To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Statistical genetics and brain imaging are together at the technological forefront of research into human intelligence. While these approaches have historically had little practical overlap, they are united both conceptually and in several broad methodological challenges. In concept, both areas attempt to explain complex human behavior by understanding its biological origins, and in doing so have faced the problems that arise from this complexity. The prospect of finding large-effect predictors, for example, has shaped both histories: statistical genetics, with its study of candidate genes that were once thought to have outsized influence on the development of many traits, and neuroscience, with its search for localized brain properties underlying complex behaviors. Both of these areas have then had to adjust their scope and methodology to address the issue of making valid and meaningful predictions from a large number of predictors with small effects. A key understanding is that larger samples of participants than originally employed may be necessary for these predictions to be accurate and useful.
Reconciling all fields of international economic law (IEL) and creating bridges between disciplines in a conceptual as well as practical manner, this book stands out as the first modern, comprehensive international economic law textbook. Containing a technically solid yet critically rich body of knowledge that spans disciplines from trade law to investment, from trade finance to fisheries subsidies, from development to the digital economy and other new-age topics, the book offers the widest possible coverage of issues in current international economic law. Positioning IEL as a truly global practice, the comprehensive coverage includes various treaty texts, landmark cases and new materials, and is supplemented by case studies, real-life examples, exercises and illustrations. The case extracts and legal texts are selectively chosen, with careful editing and serious deliberation to engage modern law students. Mini chapters show examples of interdisciplinary interactions and provide a window into the future disciplines of international economic law.
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-2019)-induced changes in the workplace present a timely opportunity for human resource management practitioners to consider and remediate the deleterious effects of noise, a commonly cited complaint of employees working in open-plan office (OPO) environments. While self-reports suggest that OPO noise is perceived as a stressor, there is little experimental research comprehensively investigating the effects of noise on employees in terms of their cognitive performance, physiological indicators of stress, and affect. Employing a simulated office setting, we compared the effects of a typical OPO auditory environment to a quieter private office auditory environment on a range of objective and subjective measures of well-being and performance. While OPO noise did not reduce immediate cognitive task performance compared to the quieter environment, it did reduce psychological well-being as evidenced by self-reports of mood, facial expressions of emotion, and physiological indicators of stress in the form of heartrate and skin conductivity. Our research highlights the importance of using a multimodal approach to assess the impact of workplace stressors such as noise. Such an approach will allow HR practitioners to make data-driven recommendations about the design and modification of workspaces to minimize negative effects and support employee well-being.
Here we present stringent low-frequency (185 MHz) limits on coherent radio emission associated with a short-duration gamma-ray burst (SGRB). Our observations of the short gamma-ray burst (GRB) 180805A were taken with the upgraded Murchison Widefield Array (MWA) rapid-response system, which triggered within 20s of receiving the transient alert from the Swift Burst Alert Telescope, corresponding to 83.7 s post-burst. The SGRB was observed for a total of 30 min, resulting in a
persistent flux density upper limit of 40.2 mJy beam–1. Transient searches were conducted at the Swift position of this GRB on 0.5 s, 5 s, 30 s and 2 min timescales, resulting in
limits of 570–1 830, 270–630, 200–420, and 100–200 mJy beam–1, respectively. We also performed a dedispersion search for prompt signals at the position of the SGRB with a temporal and spectral resolution of 0.5 s and 1.28 MHz, respectively, resulting in a
fluence upper-limit range from 570 Jy ms at DM
pc cm–3 (
) to 1 750 Jy ms at DM
pc cm–3 (
, corresponding to the known redshift range of SGRBs. We compare the fluence prompt emission limit and the persistent upper limit to SGRB coherent emission models assuming the merger resulted in a stable magnetar remnant. Our observations were not sensitive enough to detect prompt emission associated with the alignment of magnetic fields of a binary neutron star just prior to the merger, from the interaction between the relativistic jet and the interstellar medium (ISM) or persistent pulsar-like emission from the spin-down of the magnetar. However, in the case of a more powerful SGRB (a gamma-ray fluence an order of magnitude higher than GRB 180805A and/or a brighter X-ray counterpart), our MWA observations may be sensitive enough to detect coherent radio emission from the jet-ISM interaction and/or the magnetar remnant. Finally, we demonstrate that of all current low- frequency radio telescopes, only the MWA has the sensitivity and response times capable of probing prompt emission models associated with the initial SGRB merger event.
Congress is the centerpiece institution of Madison’s Republic. Article I of the Constitution starts with Congress, enumerating an impressive list of specific powers given to government because they are vested in the national legislature. And, if we have a republic, it is because the Congress somehow represents the national interest. It does this, as the above quote from Federalist 10 suggests, by bringing into government the range of interests in society. This is necessarily a messy business. The “necessary and ordinary operations of government” involve the range of factions in society? No wonder there is so much conflict, noise, frustration, posturing, and gridlock in Washington. Congressional politics, in other words, is untidy by design.
For James Madison, self-interest is the problem. It is the problem because it is an immutable part of human nature and because its consequences in politics are potentially devastating. People act for their own gain without thinking of the interests of others, or of the larger public good. Although everyone benefits in the long run from a stable social order, people may pursue their short-run interests in ways that harm or even destroy that order. This consequence of self-interest – social instability and chaos – is relatively easily managed. The problem is complicated because the governments created to protect against instability and disorder are themselves subject to self-interest. This problem is the possibility of tyranny. The people with power naturally use it to pursue their own interests, without concern for the interests of others or for the larger public good. Those with power often have a compelling interest in avoiding instability and chaos, but stability is not enough. Great care must be taken to avoid tyranny – by a majority over the minority, or by the government over the governed.
This book critically examines the following claim: Self-interest is the problem; it is also the only possible solution. The problem with what? The solution to what? This is a book about American government and politics, and both the problem and the solution are concerned with how best to conduct our politics. The title to this introduction states a paradox: The thing that causes the predicament – self-interest – also gets us out of it. To put it more precisely (and optimistically): All that is required in a well-ordered political system for the public good to be achieved is for everyone – politicians, citizens, leaders of special interest groups – to pursue their own selfish interests. The political system does not require anyone to set aside his or her interests in the name of the public good for that good to be achieved. We describe in detail the source of this claim in Chapter 2 and devote the rest of the book to some critical questions about whether the claim that self-interest is sufficient to resolve the problems it creates in politics fits with the reality of American politics today.
Setting aside Donald Trump’s typical braggadocio, when he claimed he alone could fix the mess that was America after eight years under Democratic President Barack Obama, he was following a long-standing political tradition in at least two ways: Presidential candidates from the party not currently in power emphasize what is wrong in American national life, not what is going well, and presidential candidates of both parties promise more than they can deliver. Whether it was Jimmy Carter promising independence from foreign oil, Ronald Reagan promising to balance the budget, cut taxes, and increase spending on the military, or Barack Obama promising healthcare reform that would require little inconvenience or change from those satisfied with their insurance coverage, presidential candidates assume the mantle of responsibility for the nation’s well-being well beyond their constitutional capacity to deliver.
Before beginning in earnest our exposition of Madison’s Republic in the next chapter, we spell out some key concepts and questions that help to give context to the next chapter and the rest of the book. We discuss concepts such as the meaning of democracy, the principal–agent problem, and collective action because these concepts relate directly to an understanding of how theories relate to the world of politics. We also introduce basic ideas about how political scientists approach the study of politics especially by using models that simplify some important aspect of the political world under study.
Citizen participation in politics is a good place to begin our analysis of the Republic. Madison expected self-interested participation by citizens to be the foundation of the system. Political participation can be defined as any attempt to influence what the political system does. Madison’s theory expects everyone in the Republic to be self-interested, and citizens who become involved in politics to compel political leaders to respond to their interests.
On the first Monday in October and continuing into late June or early July of the following year, the US Supreme Court sits in session. Unlike the executive and legislative branches of government, the day-to-day business of the Court is largely removed from public view. The nine justices who serve on the bench give interviews only sparingly, and television cameras are not allowed in the courtroom when hearings or deliberations are taking place. When appearing at formal public events, such as the annual State of the Union address given to Congress or the swearing in of a president, a justice is easy to spot because of his or her unusual attire – a black silk robe worn over a business suit.
Let’s be clear: In Madison’s Republic, no one is really “in charge” since everyone – ordinary citizens and politicians alike – is just looking out for his or her own interests. And besides, everyone is effectively checked or frustrated by everyone else. What eventually emerges from the political process, then, is an amalgam of the interests in society, a kind of undirected free-for-all mish-mash of the range of interests engaged on any given policy question. However, in the clash of interests where politicians defend the interests of those who elected them in order to further their own interests in reelection, citizen-voters play a critical role.