This dissertation is not only about the production of a building: it is rather a progressive report, which documents the process and development of my personal manifesto of the inter-relationships between: the social and physical effects of sport activities and people with disabilities, in public open spaces in the city. It aims to serve as an instrument to demonstrate the insight of my experiences, from taking a contemporary social issue (segregation of disabled people from the main society) and urban issues (lack of interests and abandonments of public park spaces in our city) into architectural theories. The research did not begin from a particular point towards a specific building type or programme; instead, I located the base of the research by reinterpreting a personal experience and looking into a specific social/contextual condition. It begins with an assessment of people with disabilities and the built environments in the form of interviews, surveys and academic research. The aim of this exercise is to provide first hand contact with disabled peoples’ needs and priorities. Then the theoretical research which revolves around the notion of public safety in the park - one of the major reasons which decrease the willingness of the public to use it. Together with the findings derived from site analysis and precedent studies, I will then consolidate the arguments by developing an experimental architectural prototype which directly aims to substantiate the theory, and the building structure itself will be the projector that materializes the programme into real context and thus gives justification to my manifesto.

Thesis advisor: Daniel McKaughan / Thesis advisor: Liane Young / The first two-thirds of this project is an in-depth analysis of the contemporary Free Will debate as it revolves around the Libet et al, Soon et al, and Wegner et al (“Helper Hands”) experiments. The last section of the thesis illustrates in detail the following suggestions regarding the future of the Free Will debate: that there be a shift in the fundamental question of the debate, a shift in the analysis of famous neuroscientific experiments, and a shift in the formation of future experiments that test potential elements of free will. / Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2016. / Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Scholar of the College. / Discipline: Philosophy.

by Wong Tong Pak. / Bibliography: leaves 188-189 / Thesis (M.Ph.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1986

by Cheung Chin Tao. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1989. / Bibliography: leaf [67].

No description available.

No one seems to be against freedom of speech. We have profound disagreements, nonetheless, about what people should be allowed to say. Superficially, these disagreements seem to be independent of our own personal views on larger moral issues such as the desirability of state neutrality and the possibility of promoting certain views of the good life. This perception, however, misrepresents the deeper connections that one's views on free speech have with one's interpretation of political morality; connections which shape the very way in which one reasons about free speech. In order to understand these connections, it is important to be conscious of the rich and complex history of the very notion of freedom of speech. While sometimes represented as a modern ideal, the very fabric of the modern view on free speech is the result of earlier social practices and of competing moral claims. To understand how we think about free speech today it is not enough to look into our own world. Some aspects can only be made vivid by revisiting the history of this notion. But not only that. Aside from reconstructing the history of the modern notion of freedom of speech, we also have to grasp the place of liberalism in shaping our views on these matters. Questions of paternalism, neutrality, and the good life, and of liberalism's relationship to these ideas, are all important in defining what it means to have free speech. Any articulation of free speech which disregards these points would be missing an important aspect of the discussions surrounding what we should be allowed to say. To reason about free speech, we need to go beyond the normal justifications for the freedom of speech. Truth, democracy, and autonomy are the familiar reasons for defending freedom of speech, but they are not the defining aspects of one's free speech reasoning. For that, we need to look elsewhere. This is what the argument in the thesis is set to do: to explore and explain how our free speech reasoning is shaped by historical experiences and by the gradual evolution of a certain view of the moral world. By engaging in a reconstruction of the different forms of reasoning on these issues, the argument sets out a systematic account of the competing ways of reasoning about free speech. The argument has four parts. In Part One, I set out the history of the social practices and moral claims which gave birth to the modern idea of freedom of speech and claim that they are still an integral part of what it means to have free speech. Part One shows how some of the normative positions (liberties, claim-rights, and immunities) which are thought to be part of the freedom of speech were the result of certain historical experiences. Then, in Part Two, I introduce some key theoretical distinctions with regard to liberalism, which provide the argumentative platform for the rest of the thesis. In developing the distinction among different strands of the liberal tradition, the variable role and meanings of principles of neutrality is of particular significance. Part Three then goes on to connect the different strands of the liberal tradition with the justifications for valuing freedom of speech, showing how opposing versions of the arguments for a defense of free speech reflect underlying assumptions about political morality. Finally, Part Four explores the three core aspects of the modern view on free speech: the formalization of moral reasoning, the role of a set of individual rights in the identification of neutral reasons, and the place of one's view on political morality in the delimitation of the meaning of the freedom of speech. It is not the purpose of the argument to defend one particular form of reasoning over the others, but to examine the different argumentative resources that are available within competing strands of the contemporary debate. Put simply, this thesis seeks to show that - and the ways in which - our free speech reasoning is fundamentally shaped by our deeper views about political morality.

No description available.

[Typescript] Includes bibliography. Decomposition of alkyl hydroperoxides and peracetates -- Photolysis of N-chloro-amides: a. Reactions of primary amido radicals; b. Reactions of N-alkylacetamido radicals -- Reactions of lead tetra-acetate with primary amides: a. Scope; b. Mechanism -- Decomposition of alkyl hydroperoxides and peracetates -- Photolysis of N-chloro-amides -- Reactions of lead tetra-acetate with primary amides.

Thesis (Ph.D.) -- McMaster University, 2007. / Supervisor: Shiping Zhu. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Kentucky, 2006. / Title from document title page (viewed on January 23, 2007). Document formatted into pages; contains: ix, 157 p. : ill. (some col.). Includes abstract and vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 145-153).