This bijou coastal retreat on stilts owes a debt to wartime sea forts
Dotted about the coastal waters of Britain, in the approaches to major ports, are some of the most astounding and least visited works of 20th-century architecture. These are the Maunsell sea forts, platforms for anti-aircraft guns built in the second world war, posses of four-legged pods that stand in the sea like HG Wells aliens gone for a paddle. They have been influential, especially on the 1960s visionaries Archigram, who in turn inspired the hi-tech architecture of Richard Rogers and others.
The sea forts lie behind Archigram's most potent single idea, for “Walking Cities”, which fantasised about buildings wandering the Earth. Which never happened, but now another Maunsell-flavoured future has arrived, if rather small, in the form of a seaside retreat on stilts for an artist couple, designed by the architect Lisa Shell. One aspect undreamt by futurists of the past is that an artefact of the 21st century should come covered (as it is) in such a venerable material as cork.
The cork permits the fantasy that, if the floods got really bad, the building could float away
It is an arresting fusion of nature and technology, of shelter and exposure
Continue reading...Free colour-coded menu is changed daily according to air pollution levels at pop-up scheme that aims to raise awareness of problem
“I see the air is good today,” says the security guard, as he sips his cup of bright green pea soup. “I can tell by the flavour.”
Staff and visitors here at the central London headquarters of the Royal Institute of British Architects (Riba) have been treated to daily free soup from the Pea Soup House, a pop-up installation in the lobby that serves colour-coded soup which matches the government's Daily Air Quality Index (DAQI).
Continue reading...It was launched to great fanfare. But now the 20-hectare temple to culture stands vacant, its shelves built for 2 million books empty, its gates locked. Can this wildly ambitious civic gesture succeed?
A wafer-thin canopy floats at the top of a hill in Athens, hovering like a sheet of paper caught in the coastal breeze. Held in place by a gossamer grid of columns and wires, and crowned with a central mast, the structure has more in common with the world of sails and rigging in the nearby harbour than the weighty domain of buildings on land a feeling that might be explained by the preoccupation of its designer, Renzo Piano.
“What I really do in life is sailing,” says the 78-year-old Genoese architect, standing on the roof of his latest €600m cultural complex, which combines a new national library and opera house in one gargantuan artificial hillside, topped with the thinnest concrete roof the world has ever seen. “The ingredients are the same in architecture: light and air and breeze.”
Making a good building is an important civic gesture. It makes you believe in a better world
Continue reading...-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Full Text:
Computer technology has become integral to the learning process. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, at the end of the last decade, some 97 percent of U.S. teachers had one or more computers located in the classroom every day, and the ratio of students to computers in the classroom every day was a little over 5 to 1. With the advent of tablet and hand-held computing devices, this ratio is fast approaching 1 to 1. Up until very recently, mainstream educational software for computing devices in the classroom has been designed based upon a style of interaction utilizing the traditional WIMP (window, icon, menu, pointing device) paradigm. Student engagement is then an isolated one-on-one experience, individual student to individual machine. To better engage students with their environment through educational technologies, researchers have begun exploring a variety of solutions that provide more embodied and tangible interactions -- ranging from collaborative activities surrounding an interactive tabletop to interactive robots that teach language learning.
Image credit: Pete Zrioka, Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering, Arizona State University
Full Text:
A microscopic image of plankton. Plankton (singular plankter) are a diverse group of organisms that live in the water column of large bodies of water and can't swim against a current. They provide a crucial source of food to many large aquatic organisms, such as fish and whales. These organisms include drifting or floating bacteria, archaea, algae, protozoa and animals that inhabit, for example, the pelagic zone of oceans, seas, or bodies of fresh water. Essentially, plankton are defined by their ecological niche rather than any phylogenetic or taxonomic classification. Though many planktonic species are microscopic in size, plankton include organisms covering a wide range of sizes, including large organisms such as jellyfish.
Image credit: NSF Collection
Read more: Gif, Heavy Metal, Wham, Wake Me Up Before You Go Go, Leap Frog Records, Weird News News
AndreaPucci posted a photo:
Regno Unito, Londra, Primrose Hill, Inverno 2016
Primrose Hill è una collina di 78,1 metri situata sul lato nord di Regent Park a Londra. Anche il quartiere circostante ha lo stesso nome. Il vertice collina ha una delle migliori viste di Londra. E' una delle zone residenziali più esclusive e costose a Londra e molte celebrità hanno la loro residenza qua vicino. Primrose Hill è stata soggetto diispirazione per film, tv e musica. Gli Oasis hanno scattato qui la foto in bianco e nero per la copertina del singolo "Wonderwall" quella dove una ragazza viene mostrata attraverso una cornice.
Primrose Hill is a hill of 78.1 metres located on the northern side of Regent's Park in London, and also the name given to the surrounding district. The hill summit has one of the best views of London. As one of the most exclusive and expensive residential areas in London and it's home to many celebs. Primrose Hill has been immortalized in movies, tv and music. Oasis took the black and white photo for the cover of the single “Wonderwall” here where a girl is shown through a frame.
A project called TransActive Grid is testing a new way to trade solar power among neighbors. For now only credits are being traded — not actual energy — using the technology that underpins bitcoin.
Accomplishments in artificial intelligence often suffer from the problem of moving goalposts: As soon as a machine or algorithm can accomplish something that has traditionally been the province of humans, we generally dismiss it. To replicate something with a machine is to show that it has always been mechanical, we just had the wrong machines. One aspect of human behavior that has reliably eluded mechanical reproduction is the creation of art. In the wonderful Spike Jonze movie Her, we are presented with a future in which A.I. is so advanced that it can produce an operating system that its hero falls in love with, but even that level of technological achievement is not enough to mechanize his job as a writer of romantic correspondence. Or as summarized more or less by many a person: “Sure, a computer can win at Go. But it could never write a poem or compose music that would make you weep!”
Well, we have some potentially disturbing news for those of you hanging your hats on those kinds of declarations. Google recently announced that their Magenta project, which makes use of new hot advances in machine learning called “deep neural nets,” has created a 90-second melody based on the input of four notes. (No word on whether it has made anyone cry, though.) A small competition we ran several weeks ago at Dartmouth College, the Turing Tests in Creative Arts, shows just how close we are to making robots who can make art. Our goal was to challenge the A.I.interested world to come up with software that could create either sonnets, short stories, or dance music that would be indistinguishable to a human audience from the same kinds of artistic output generated by humans. While we didn't get many submissions, those that did come in were very thoughtful, especially in the case of sonnets and dance music.
The dance music portion compared algorithmic DJ-ing to human DJ-ing. The human DJs were hidden from sight as students listened and danced. After each set, the dancers were asked to guess human or machine; two entries were statistically indistinguishable from the human DJs. This is interesting but perhaps not surprising. All of us, especially those who are college-age, have been listening (perhaps primarily) to computationally inflected and composed music for a long time. This artistic form is one that has already blended into computer-based production; our perception of the nature, and production, and attribution of art and culture evolves with acculturation.
In the case of the literary challenges, a panel of judges each reviewed a collection of sonnets or short stories and were asked to pick out those that were generated by a machine. While there were no winners for sonnets or stories (i.e., the judges were able to distinguish the machine-generated sonnets), in the case of the former, the programs were so smart and sophisticated that we couldn't help but wonder if in a future running of the competition we would have a winner.
The sheer number of sonnets an A.I. bot can generate is astounding (countably infinite if you want to get technical!). The winning entry, from a team at the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute was fantastic, and the runner-up from University of California at Berkeley also produced interesting work.
Here is an example of what Berkeley's generator came up with:
Kindred pens my path lies where a flock of
feast in natures mysteries an adept
you are my songs my soft skies shine above
love after my restless eyes I have kept.
A sacrament soft hands that arch embowed
stealing from nature her calm thoughts which throng
their little loves the birds know when that cloud
anticipation is the throat of song.
I love you for in his glorious rise
on desert hills at eve are musical
the ancients knew a way to paradise
pulses of the mystic tale no fable.
With sudden fear when immortality
might be like joy the petty billows try.
And another (for more, see here):
Of reckless ones haggard and spent withdraws
like clouds that gather and look another
know that neer again the fierce tigers jaws
the universe which was either neither.
Bed the peasant throws him down with fetters
who could have guessed thine immortality
not alone that thou no form of natures
you for love hath stained if to have served by.
Random from the orient view unveils
I would I bind thee by its hostile threat
I sit beneath thy looks resigned that smiles
and many maiden gardens yet unset.
This shade of crimson hue rushed on the thin
alpine flood above the dune stood the grin.
So what if an art-producing machine could pass as human? Or more accurately, so what if the output of a program, created by humans, could produce art that an average person would accept as human-generated? This more detailed description is important, for cast in that manner, it reveals the artistic output for what it is—not the thoughtless and mechanistic production of an emotionless entity, but rather a natural next step in the already-rich collaboration between machine and human when it comes to producing art.
Yes, that's right: Machines and humans have been working together to make art for some time. The presence of machine has already been particularly influential in the realm of literary products. When the technology of writing came to be (requiring the invention or discovery of mark-making tools and surfaces to record and store meaningful signs), new possibilities in narrative form arose—narratives where perhaps memorization need not influence the product. Movable type and the printing press was another great influence, then the typewriter, democratizing forces in the creation of literature, bringing new voices and forms to the written medium. Most recently, consider the effects of word processing or “authoring” software on literary production. Who among us doesn't feel compelled to change things so that we will satisfy Microsoft Word and produce a document clean of its automatically determined infelicitous word choices! Don't kid yourself, for many of the documents we turn out are already collaborations with machines and, arguably, always have been.
Of course, some literary products lend themselves more readily to machine collaboration than others. Short narratives about the outcome of a baseball game can be readily created from a reasonably detailed box score. The same is true of certain financial reports. These kinds of products are in essence formulaic, but the same is true of some forms of poetry like the sonnet. A Shakespearean sonnet is basically a high-level algorithm: three four-line stanzas in iambic pentameter, each with rhyme scheme ABAB, ending with a rhyming couplet. It's just that for centuries, humans have been the ones executing the pattern. Now, with a good deal of thought and some creative applications of natural language processing principles, a smart team of information scientists can engage a machine as a collaborator. Part of the winning entry sifts through opening words as well as a database of near-rhymes, the latter a tacit acknowledgment that a signature of the human implementation is the ability to not always follow the rules. It's cleverer than the Microsoft Word Assistant, but is hardly a solitary poetry-creating automation. The human might not be in the loop after the input is given, but the human is surely deeply represented in the design. And that is why it is successful.
So what still remains for machines to conquer? One of the judges remarked that the sonnets he picked out as machine-made didn't seem to be about anything—even if the words all went together well and there were coherent phrases or even fully formed lines around a given subject. In short, what was lacking was a narrative. Narrative is difficult to articulate in an algorithm (but we'll continue to aim for it in next year's competition). In fact, as the essence of storytelling, it is arguably one of the most human of activities. Thus, while these experiments surely celebrate successes in the context of human creativity on the computer, in their failings, they ultimately may help us recognize and celebrate what it means to be human.
This article is part of Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, New America, and Slate. Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture. To read more, follow us on Twitter and sign up for our weekly newsletter.
Colum O'Dwyer posted a photo:
From the Lens Interference project: INSTAGRAM!
All effects are 100% in-camera: No digital manipulation.
: : : : : : : : : :
Buy My Photos Here
License My Photos Through Getty!
: : : : : : : : : :
Let's Keep In Touch! Follow Me!
columodwyer.com | Instagram | LinkedIn | Interesting Photos | Getty
By Alex Leith, Michigan State University
You look down from the sky, manipulating the world and seeing how it responds to your changes. You are able to alter vegetation and climate while watching their effects on the surrounding organisms. In this way, and many others, digital games provide excellent opportunities for players to learn about complicated subjects, including the concept of evolution through natural selection. Even games designed for fun and not specifically for education can provide rich, concise, dynamic representations of complex science, technology, engineering and math topics.
Since I was young, digital games have successfully supplemented the educational process in a range of topics, including math, science and biology. Research shows that if these games are going to actually teach those concepts, they must represent them accurately. Games that include incorrect depictions teach the wrong lessons.
Since Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, evolution has been understood as a process based on genetic differences between individual organisms of the same species. There are three key principles:
Some colleagues and I looked into how well current games could serve as educational tools, specifically about evolution. We examined how Darwinian evolution was represented in 22 games, which we located either through game databases like GameSpot or IGN, or through Google searches. Most games got evolution at least partly wrong. Only five accurately represented all three key principles of evolution.
"Creatures" provides a rare example of the three principles. In that game, players create cartoon-like creatures called "norns," through a process that allows norns to be altered not just in terms of appearance, but at the genetic level. For the most accurate representation of evolution, the game offers a play mode called "wolfling run." In that mode, players cannot directly affect their norns, but can observe their relative fitness for a particular in-game scenario. The potential variations in both norn creation and the environment they must survive in provide for an astonishing number of evolutionary possibilities.
Maxis, best known for creating the "SimCity" game series, and its spinoff "The Sims" collection, also made a set of games called "SimEarth" and "SimLife." Like "SimCity," both give players top-down control of a world. "SimEarth" was designed for players to make major changes to the weather, landscape and animals to create an environment. Players were then able to see how the animals would fare in this created environment. "SimLife" was more specific: it has players engage with the animals (rather than merely creating them) to learn about the biology surrounding their survival.
We also found two academically oriented games that loosely presented the three mechanics of evolution: "Selection Game" and "Who Wants to Live a Million Years" (which was later renamed "Charles Darwin's Game of Survival"). The two games were designed to be simple tools that could be played quickly in places like museums. Despite the limited mechanics present in such games, they still clearly show each element of the evolution process.
The most commercially popular game we found didn't quite get evolution right. "Spore" left out something many other games did, too: Organisms' genetic differences didn't affect their survival rates. Instead, organisms whose genes were unfit for the environment would not necessarily die more often, in keeping with evolutionary principles. Rather, players could intervene and increase an organism's likelihood for success by, say, helping it move more intelligently and strategically, beyond the scope of its genetically predisposed movements.
Nevertheless, "Spore" does a reasonable job presenting the broader concept of evolution to players, and is the best such game made this century. ("Creatures," "SimEarth," and "SimLife" are all from the 1990s.) "Spore" is also still available for purchase, so it is the only game readily usable by the average educator or student.
But other findings were disappointing. Most games inaccurately portrayed evolution, usually in the same way Spore did - allowing player intervention to save organisms that were unfit for survival.
For these other games, evolution becomes more akin to mutation during a single organism's life than a process that occurs through generations. In "E.V.O.: Search for Eden" and "L.O.L.: Lack of Love," players earn points they can spend to modify their organisms. In "Eco," at the end of each level, the player arbitrarily changes an attribute, though not necessarily one that affects an organism's survival prospects. In each of these cases, what the game calls "evolution" is actually external genetic manipulation, rather than inheriting particular traits.
These inaccuracies may confuse those unsure of what evolution actually is. If other scientific subjects are similarly poorly depicted in video games, the potential educational benefits of these games could be lost. However, as game designers become more adept at modeling scientific themes, it could herald an educational revolution.
Alex Leith, Doctoral Candidate in Media and Information Studies, Michigan State University
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
NASA's super-pressure balloon project has once again fallen short of its 100-day target, but still managed to set some records on the way.…