scholarly journals Upper bounds on gluino, squark and higgisino masses in the focus point gaugino mediation with a mild fine tuning Δ ≤ 100

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsutomu T. Yanagida ◽  
Norimi Yokozaki
Keyword(s):  
Upper Bounds ◽  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Focus Point

scholarly journals Focus point gauge mediation without a severe fine-tuning

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsutomu T. Yanagida ◽  
Norimi Yokozaki
Keyword(s):  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Gauge Mediation ◽  
Focus Point

scholarly journals Focus point in gaugino mediation — Reconsideration of the fine-tuning problem

2013 ◽  
Vol 722 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 355-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsutomu T. Yanagida ◽  
Norimi Yokozaki
Keyword(s):  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Focus Point

Fine-Tuning Futures

ASHA Leader ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christi Miller
Keyword(s):  
Fine Tuning

Food Safety Security: A new Concept for Enhancing Food Safety Measures

2012 ◽  
Vol 82 (3) ◽  
pp. 216-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Venkatesh Iyengar ◽  
Ibrahim Elmadfa
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Warning System ◽  
Shared Responsibility ◽  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Strategic Action ◽  
Surveillance Network ◽  
Measurement Systems ◽  
Critical Control Points ◽  
The Impact

The food safety security (FSS) concept is perceived as an early warning system for minimizing food safety (FS) breaches, and it functions in conjunction with existing FS measures. Essentially, the function of FS and FSS measures can be visualized in two parts: (i) the FS preventive measures as actions taken at the stem level, and (ii) the FSS interventions as actions taken at the root level, to enhance the impact of the implemented safety steps. In practice, along with FS, FSS also draws its support from (i) legislative directives and regulatory measures for enforcing verifiable, timely, and effective compliance; (ii) measurement systems in place for sustained quality assurance; and (iii) shared responsibility to ensure cohesion among all the stakeholders namely, policy makers, regulators, food producers, processors and distributors, and consumers. However, the functional framework of FSS differs from that of FS by way of: (i) retooling the vulnerable segments of the preventive features of existing FS measures; (ii) fine-tuning response systems to efficiently preempt the FS breaches; (iii) building a long-term nutrient and toxicant surveillance network based on validated measurement systems functioning in real time; (iv) focusing on crisp, clear, and correct communication that resonates among all the stakeholders; and (v) developing inter-disciplinary human resources to meet ever-increasing FS challenges. Important determinants of FSS include: (i) strengthening international dialogue for refining regulatory reforms and addressing emerging risks; (ii) developing innovative and strategic action points for intervention {in addition to Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) procedures]; and (iii) introducing additional science-based tools such as metrology-based measurement systems.

Imaginings

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 17-30
Author(s):  
Kelly James Clark
Keyword(s):  
Religious Tradition ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Intellectual Humility ◽  
First Order ◽  
Natural Processes ◽  
Empirically Supported ◽  
Group Violence ◽  
The World ◽  
The Universe

In Branden Thornhill-Miller and Peter Millican’s challenging and provocative essay, we hear a considerably longer, more scholarly and less melodic rendition of John Lennon’s catchy tune—without religion, or at least without first-order supernaturalisms (the kinds of religion we find in the world), there’d be significantly less intra-group violence. First-order supernaturalist beliefs, as defined by Thornhill-Miller and Peter Millican (hereafter M&M), are “beliefs that claim unique authority for some particular religious tradition in preference to all others” (3). According to M&M, first-order supernaturalist beliefs are exclusivist, dogmatic, empirically unsupported, and irrational. Moreover, again according to M&M, we have perfectly natural explanations of the causes that underlie such beliefs (they seem to conceive of such natural explanations as debunking explanations). They then make a case for second-order supernaturalism, “which maintains that the universe in general, and the religious sensitivities of humanity in particular, have been formed by supernatural powers working through natural processes” (3). Second-order supernaturalism is a kind of theism, more closely akin to deism than, say, Christianity or Buddhism. It is, as such, universal (according to contemporary psychology of religion), empirically supported (according to philosophy in the form of the Fine-Tuning Argument), and beneficial (and so justified pragmatically). With respect to its pragmatic value, second-order supernaturalism, according to M&M, gets the good(s) of religion (cooperation, trust, etc) without its bad(s) (conflict and violence). Second-order supernaturalism is thus rational (and possibly true) and inconducive to violence. In this paper, I will examine just one small but important part of M&M’s argument: the claim that (first-order) religion is a primary motivator of violence and that its elimination would eliminate or curtail a great deal of violence in the world. Imagine, they say, no religion, too.Janusz Salamon offers a friendly extension or clarification of M&M’s second-order theism, one that I think, with emendations, has promise. He argues that the core of first-order religions, the belief that Ultimate Reality is the Ultimate Good (agatheism), is rational (agreeing that their particular claims are not) and, if widely conceded and endorsed by adherents of first-order religions, would reduce conflict in the world.While I favor the virtue of intellectual humility endorsed in both papers, I will argue contra M&M that (a) belief in first-order religion is not a primary motivator of conflict and violence (and so eliminating first-order religion won’t reduce violence). Second, partly contra Salamon, who I think is half right (but not half wrong), I will argue that (b) the religious resources for compassion can and should come from within both the particular (often exclusivist) and the universal (agatheistic) aspects of religious beliefs. Finally, I will argue that (c) both are guilty, as I am, of the philosopher’s obsession with belief. 

Extension of the Spatial PDI Model to Three Dimensions

1997 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 176-178
Author(s):  
Frank O'Brien
Keyword(s):  
Population Density ◽  
Dimensional Space ◽  
Finite Lattice ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Upper Bounds ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Lower And Upper Bounds ◽  
Density Index ◽  
Three Dimensional Space

The author's population density index ( PDI) model is extended to three-dimensional distributions. A derived formula is presented that allows for the calculation of the lower and upper bounds of density in three-dimensional space for any finite lattice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document