Search results

The purpose of this paper is to appreciate the futuristic trends of Big and Open Linked Data (BOLD). While designating the ongoing progress of BOLD as BOLD 0.0, the paper also identifies the trajectory of BOLD 0.0 as BOLD 1.0, BOLD 2.0 and BOLD 3.0 in terms of the complexity and management of data sets from different sources.

This is a viewpoint and the ideas presented here are personal.

The trajectory of BOLD shall witness ever-growing challenges as the nature and scope of data sets grow complicated. The paper posits that by the time BOLD would attain its maturity, there would be a need for newer technologies and data architecture platforms which are relatively affordable and available as “Open Source”, if possible.

Being exploratory in approach, this viewpoint presents a futuristic trend, which may or may not be valid. Nevertheless, there are significant practical implications for the academicians and practitioners to appreciate the likely challenges in the coming times for ensuring the sustainability of BOLD.

While there are a number of studies on BOLD, there are no studies which seek to propose the possible trends in BOLD’s progress. This paper seeks to plug this gap.

The online database of the second edition of the OED, combined with tools developed at the University of Waterloo, gives researchers a unique opportunity to explore the dictionary in depth and in ways that would either be impossible or too time consuming to contemplate by manual means. However, the OED database is an unusually complex reference text. It makes use of many technical terms and abbreviations, and employs numerous structural and typographical conventions to alert users to elements within entries. The author discusses the history and structure of the OED database as well as tools developed to manipulate the database. Four sample searches are discussed in an appendix to the article.

The purpose of this paper is to warn managers of the common missteps that can trip up strategy making and suggest how such pitfalls can be avoided.

Based on their experience and research, the authors identify seven key mistakes and describe the best practices that companies can follow.

The article offers a sophisticated how‐to process managers can use to seek a basis for advantage, say “no” to trying to do everything, focus on long‐term‐value creation, factor in competitor reactions, balance ambitious bets with caution, understand the organization's capabilities, and link vision to execution.

By avoiding these seven basic missteps managers can stay on the path to strategic success.

The authors highlight the best practices for making more effective strategic choices in an easy‐to‐remember and easy‐to‐teach format.

I SUSPECT that we praisers of past times, we who walk in spirit with the mighty bookmen of bygone days, are now somewhat in the minority. That being so, it was a heightened pleasure to hit upon Mr. Phipps Hemming's delightful gossip on Richard Heber in a recent number of the Review. We admire Richard, I make bold to say, far more than we admire the probably more worthy Reginald. Decidedly the former's labours—whether or not pointless and mistaken—deserve not to be forgotten. Father of all the “second copy” and “duplicate” men he undoubtedly was: yet he somehow contrived to leave a healthy tradition behind him. For Richard Heber was no mere accumulator, but an appreciative scholar and a cultured gentleman beside. Long may his name be remembered, even in times when his “three copy” rule has fallen into derision.

The traditional literature dealing with statistical decision problems usually assumes that previous information about an associated experiment may be expressed by means of conditional probabilistic information, and the actual experimental outcomes can be perceived with exactness by the statistician. We now consider statistical decision problems satisfying the first assumption above, so that the actual available information cannot be exactly perceived, but rather it may be assimilated with fuzzy information (as defined by Zadeh et al.).

The US fossil fuel industry is vulnerable to opposition from other sectors of the ruling class. Non-fossil fuel capitalists might conclude that climate breakdown jeopardizes their interests. State actors such as judges, regulators, and politicians may come to the same conclusion. However, these other elite actors are unlikely to take concerted collective action against fossil fuels in the absence of growing disruption by grassroots activists. Drawing from the history of the Obama, Trump, and Biden presidencies, I analyze the forces determining government climate policies and private-sector investments. I focus on how the climate and Indigenous movements have begun to force changes in the behavior of certain ruling-class interests. Of particular importance is these movements' progress in two areas: eroding the financial sector's willingness to fund and insure fossil fuels, and influencing judges and regulators to take actions that further undermine investors' confidence in fossil fuels. Our future hinges largely on whether the movements can build on these victories while expanding their base within labor unions and other strategically positioned sectors.

A new environmental management system is touted as a vaccine against command and control regulation. But does the reality match the hype?

Man has been seeking an ideal existence for a very long time. In this existence, justice, love, and peace are no longer words, but actual experiences. How ever, with the American preemptive invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and the subsequent prisoner abuse, such an existence seems to be farther and farther away from reality. The purpose of this work is to stop this dangerous trend by promoting justice, love, and peace through a change of the paradigm that is inconsistent with justice, love, and peace. The strong paradigm that created the strong nation like the U.S. and the strong man like George W. Bush have been the culprit, rather than the contributor, of the above three universal ideals. Thus, rather than justice, love, and peace, the strong paradigm resulted in in justice, hatred, and violence. In order to remove these three and related evils, what the world needs in the beginning of the third millenium is the weak paradigm. Through the acceptance of the latter paradigm, the golden mean or middle paradigm can be formulated, which is a synergy of the weak and the strong paradigm. In order to understand properly the meaning of these paradigms, however, some digression appears necessary.