Project by vtol is a collection of portable transmitters which transmits lines of poetry as Wifi network names:
Autonomous micro-device which distributes wi-fi masked as wireless
network, visible at any gadget such as a smartphone or a laptop. The
device is automatically renaming its network every 10 seconds, taking as
its name various lines of poems by famous poets. The device is using an
information channel which is accessible and visible to everyone through
mobile devices, thus being a non-standard transmitter of poetry. There
is no possibility to connect to this network (which is actually a dummy
disconnected from Internet) – the message being the name of the network.
If one would leave the wi-fi settings menu open, then gradually, line
by line, all the poems programmed into the object will be revealed.
How would you even describe a meme in words? Like if I had to describe what dat boi is to my grandmother, what would I say? Have you ever tried it?
No. It’s just occurring to me right now. Would you be able to describe some meme to somebody who was completely unfamiliar with internet culture? It’s a piece of culture that’s recognizable to other people, that has a certain cultural meaning that you and the other people around you get. I wouldn’t, say, use the word “meme” to describe an image macro. “Meme” to me is more the process, the thing that happens with that media within a network. My grandmother would still probably look at me and say, “That’s nice. I have no fucking idea what you’re talking about.”
It’s like the golden age of rap music. You listen to rap music from the 90s, and half the lyrics were references to TV shows or commercials, or whatever, different cultural signifiers that meant something to them and to other people who may have had the same experiences as them. But if you exposed somebody to them now, they’re gonna have no idea, they may not get those references. I think a lot of internet culture is like that. You need the context of the culture. It’s like the virality of “the dress,” you know, people giving different answers to whatever color they thought it was––yes, that’s interesting, but the thing that made it fascinating was the network.
The competition will test whether human judges can distinguish between human and computer-generated creative works. It is organized by the Neukom Institute for Computational Science, which is directed by Dan Rockmore, an SFI External professor and a member of the Institute’s Science Steering Committee.
Read the results in the Washington Post (May 23, 2016)
“The more abstracted the language, the easier it is to grasp; but with accessibility you lose a bit of control. Still, Leavitt says she thinks it’s a fair tradeoff. She figures the democratization of coding isn’t going to come from people learning on a command-line interface, but rather through platforms that make the act of coding less complicated. “Our whole thing is we want to make programming itself easier because programming has to change for more people to be able to do it,” she says. “Instead of changing the people, we want to change the product.”
“I’ve been working with helmet mounted displays in military flight simulation for several decades – I am an expert in the field.IMHO
– these devices should be banned – but that may not be necessary
because after the first wave of early adopters I think it’ll go the way
of 3D televisions. But that’s just my opinion. Let me explain why.
thinks these things are new and revolutionary…but they really aren’t.
All that’s happened is that they dropped in price from $80,000 to
$500…and many corners have been cut along the way.
are several claims that the nausea problem has either been fixed, or
will soon be fixed, or that application design can be used to
work-around the problem.
The claims that it’s
been fixed are based on the theory that the nausea is caused by
latency/lag in the system, or by low resolution displays or by
inaccurate head motion tracking…all of which can (and are) being fixed
by obvious improvements to the system. Sadly, the $80,000 googles we
made for the US military had less latency, higher resolution displays,
and more accurate head tracking than any of the current round of
civilian VR goggles…and they definitely made people sick – so this seems
The problem is that the people who
make those claims are either ignorant (or are deliberately ignoring) the
evidence collected over 20 years of flight simulation experience with
VR goggles (only we called them “Helmet Mounted Displays” – HMD’s – and
what we did was called “simulation” and not “virtual reality”).”
simulators have become a major factor in pilot training. A general
finding from Navy research on simulator design is that equipment
features that offer faithful representation improve pilot performance
and promote pilot acceptance. To the extent that an aircraft produces
motion sickness, its simulator should induce the same result. However,
reports of simulator sickness appear to be increasing and a shortcoming
in simulation is implied when these effects occur in simulators during
maneuvers that do not occasion them in the aircraft. This article
presents incidence data from surveys of the 10 simulators at 6 different
Naval/Marine Corps Air Stations. Approximately 1,200 simulator flights
were recorded. Some severe motion sickness symptoms were recorded and
some simulators induced unsteadiness afterwards. Individuals
experiencing effects may be at risk if they drive themselves home or
return to demanding activities at work. The simulators which exhibited
the highest incidences of sickness were helicopter simulators with
cathode ray tube (CRT) infinity optics and six-degrees-of-freedom moving
base systems. Of those studied, fixed-wing, fixed-base, dome displays
had relatively low incidence of simulator sickness.