20,903 research outputs found

    Finding a closest point in a lattice of Voronoi's first kind

    Get PDF
    We show that for those lattices of Voronoi's first kind with known obtuse superbasis, a closest lattice point can be computed in O(n4)O(n^4) operations where nn is the dimension of the lattice. To achieve this a series of relevant lattice vectors that converges to a closest lattice point is found. We show that the series converges after at most nn terms. Each vector in the series can be efficiently computed in O(n3)O(n^3) operations using an algorithm to compute a minimum cut in an undirected flow network

    Are Quarterly Magazines Worthwhile?

    Get PDF
    When we had to clean our mailing list for the University of Nebraska Experiment Station Quarterly last fall, I took the opportunity to survey readership

    Alien Registration- Grant, Lillian I. (Crystal, Aroostook County)

    Get PDF
    https://digitalmaine.com/alien_docs/26552/thumbnail.jp

    Supervisors, Sex, and the Seventh Circuit: No Should Always Mean No

    Get PDF
    The Seventh Circuit in Tate v. Executive Management Services, Inc. faced the issue of whether an employee who rebuffs his supervisor\u27s sexual advances engaged in the kind of opposition to an unlawful employment practice protected by Title VII\u27s retaliation provision. The retaliation provision requires that an employee oppose any unlawful employment practice but does not define oppose. The Eighth Circuit has held that an employee engages the most basic form of protected activity by rebuffing a supervisor\u27s sexual advances. The Fifth Circuit, on the other hand, has found that an express rejection of a supervisorā€™s sexual advances does not qualify as opposition activity. The Seventh Circuit in Tate acknowledged the circuit split, declined to decide the issue, and decided the case on other grounds. The result of the Seventh Circuit\u27s decision in Tate, however, is that an employee who was given an ultimatum by his supervisor to choose between sex and his job, and was fired when he refused to sleep with his supervisor, was not protected under Title VII\u27s retaliation clause. This Comment explores this issue by examining the language of Title VII\u27s retaliation provision, the Supreme Court\u27s recent interpretation of the meaning of oppose in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn., the purposes behind the retaliation clause, and the practical implications of this issue. This Comment concludes that in most circumstances, an employee who rebuffs a supervisor\u27s sexual advances has opposed an unlawful employment practice and that by disregarding these concerns, the court\u27s result in Tate was incorrect

    Supervisors, Sex, and the Seventh Circuit: No Should Always Mean No

    Get PDF
    The Seventh Circuit in Tate v. Executive Management Services, Inc. faced the issue of whether an employee who rebuffs his supervisor\u27s sexual advances engaged in the kind of opposition to an unlawful employment practice protected by Title VII\u27s retaliation provision. The retaliation provision requires that an employee oppose any unlawful employment practice but does not define oppose. The Eighth Circuit has held that an employee engages the most basic form of protected activity by rebuffing a supervisor\u27s sexual advances. The Fifth Circuit, on the other hand, has found that an express rejection of a supervisorā€™s sexual advances does not qualify as opposition activity. The Seventh Circuit in Tate acknowledged the circuit split, declined to decide the issue, and decided the case on other grounds. The result of the Seventh Circuit\u27s decision in Tate, however, is that an employee who was given an ultimatum by his supervisor to choose between sex and his job, and was fired when he refused to sleep with his supervisor, was not protected under Title VII\u27s retaliation clause. This Comment explores this issue by examining the language of Title VII\u27s retaliation provision, the Supreme Court\u27s recent interpretation of the meaning of oppose in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn., the purposes behind the retaliation clause, and the practical implications of this issue. This Comment concludes that in most circumstances, an employee who rebuffs a supervisor\u27s sexual advances has opposed an unlawful employment practice and that by disregarding these concerns, the court\u27s result in Tate was incorrect
    • ā€¦
    corecore