Industry/University interaction for simulation-based process improvement

This paper describes an effort by industry and university partners to centralize manufacturing decision making through the development of generic simulation tools. This ongoing, cooperative process improvement initiative between the Industrial and Systems Engineering faculty at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and Chrysler’s Huntsville Electronics Division (HED) permits the involved faculty to broaden their experience and technical expertise in electronics fabrication, while the industry partner benefits from the transfer of technical knowledge and advanced analysis methodologies from the university. The focus of the project is the definition of generic electronic manufacturing models that can be easily defined and implemented through common user-oriented interfaces, allowing users who are not familiar with simulation and simulation languages to address the needs of their particular functional areas.     

From abusive household to dating violence

Social scientists have theorized about the cycle of domestic violence in family abuse. Little research has addressed dating violence as a consequence to the experience of domestic violence by children. This article deals with the self-reported experience of dating violence by high school students from abusive and nonabusive households. A survey was conducted of 1,353 students in a rural area of North Dakota. Results indicated that students from abusive households showed significantly higher incidence of dating violence than those from homes where no abuse was evident. However, less than one in five of the students from abusive home reported dating violence, providing little support for the cycle of violence hypothesis. Students from abusive homes viewed violence as negatively as students from nonabusive homes. Thus, while there are significant differences between the two groups, there are also important similarities. Although there is apparently a greater risk of dating violence among students who have experienced violence at home, these data do not support the idea of an inescapable pattern of violence among adolescents who have experienced violence themselves.     

Back to the future of ‘one logic or two’?: forward to the past of ‘anarchy versus racist hierarchy’?

This article argues that while the attempt by Alex Callinicos to construct a non-reductionist approach for theorizing the international is brave, it falls short of the target due, in part, to the failure to look in the right place for a non-reductionist Marxism. In taking us ‘back to the future’ of the debate on ‘one logic or two?’ (‘economics’ or ‘geopolitics and economics’), the quest can at best result only in the construction of a thin materialist reductionism. This article develops an approach that takes norms and (racist) identity seriously—one that simultaneously reconfigures our conception of the international as a hierarchy rather than as a pure anarchy, thereby prompting a reconsideration of Callinicos's commitment to a neorealist anarchic conception of the international. This article closes by suggesting that the Eurocentrism of much Marxist International Relations scholarship obscures the role of non-Western resistance in the making of global politics.     

Baker & McKenzie''s regular article tracking developments in EU law relating to IP, IT & telecommunications

This is the latest edition of Baker & McKenzie's column on developments in EU law relating to IP, IT and telecommunications. This article summarises recent developments that are considered important for practitioners, students and academics in a wide range of information technology, e-commerce, telecommunications and intellectual property areas. It cannot be exhaustive but intends to address the important points. This is a hard copy reference guide, but links to outside web sites are included where possible. No responsibility is assumed for the accuracy of information contained in these links.     

Can information change public opinion? Another test of the Marshall hypotheses

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall offered his opinion regarding the utility of public opinion polls as a tool for assessing the “evolving standards of decency” regarding capital punishment. His arguments became known as the Marshall hypotheses and spawned a considerable body of empirical testing. The three Marshall hypotheses are: (1) support for capital punishment is inversely associated with knowledge about it, (2) exposure to information about capital punishment produces sentiments in opposition to capital punishment, but (3) exposure to information about capital punishment will have no impact on those who support it for retributive reasons. The results of previous tests of these hypotheses were somewhat mixed but supportive. None of these studies, however, examined the effects of change in knowledge levels with changes, if any, in death penalty attitudes and beliefs as needed for a more complete test of the Marshall hypotheses. The present study addressed this shortcoming. The results provided mixed support for these three hypotheses. That is, death penalty supporters were somewhat less informed than death penalty opponents; exposure to death penalty information and knowledge gains tended to be associated with attitudinal change in a directions suggested by these hypotheses; but, retributivists' attitudes toward and beliefs about capital punishment were not any more resistant to change than were the attitudes and beliefs of non-retributivists.