateral transmembrane voltage profile is determined from a cable-type equation. Bifurcations from the homogeneous, stationary state appear as hard-mode, soft-mode or hard-mode oscillatory transitions within physiologically reasonable ranges of model parameters. We study the dynamics beyond linear stability analysis and derive non-linear evolution equations near the transitions to stationary patterns.Comment: 10 pages, 7 figures, will be submitted to Phys. Rev.

A Call for Stricter Appellate Review of Decisions on Forum Non Conveniens

Forum non conveniens has been criticized as anachronistic and unfair. Critics say that it amounts to little more than economic protectionism, serving as a pretext for the dismissal of suits brought against domestic corporate defendants. Even if one does not view the doctrine as inherently flawed, it is undeniable that its application has been extremely uneven owing to the broad discretion exercised by district courts’ ruling on the issue. Troubling in any circumstances, the misapplication of forum non conveniens is all the more so because of the high stakes at issue in such matters. When a case is dismissed for forum non conveniens, it usually goes away for good. Against this background, I argue that the appellate courts should adopt a stricter standard of review for decisions on forum non conveniens. The basic rubric (abuse of discretion) should remain, but appellate courts should apply this standard with heightened scrutiny in light of the serious consequences of the underlying decision. The courts have done so in the analogous context of rulings on class certification. Doing so in the context of forum non conveniens would significantly curb abuse, all the while demonstrating to litigants and the broader community that the judiciary understands the importance of these decisions in today’s world

On-line planning and scheduling: an application to controlling modular printers

We present a case study of artificial intelligence techniques applied to the control of production printing equipment. Like many other real-world applications, this complex domain requires high-speed autonomous decision-making and robust continual operation. To our knowledge, this work represents the first successful industrial application of embedded domain-independent temporal planning. Our system handles execution failures and multi-objective preferences. At its heart is an on-line algorithm that combines techniques from state-space planning and partial-order scheduling. We suggest that this general architecture may prove useful in other applications as more intelligent systems operate in continual, on-line settings. Our system has been used to drive several commercial prototypes and has enabled a new product architecture for our industrial partner. When compared with state-of-the-art off-line planners, our system is hundreds of times faster and often finds better plans. Our experience demonstrates that domain-independent AI planning based on heuristic search can flexibly handle time, resources, replanning, and multiple objectives in a high-speed practical application without requiring hand-coded control knowledge

Assuming Too Much: An Analysis of Brown v. Sanders

This Casenote analyzes the majority and dissenting opinions in Sanders in an attempt to determine which Justice, if any, offers and satisfying solution to the problem of death sentences partially based on subsequently invalidated factors. It argues that, while the dissenting opinions leave something to be desired, Justice Scalia\u27s majority opinion is unacceptable because it treats too lightly the real possibility that a jury may choose death due to the role played by a subsequently invalidated sentencing factor. In response, this Note offers an alternate approach-one that would accommodate the needs of judicial economy while simultaneously protecting against the substantial risks that Scalia erroneously ignores

Between the Circle and the Line: Ibn Khaldun’s View of History and Change

Historians from many different eras and contexts have viewed history and historical change as either linear or circular in nature. Giambattista Vico (d. 1744 CE), the Italian philosopher and historian, organized history in a cyclical way as different nations and peoples rise and fall. At the same time, according to Vico (2000), humanity was destined towards equity. Sima Qian of China (d. 86 BCE) viewed the past as a series of circular attempts to restore the Mandate of Heaven and consolidate central power, attempts that were then followed by breakdowns into feudal states (Qian, 1995). For Qian, history seemed to favor evildoers as much as followers of Confucian principles; historians therefore had a moral duty to bring justice to the past. Leopold von Ranke (d. 1886) was the originator of modern, primary source-based historical science in Europe. He promoted a largely linear, narrative view of the past. Change occurred at a granular level. Events and peoples of the past should be described for their own sake, not as a tool for understanding or reifying a larger philosophical, moralistic, or deistic destiny (von Ranke, 2010). More recently, the French historian Fernand Braudel (d. 1985) combined both linear and the broader cyclical approaches. For Braudel, history occurred on different levels. There was the past of the long term, which tended towards patterns determined by geography, and the short term, which was more linear and event dependent (Braudel, 1996). Today, historians are sharply divided between progressivists and Marxists who see humanity on a line towards some destiny that will embrace a global vision, and relativists and determinists who view the modern and the postmodern system as a particular cultural artefact of the West, doomed to collapse and be replaced, in the optimistic view, by a cosmopolitan vision. For pessimists, however, the replacement of the West will be far more traumatic (Appiah 2019; Fukuyama, 2006, 2018; Pinker, 2019)

Equal Standing with States: Tribal Sovereignty and Standing after \u3ci\u3eMassachusetts v. EPA\u3c/i\u3e

In Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court held that Massachusetts was entitled to special solicitude in the standing analysis because it was sovereign. As a result, Massachusetts passed the standing threshold in a global warming case where an ordinary litigant may have been stymied. The Supreme Court’s analysis raises an interesting question: Are Indian tribes—which have been considered sovereign entities since before the founding, and which hold lands facing heavy environmental pressure—entitled to special solicitude as well? We think they should be. To make this argument, we begin by discussing standing basics; dissecting Massachusetts v. EPA; and reaching conclusions about the case’s driving principles. We conclude that one of the main reasons states get special solicitude is because they have, through federal preemption, lost much of their regulatory power. We then discuss the nature and scope of Indian sovereignty, canvassing the historical and legal narrative and where things stand today. We also note some of the key similarities and points of distinction between tribal and state sovereignty. From there, we put it all together, arguing that tribes (as sovereign entities) should enjoy the same special solicitude given to states in the standing context. We conclude that tribes are on the whole better positioned to advocate for environmental causes, making the case all the stronger for enhanced tribal standing

Choosing a Court to Review the Executive

For more than one hundred years, Congress has experimented with review of agency action by single-judge district courts, multiple-judge district courts, and direct review by circuit courts. This tinkering has not given way to a stable design. Rather than settling on a uniform scheme—or at least a scheme with a discernible organizing principle— Congress has left litigants with a jurisdictional maze that varies unpredictably across and within statutes and agencies. In this Article, we offer a fresh look at the theoretical and empirical factors that ought to inform the allocation of the judicial power between district and circuit courts in suits challenging agency action. We conclude that the current scheme is both incoherent and, to the extent it favors direct review by circuit courts, unjustified. We conclude that initial review by district courts is, in general, the better option, and a clear divide is preferable to the ad hoc approach that Congress has favored. Along the way, we offer a new analytical framework for deciding which court should review the Executive

Choosing a Court to Review the Executive

For more than one hundred years, Congress has experimented with review of agency action by single-judge district courts, multiple-judge district courts, and direct review by circuit courts. This tinkering has not given way to a stable design. Rather than settling on a uniform scheme—or at least a scheme with a discernible organizing principle— Congress has left litigants with a jurisdictional maze that varies unpredictably across and within statutes and agencies. In this Article, we offer a fresh look at the theoretical and empirical factors that ought to inform the allocation of the judicial power between district and circuit courts in suits challenging agency action. We conclude that the current scheme is both incoherent and, to the extent it favors direct review by circuit courts, unjustified. We conclude that initial review by district courts is, in general, the better option, and a clear divide is preferable to the ad hoc approach that Congress has favored. Along the way, we offer a new analytical framework for deciding which court should review the Executive