http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/hiring/affirmativeact.htm

I suggest you google it a little bit more. All of these laws and regulations are on that page.

]]>The supreme court did no such thing. They allowed college admissions to use affirmative action, but imposed a tough legal standard on it. It also said nothing about employers. Equal opportunity is still the law of the land.

What you see there is what the legal department of the University requires to be posted in the add regarding this type of information. They are lawyers who are on top of this.

]]>There are opinions and there are facts. I think this is one of those situations that gets resolved by ‘data’, not just gedanken experiments. Let me more concrete: after meditating in my mountain a lot (that’s what gurus do) I still don’t know how to characterize how the notion of a horizon emerges, i.e. to give a ‘recipe’ in field theory for saying where the horizon is located. Without that insight, it’s hard to say what happens at the horizon.

I’m personally ambivalent about the whole thing. If one comes from the side of the gauge/gravity duality correspondence, the interior of black holes doesn’t seem to get tested by the observables in the dual theory. So maybe it does not exist. If you like gravity a lot, then the horizon seems to be no special place at all. Both can’t be literally true at the same time.

]]>The first step would be to interpret the backslash as a set-theoretic complement, and the Xs and Ys as something like models in the sense of model theory, defined by a set of concepts which are meaningful within the model. Thus X \ epsilon might mean “model X without the concept of set-membership”, and so on.

Then, the trace of a product of “models” could conceivably mean something, at some high, category-like level of abstraction. Ultimately, I suppose that we are summing some numerical quantities which abstractly characterize the concatenated models appearing in the trace formula.

The reverse turnstile symbol (T on its side) has a meaning in category theory (though there it normally stands for a dyadic relationship); and I imagine one could come up with some meaning for that superscript, that is also serving as the index of summation. The art of doing it well would be to come up with an interpretation which both has continuity with known uses of the symbols, and which defines a concept that isn’t ridiculously contrived (isn’t something that no-one would ever care about).

]]>