Anthropological facial ‘reconstruction’ – recognizing the fallacies, ‘unembracing’ the errors, and realizing method limits

Despite being practiced for over the last 200 years, facial approximation methods remain in their infancy as the soft tissue prediction methods employed have not been tested and justified. Scientific testing is the only way forward and much of it is needed. The lack of systematic scientific tests in the past has enabled many misleading notions to become established. Many of these notions appear to have arisen and been sustained as a result of practitioner biases--this is clearly evident even in the name commonly used to describe the method of building faces from skulls, for "facial reconstruction" implies everything the method is not, e.g., technical/scientific, exact, and credible. Although facial approximation methods are useful for forensic investigation (even if they do not generate identifications through true positive recognitions of the faces), the public should beware of the marketing and political ploys employed within the profession. These ploys give rise to some impressive, but unjustifiable claims--but do not just take my word for it; evaluate the evidence for yourself with disregard to the indoctrination waged by the facial "reconstruction" field in general, including that promoted by what I have had to say here. Use your own reason and intellect and see which conclusions you reach.     

Clarification of rules involving residual functional capacity assessments; clarification of use of vocational experts and other sources at step 4 of the sequential evaluation process; incorporation of "special profile" into regulations. Final rules

For purposes of this document, "we," "our," and "SSA" refer to the Social Security Administration and State agencies that make disability determinations for the Social Security Administration. "You" and "your" refer to individuals who claim benefits from the Social Security Administration based on "disability." In this final rule we clarify our rules about the responsibility that you have to provide evidence and the responsibility that we have to develop evidence in connection with your claim of disability. This includes our rules about when we assess your residual functional capacity (RFC) and how we use this RFC assessment when we decide whether you can do your past relevant work or other work. These clarifications address issues of responsibility raised by some courts in recent cases; clarify that we may use vocational experts (VEs), vocational specialists (VSs), or other resources to obtain evidence we need to help us determine whether your impairment(s) prevents you from doing your past relevant work; add a special provision to our rules stating that, if you are at least 55 years old, and specific other circumstances are present, we will find that you are disabled; and make a number of minor editorial changes to clarify and update the language of our rules, and to use simpler language in keeping with our goal of using plain language in our regulations.     

中国企业的“对赌”歧路

国外投行不是雪中送炭的天使,而对赌协议也并非企业的魔咒。在你雄心勃勃地签下“对赌协议”之前,一定要看清楚自己手上拿的是一把什么样的牌。     

Research integrity — it's about more than misconduct

The definition of integrity is "the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles that you refuse to change" (meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary). Yet research integrity is frequently discussed through the lens of misconduct or concerns around reproducibility. However, as we can see from this quote, integrity is about more than that. It is about who you are as a person and your behaviour. Your behaviour in terms of how you do your work, towards your immediate colleagues and towards those with whom you communicate; whether across the research and innovation (R&I) system or the general public.     

Exemption of work activity as a basis for a continuing disability review. Final rules

We are publishing these final rules to amend our regulations to carry out section 221(m) of the Social Security Act (the Act). Section 221(m) affects our rules for when we will conduct a continuing disability review if you work and receive benefits under title II of the Act based on disability. (We interpret this section to include you if you receive both title II disability benefits and title XVI (Supplemental Security Income (SSI)) payments based on disability.) It also affects our rules on how we evaluate work activity when we decide if you have engaged in substantial gainful activity for purposes of determining whether your disability has ended. In addition, section 221(m) of the Act affects certain other standards we use when we determine whether your disability continues or ends. We are also amending our regulations concerning how we determine whether your disability continues or ends. These revisions will codify our existing operating instructions for how we consider certain work at the last two steps of our continuing disability review process. We are also revising our disability regulations to incorporate some rules which are contained in another part of our regulations and which apply if you are using a ticket under the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency program (the Ticket to Work program). In addition, we are amending our regulations to eliminate the secondary substantial gainful activity amount that we currently use to evaluate work you did as an employee before January 2001.     

The art of the unsettlement

The best litigation lawyer, it is often said, is not the onewhose rapier-like wit demolishes the foe in court but the onewho knows how to negotiate. Having demonstrated that your clienthas the upper hand, why grind remorselessly through the mechanismsof the court when you can press your advantage home by sellingthe losing party a settlement agreement? There is so much to be said in favour of settlement. The losing     

Vesting Agent-Relative Permissions in a Proxy*

We all have agent-relative permissions to give extra weight to our own well-being. If you and two strangers are drowning, and you can save either yourself or two strangers, you have an agent-relative permission to save yourself. But is it possible for you to ‘vest’ your agent-relative permissions in a third party – a ‘proxy’ – who can enact your agent-centered permissions on your behalf, thereby permitting her to do what would otherwise be impermissible? Some might think that the answer is ‘no’; it is definitive of agent-centered permissions that they apply only to the individuals ineliminably referenced in the content of that reason, which means that they lack reason-giving force for any ostensible proxy. The purpose of this paper is to (i) show that vesting agent-relative permissions is indeed possible, (ii) provide an account of how agent-relative permissions are vested by considering the structure of rights more generally, and (iii) show that we have a right to vest such permission in this way.     

“我与你”的心理学心理学的三种话语形态

在心理学的研究中存在着三种话语形态,即"我的"心理学,"你的"心理学,"我与你的"心理学.不同的话语形态蕴含了不同的研究模式,研究者与研究对象的关系是"我"、"你"的关系."我"、"你"长期各自为阵,成为两极.话语上的割裂最终导致了心理学的科学性与现实性的割裂.只有在"我与你"的话语形态中,通过对话,才能将心理学研究的科学性与现实性有机地统一起来.     

Rules for the issuance of work report receipts, payment of benefits for trial work period service months after a fraud conviction, changes to the student earned income exclusion, and expansion of the reentitlement period for childhood disability benefits. Final rules

We are revising our rules to reflect and implement sections 202, 208, 420A, and 432 of the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (the SSPA). Section 202 of the SSPA requires us to issue a receipt each time you or your representative report a change in your work activity or give us documentation of a change in your earnings if you receive benefits based on disability under title II or title XVI of the Social Security Act (the Act). Section 208 changes the way we pay benefits during the trial work period if you are convicted by a Federal court of fraudulently concealing your work activity. Section 420A changed the law to allow you to become reentitled to childhood disability benefits under title II at any time if your previous entitlement to childhood disability benefits was terminated because of the performance of substantial gainful activity. Section 432 changes the way we decide if you are eligible for the student earned income exclusion. We will also apply the student earned income exclusion when determining the countable income of an ineligible spouse or ineligible parent. We are also changing the SSI student policy to include home schooling as a form of regular school attendance.     

利益不是权利——从我国《宪法》第51条说起

利益不是权利而只是权利的要素之一,他人可能维护你的利益,但不能代替你享有权利。我国《宪法》第51条关于“利益”与“权利”的区分对宪法理论和宪政实践都有着极为重要的意义。公民权利不可能与国家的、社会的、集体的“权利”而只可能与其“利益”发生冲突,权利只存在于平行主体之间（如国家与国家之间、集体与集体之间、集体与集体外的个人之间、个人与个人之间）或非平行关系中的“弱势”一方（如国家与集体关系中的集体、集体与个人关系中的个人、国家与个人关系中的个人）。公民权利也并非都会对国家的、社会的、集体的“利益”构成威胁,有些权利不可能损害其利益,如信仰、思想、良心自由;与其利益冲突的主要是个人权利中具有明显利益成分的权利,如财产权、社会保障权等;国家的、社会的、集体的利益一般不能成为剥夺人身权（如生命权、健康权）的理由。国家的、社会的、集体的利益亦有别于“公共利益”。     

Laura Azevedo

Laura Azevedo joined Clarke Modet & Co. in Portugal in 1980.She is currently Head of the Trade Marks Department and DeputyGeneral Manager of Clarke Modet & Co. Portugal. How did you first become interested in intellectual property? My interest in IP arose completely by chance. I was in my last year of University and I wanted to start earningmy own pocket money. Living on parental support is complicated,especially when your desires     

Continuities and Discontinuities in German Legal Thought

How does the history of your country and its legal traditions affect your identity as a citizen, researcher, teacher? In case you happen to be from Germany, how do you live with the memory of national crimes - and the fact that legal academia identified in significant numbers with the Nazi regime? Are there affinities in German legal traditions to anti-liberal ideologies and authoritarian mentalities? How did post-war Germany face its past? The essay does not try to address these questions systematically but through a narrative which seeks to trace the biographical impact of the German history.

     

Rules for helping blind and disabled individuals achieve self-support. Final rules

We are amending our regulations to implement section 203 of the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994. Section 203 of this law amended section 1633 of the Social Security Act to require us to establish by regulations criteria for time limits and other criteria related to plans to achieve self-support (PASS). The law requires that we establish criteria for a PASS and that when we set time limits for your PASS, we take into account the length of time that you need to achieve your employment goal, within a reasonable period. A PASS allows some persons who receive or are eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits to set aside part of their income and/or resources to meet an employment goal. The income and/or resources you set aside under a PASS will not be counted in determining the amount of your SSI payment or eligibility.     

Face of an Epoch : The Brezhnev Period Variously Assessed

Here in Moscow, in the quiet light of the table lamp, you open your soiled travel notebooks and the gray, limp page strikes your eye with a shaft of multicolored rays as if the brightest slide had been inserted in a projector: a steep mountain slope in screes of red stones; a "tanker" burns, giving off smoke; greasy, sooty clouds drift toward the village; the driver in a Panama hat, having fallen down the smoking slope, breaks pale, dotted trails through the fire. The column, which makes the road shake, rolls down toward the gorge; gun barrels jerk and roar on the open flatcar.     

Continuing disability review failure to cooperate process. Final rules

We are amending our regulations to provide that we will suspend your disability benefits before we make a determination during a continuing disability review (CDR) under title II and title XVI of the Social Security Act (the Act) when you fail to comply with our request for necessary information. Should you remain non-compliant for a period of one year following your suspension, we will then terminate your disability benefits. Although our current title XVI regulations generally provide for the termination of payments after 12 months of suspension, we are amending our regulations by adding this policy to our title II regulations and by restating it in the title XVI CDR regulatory provisions.     

CONFIDENTIALITY REVISITED:California Style

Stewart and I have lived through the legal adversary system and we know what havoc it could have wrought on our family…. We were nuts. We were crazy. We were your average psychotic divorcing parents…. What you do not see is we get well. We bailed out of the adversary court system because we could see it was no help to us. We were the lucky ones…. There are thousands like us who could use your help before the war gets started.
—Parent at the 1978 Midwinter Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Conference, Los Angeles.     

Hawala--A Vestige of the Past in the Service of Globalization

V.G. Khoros: Evgenii Maksimovich, your political biography took shape during both the Soviet and the post-Soviet periods. Over the last fifteen years, a lot has changed on our planet. The second world has become a thing of the past. The first world—that is, the most highly developed countries—has entered the postindustrial stage. Today, it dominates the world market in technology, finance, and information and acts as a conductor of international relations (for instance, the policy of NATO expansion). As a person who has met many leaders of the West and the East, how do you perceive this difference in the times? How do you assess the impact of globalization, which proceeds primarily from the center to the rest of the world, the so-called periphery (to which Russia, unfortunately, increasingly belongs)?     

裁判形成的思维过程

法律裁判并非仅仅通过推理即可形成。法律推理其实是为判决结论提供正当理由的过程,可是推理本身是无法为自身的"前提"提供出处的。这就需要将裁判思维的视野扩大到推理"前提"的获得以及获得之前的心理活动上。如果将前提的获得称为发现,将结论是否合理的证明过程称为证成,那么裁判思维就可以被分成"发现"与"证成"两个脉络。     

House Party Switchers and Committee Assignments: Who Gets “What,When, How?”

What are the political consequences for members of Congress who switch parties? Roll‐call and electoral consequences of congressional party switching have been studied, but other implications of party defections have yet to be systematically explored. In this article, I examine the committee assignments of House party switchers and argue that party leaders seek to reward members of the opposing party who join their ranks. Using committee assignment data from the 94th House (1975–76) through the 107th House (2001–02), I show that party switchers are more likely than nonswitchers to be the beneficiaries of violations of the seniority norm. The findings from this article are of interest to students of political parties and legislative institutions, and fill a gap in the literature on party switching. When you joined the Republican Conference on August 6, 1995, the elected leadership …determined that your accumulated seniority in the Congress would be credited when you joined the Republican Conference…. Therefore, the Republican Steering Committee's Seniority List ranks you nineteenth in overall conference seniority and designates May 22, 1980, as the beginning of your tenure in the House for purposes of Republican seniority. Letter from Speaker Dennis Hastert to party switcher Billy Tauzin, April 4, 2000.¹