3 research outputs found
Generating An Automated Assembly Graph On The Basis Of The 3D-Geometry Of A Product Assembly Group
No full textIn an era of globalisation and worldwide competition, it is essential for companies to develop competitive and cost-effective products. To achieve this goal, early selection between different product concepts is crucial. Despite proven methods in product and production system development, the ability to make predictions in the early phases is often insufficient. In particular, the efficient determination of assembly graphs still requires a lot of manual effort, which slows down the process and harbours potential sources of error. Therefore, this paper presents an approach to automatically generate an assembly priority graph based on the 3D geometry of a product assembly in the CAD system
Expansion and digression: A study in Mamlūk literary commentary
No full textThis study traces different manifestations of source-text (matn ) expansion within Mamlūk literary commentary (sharh ). First, several examples of traditional literary commentary on a single source-text, the ode known as Bānat Su\u27ād, are examined in order to determine how traditional commentary functions and the relation of the source-text to the commentary. It further examines how commentaries relate to earlier versions within the tradition. This is followed by studies of two examples of variations within the commentary style by a single author, Salāh al-Dīn Khalīl ibn Aybak al-Safadī (d. 1363). Each of these commentaries illustrates quite well, but in different ways, the meaning of sharh as expansion, both of the explication, but also of the matn itself. The first, Ikhtirā\u27 al-Khurā\u27, is a parody in the form of a commentary on two nonsense lines of poetry. Using deliberate error, al-Safadī engages the reader in a literary game, tempting the reader either to prove his knowledge of the Arabic literary tradition by catching the errors and finding them humorous, or to discover the larger Arabic cultural heritage by trying to trace all the misleading information. The second, al-Ghayth al-Musajjam fī Sharh Lāmīyat al-\u27Ajam, is an extremely digressive commentary on a 12th-century poem by Abū Ismā\u27īl al-Tughrā\u27ī (d. 1121). The digressions fragment and interrupt the source-text so frequently and at such length that the source-text itself nearly dissolves into the Arabic literary tradition more broadly understood. Al-Safadī explains his use of digression at the beginning of his commentary. His explanation combined with the way the commentary is structured, his method of analysis, and the variety of topics he includes brings the commentary close to Roland Barthes\u27 idea of the \u27writerly.\u27 As such, the text not only challenges readers, but draws them in and forces them to engage with the work and with the literary tradition as a whole, making them active in its creation
Terrorism Trials in Article III Courts
No full textSome individuals reject Article III courts as a forum for bringing terrorist suspects to justice on the grounds that the ordinary judicial system cannot handle such cases. As an empirical matter, this claim is simply false. Since 2001, myriad terrorism trials have progressed through the criminal system. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) reports that between 2001 and 2010, there were 998 defendants indicted in terrorism prosecutions. Eighty-seven percent of the defendants were convicted on at least one charge. According to the Executive Office for the U.S. Attorneys, from FY 2004 to FY 2009, there were 3,010 terrorism prosecutions. It reported 2,663 terrorism convictions during the same time period. What these numbers demonstrate (reporting inconsistencies not-withstanding) is that Article III courts have routinely, and successfully, managed international and domestic terrorist cases. Nevertheless, there are important concerns driving such critiques that deserve further scrutiny.
The author first considers the most common objections to pursuing terrorist cases in the ordinary judicial system. The arguments fall into five categories: rules of evidence, the problems created by classification, the right to call and confront witnesses, the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, and the right to self-representation. Critics look to these areas to suggest that either detention or military commissions would be a more appropriate way to handle individuals suspected of terrorist activity.
Second, she suggests that there are risks in sidestepping Article III courts. Lowered standards that mark the alternative realms impact due process, public perception, and conviction. Transferring cases out of the civilian system undermines citizens’ rights: namely, the right to participate in the administration of justice. The creation of alternative venues creates forum competition, which may lead to an abrogation of justice. Pursuing cases through the military system may also undermine judicial authority and contribute to a perception of incompetence with regard to the criminal system.
Third, as an empirical matter, many of the claims about the incompetence of Article III courts do not play out in practice. Here, by way of illustration, the author focuses on a case currently underway in Manhattan, United States v. Abu Ghayth. Some procedures (not used in this case) offer further ways to address the difficulties endemic to terrorist prosecution. While many of the objections can be overcome, one—the right to self-representation—proves more troublesome. Although it occurs in only a small fraction of cases and there are a handful of ways to address it, each of the solutions carries consequences. The problem, nevertheless, is not unique to the Article III context and thus vitiates not in favor of moving to a system of military commissions, but instead a re-examination of the issues associated with denying a defendant a right to appear pro se and appointment of standby counsel to address the underlying purpose of the right itself
