Animal foraging from an individual perspective: an object orientated model

A model system, HOOFS (Hierarchical Object Orientated Foraging Simulator), has been developed to study foraging by animals in a complex environment. The model is implemented using an individual-based object-orientated structure. Different species of animals inherit their general properties from a generic animal object which inherits from the basic dynamic object class. Each dynamic object is a separate program thread under the control of a central scheduler. The environment is described as a map of small hexagonal patches, each with their own level of resources and a patch-specific rate of resource replenishment. Each group of seven patches (0th order) is grouped into a Ist order super-patch with seven nth order super-patches making up a n + 1th order super-patch for n up to a specified value. At any time each animal is associated with a single patch. Patch choice is made by combining the information on the resources available within different order patches and super-patches along with information on the spatial location of other animals. The degree of sociality of an animal is defined in terms of optimal spacing from other animals and by the weighting of patch choice based on social factors relative to that based on food availability. Information, available to each animal, about patch resources diminishes with distance from that patch. The model has been used to demonstrate that social interactions can constrain patch choice and result in a short-term reduction of intake and a greater degree of variability in the level of resources in patches. We used the model to show that the effect of this variability on the animal's intake depends on the pattern of patch replenishment. (C) 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.</p>

Characterization of physio-chemical processes and hydration kinetics in concretes containing supplementary cementitious materials using electrical property measurements

The current study monitors both the short- and long-term hydration characteristics of concrete using discretized conductivity measurements from initial gauging, through setting and hardening, the latter comprising both the curing and post-curing periods. In particular, attention is directed to the near-surface concrete as it is this zone which protects the steel from the external environment and has a major influence on durability, performance and service-life. A wide range of concrete mixes is studied comprising both plain Portland cement concretes and concretes containing fly-ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag. The parameter normalised conductivity was used to identify four distinct stages in the hydration process and highlight the influence of supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) on hydration and hydration kinetics. A relationship has been presented to account for the temporal decrease in conductivity, post 10-days hydration. The testing procedure and methodology presented lend itself to in-situ monitoring of reinforced concrete structures. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Constitutional Questions

Constitutional Questions
Professor John Morison MRIA School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast
How should we live together? Is there any ethical question more fundamental than this?
Is a constitution only about who does what in government or is it about what is to be done? Does a constitution provide the ground rules for deciding this or is it part of the answer itself? Is it the repository of fundamental values about how to live? What is the good life anyway? Is it about the preservation of life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or something more? What about preserving (or radically reordering) the distribution of property? Or ensuring that everyone has the same chances? Is it the job of the constitution to simply promise dignity, equality and freedom, or to deliver these values?
If the constitution is the place where the state undertakes “to promote the welfare of the whole people”, what does this actually mean in practical terms? And who pays for it? Should a constitution give us an entitlement to at least a basic minimum by way of a lifestyle? Or is it the job only of the political process to decide issues about the allocation of resources? What do we do if we feel that we cannot trust our politicians? Are there basic rules that should govern the operation of politics and are there fundamental values that should not be overridden? Are these “sacred and undeniable”? Or to be interpreted in line with modern conditions and within a “margin of appreciation”? Who decides on this in individual cases?
Who is entitled to any of this, and on what basis? Is everyone equal? Is the constitution about making it clear that no-one is better than you, and that in turn, you are better than no-one? Is a constitution about ensuring that you will always be an end in yourself and never simply a means to anyone else’s end? Or does it simply reinforce the existing distribution of power and wealth?
Are citizens to be given more than those who are not citizens? Is more to be expected from them, and what might that be? Can the constitution tell us how we should treat those from outside who now live with us?
What is the relationship between a constitution and a nation? Who is in the nation anyway? Should we talk about “we the people” or “we the peoples”? Should a constitution confirm a nationality or facilitate diversity? Is the constitution the place to declare aspirations for a national territory? Or to confirm support for the idea of consent? What about all our neighbours – on the island of Ireland and in Great Britain? Or in Europe? And beyond?
What is the relationship between a constitution and democracy? Is a constitution simply the rules by which the powerful govern the powerless? In what sense does a constitution belong to everyone, across past, present and future generations? Is it the place where we state common values? Are there any? Do they change across time? Should the people be asked about changes they may want? How often should this be done? Should the constitution address the past and its problems? How might this be done? What do we owe future generations?
Finally, if we can agree that the constitution is about respecting human rights, striving for social justice and building a fair and democratic Ireland – North and South – how do we make it happen in practice?

From the Right to Life to the Right to Livability: Radically Re-approaching ‘Life’ in Human Rights Politics

This article critically reflects on current mainstream debate on abortion in international human rights discourse and the conception of life underpinning it. The public health focus on access to safe abortion which has dominated this discourse can be detected as committed to a fundamentally liberal idea of bounded and individual subjecthood which mirrors the commitments of the liberal right to life more generally. However, feminist challenges to this frame seeking to advance wider access to reproductive freedoms appear equally underpinned by a liberal conception of life. It is asserted that feminists may offer a more radical challenge to the current impasse in international debate on abortion by engaging with the concept of livability which foregrounds life as an interdependent and conditioned process. The trope of the ‘right to livability’ developed in this article presents a means to reposition the relation between rights and life and facilitate such radical engagement which better attends to the socio-political conditions shaping our interdependent living and being.