http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
이강수,홍준호,김희수,장길남 (사)한국CDE학회 2013 한국 CAD/CAM 학회 학술발표회 논문집 Vol.2013 No.8
최근 실내 골프연습장이 널리 보급되어 있으나, 실제 필드에서 경기할 때와 여러 가지 면에서 차이가 있어 실내 골프연습장을 이용하는 사람들에게 불만 요인이 되고 있다. 특히 필드에서는 천연 잔디에 공을 놓고 경기를 하나 실내 골프연습장에서는 플라스틱 매트에 골프 공을 두고 경기를 하는데, 이 것이 가장 큰 불만 사항 중 하나이다. 이 연구에서는 실내 연습장에서 사용할 수 있으며, 천연잔디와 러프, 모래 등으로 된 매트에 골프 공을 놓고 경기를 할 수 있도록 한 장치를 개발하였다. 이 장치로 실내골프장에서 고급화된 시장이 형성될 수 있을 것으로 기대한다.
言論의 社會的 責任理論에 대한 再論 : 言論의 四理論과 關聯하여
李康洙 漢陽大學校 1975 論文集 Vol.9 No.-
This paper is to discuss the validity of the theory proposed by the authors of "Four Theories of the Press" that the press systems of the world nations can be divided into four different categories, namely the authoritarian, Libertarian, the social responsibility and the Soviet theories. Especially, it raises question as to whether the social responsibility theory can be treated as an independent press system as opposed to the authoritarian and libertarian theories. The author of the paper agress with the noted professors who co-authored the famous work on their thesis that the press always takes on the form and coloration of the social and political structures within which it operates, and, that especially, it reflects the system of social control whereby the relations of individuals and institution are adjusted. According to them, the four theories are the different concepts which represents different social structures. To make a theory building, especially in any classification schemata, each category-terms or conceptual schemata must be independent and exclusive to each others in the same dimension. therefore, the social responsibility theory must be compared with another three press theories along with the demension of socio-political philosophy. As the author believes, however, the social responsibility theory is a mere extension of the libertarian theory and cannot be considered as the one that is comparable to the litertarian concept as an independent theory. According to the co-anthers of Four Theories of the Press, the social responsibility theory was grounded in a certain doubts about the philosophy of the libertarian thought. They said that the social responsibility theory was appeared as an antithesis against the libertarian philosophy. It we are to follow them them, the social responsibility theory can be identified with the new liberalism. In fact, the early liberalism was revised by the Oxford idealist, of whom Thomas Hill Green was the most important representative, at least in political philosophy. This is revision of liberal theory that was called liberalism modernized or new libertarianism. But we should remind that the latter form of liberalism in important respects was continuous with its early form. The difference between the liberalism of Bentham and that of Green, important as they were, told loot amount to a solution of continuity. The latter liberals corrected, enlarged, and made explicit, but they did not reverse the meaning of liberalism. As far as the latter liberalism can be understood in this sense, the social responsibility theory did not reverse the political philosophy of the early libertarian theory of the press. While the libertarian theory is one of the historic concepts that reject specific social structures and political ideologies, the social responsibility theory represents no specific social structure nor political ideology. The social responsibility theory is not basically an ideological concept. Responsibility is a moral and ethical concept. So, the author's opinion is that the professors had committed a basic error of confusing an ethical concept with political and social ideologies and placing it among different press theories. From the viewpoint of responsibility, the author believes that it should rather be discussed in terms of the responsibility of economic institutions including business enterprises in a capitalistic society. As the responsibility concept came up as a modification to the "laissez-faire" libertarian economic theory to stave off various contradictions involved in the capitalistic economy, the social responsibility was also brought up as a modification to the libertarian press system. Basically, the author thinks, it is the problem of responsibility for the business enterprises of mass communication media including newspapers. In terms of responsibility, it is an identical concept for both the press and the economics. The author believes, if it is necessary to divide the press systems into different patterns, it is rather logical to divide them into broader categories to include other different press. systems in accordance with an ideological criteria. So, the author proposes to divide them into six different patterns, namely, the authoritarian, 19-century libertarian, modern libertarian, Fascisti, socialist and communist theories. The author believes the new division can be applicable more universally than the four theories as the professors put up. In conclusion, it is the author's belief that the social responsibility theory cannot be considered as an independent press system to be ranked among the different press systems of the world. If the thesis put up by the professors of the four theories is to be accepted, it inevitably raises the question as to whether the social responsibility theory can be applied to the Soviet press system. As a matter of logics, the responsibility problem must be applicable equally to any press system. To overcome this obvious logical contradiction, the problem of responsibility must be brought within the framework of the libertarian system, the author believes. So, the author thinks that the responsibility should be conceived as a moral concept, not as a "system".