Search results

Map of this detour: This is one of a series of detours compelled by consideration of inheritance law as an aspect of cultural transmission. ¹ This course draws attention to three problematic time forms (temporalities) through which the “self” and its relations with history are often written and read. These implicit time forms are all too common and all too easily go unrecognized. Each involves the illusion of some kind of exalted and immediate convergence between the self (the subject) and an object of exaggerated importance to this self (the world, the universe, the metaphysical or artistic beyond, the origin, etc.). Three figures are explored here: that of Hercules in Hegel’s Aesthetics, and those of Adrian and Breisacher in Thomas Mann’s Doctor Faustus. Each of these invites attention to a different temporality through which an exalted convergence may be imagined: the first involves a fantasy of immediate belonging to the whole of history, the second, that of escape forward from history (toward a self-created “ultimate” object), and the third, that of return to fullness in origin (before history). This detour also suggests ways of reading history (including “reading for mana through glances,” which will be explained) that protect against the problems just described. The detour closes considering implications of all of the above for U.S. inheritance law. The tutor text for this last leg is François Mauriac’s Le noeud de vipères.

In this article, we survey experiments that are directly related to monetary policy and central banking. We argue that experiments can also be used as a tool for central bankers for bench testing policy measures or rules. We distinguish experiments that analyze the reasons for non-neutrality of monetary policy, experiments in which subjects play the role of central bankers, experiments that analyze the role of central bank communication and its implications, experiments on the optimal implementation of monetary policy, and experiments relevant for monetary policy responses to financial crises. Finally, we mention open issues and raise new avenues for future research.

SD is defined as a failure to sense correctly the attitude, motion, and/or position of the aircraft with respect to the surface of the earth (Benson, 2003). The types of SD are generally thought to be “unrecognized” and “recognized” (Previc & Ercoline, 2004). Although a third type has been reported (incapacitating), this type seems irrelevant to UAV operations. Unrecognized SD occurs when the person at the controls is unaware that a change in the motion/attitude of the aircraft has taken place. The cause is often the result of a combination of sub-threshold motion and inattention. This type of SD is known to be the single most serious human factors reason for aircraft accidents today, accounting for roughly 90% of all known SD-related mishaps (Davenport, 2000). Recognized SD occurs when a noticeable conflict is created between the actual motion/attitude of the aircraft and any one of the common physiological sensory mechanisms (e.g., visual, vestibular, auditory, and tactile). Recognized SD is the most common type of SD, accounting for the remaining SD-related accidents.

In a knowledge-based global economy driven by the sciences and engineering (S&E), the most valuable resources are human resources. Traditionally, the United States met shortages of S&E talent by importing it from abroad; however, this solution has been rendered no longer viable by geo-political changes coupled with other nations' successfully competing for S&E talent. The decrease in the availability of external S&E talent coupled with changing demographics of the US population overall have been the catalysts for shifting focus to developing internal talent – especially from groups that have historically under participated in the S&E workforces – African Americans, Mexican-Americans, Native Americans/Native Pacific Islanders, and Puerto Ricans. It is important not to fall prey to the illusion of inclusion – that is to assume that the increases in the numbers of S&E degrees earned by African Americans are reflected in the composition of the S&E professoriate. The purpose of this chapter is to provide compelling arguments for increasing and enhancing African American participation on S&E faculties; systematically analyze differences by gender and broad field in the rates of participation of African Americans on science and engineering faculties of colleges and universities in the United States; and to discuss the implications of these differences for policy, programs, and practices that seek to enhance the participation of African Americans on S&E college and university faculties.