Slashdot Mirror

I gotta say, are we talking about the same Parthenon? The one built at the top of a hill overlooking Athens as pretty nearly the sole structure on the hilltop?

It doesn't precisely show the elevations, but:

https://maps.google.com/maps?o...

is one view, or perhaps this will do better:

http://www.greatbuildings.com/...

As you can see, it is pretty much on top of a mesa. So I'm not sure where your "slight dip in the terrain" could possibly be.

I only point this out not because your argument is implausible in general, but your specific example is one of my favorite places on Earth and although I've only been fortunate enough to visit it in person twice in my lifetime (so far) I remember the walk up from Athens proper quite well, including stopping in some of the many small taverns that are along the trek for octopus and retsina.

rgb

In case anyone is wondering where they got the word "Corinthian" it is an elegant Roman form of architecture. Check out the years of construction, ranging from 150 BC to 300 AD.

However, my childhood memories of the Civic Center include leaking roofs (as you mentioned) and cool-looking (but unusable) drinking fountains. The fountains are freakin' round. I wish I could find a photo, but imagine half of a round metal sink recessed into the wall (with a claustrophia-inducing oval indentation) and half of the sink sticking out. To take a drink, you stick your head into a freakin' wall and the round sink sticks into your ribs. I'm not kidding.

People will have houses of strange bulging shapes

I took the liberty of putting those two phrases next to each other, because, as I understand it (but I could be wrong), your position revolves around the assumption that both might be true at the same time for the same building. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I took the liberty of putting those two phrases next to each other, because, as I understand it (but I could be wrong), your position revolves around the assumption that both might be true at the same time for the same building. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I took the liberty of putting those two phrases next to each other, because, as I understand it (but I could be wrong), your position revolves around the assumption that both might be true at the same time for the same building. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I took the liberty of putting those two phrases next to each other, because, as I understand it (but I could be wrong), your position revolves around the assumption that both might be true at the same time for the same building. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If you believe that whistle-blower laws are effective, you may be interested in purchasing this fine structure as an investment for your future.

Just as I thought.

They're systematically patenting all roman numerals in a plot to capture and rebuild the ancient Roman empire!

Think The Colosseum, only with more LED's. Hail Ceasar!

I never have mod points when something *good* needs to be modded up.

"igb" is correct; in fact, some cathedrals have never been finished, even though they are quite useful and beautiful! Antonio Gaudi's La Sagrada Familia Cathedral in Barcelona is perhaps the perfect example of a fantastic structure that is taking centuries to construct!

ESR should really spend some time understanding the foundations of his metaphors before building his arguments.

...you wouldn't expect westerners to know the details of how the muslims handled conquered peoples and their religion...

Or maybe they were trying to be historically correct. One of the most famous places in Istanbul is Hagia Sophia. It used to be a Greek Orthodox Cathedral, and when Constantinople was taken over by the Turks in the 15th century, it was turned into a mosque. Now it is a museum, but the practice to turn churches into mosques did exist in the past...

I guess engineering, design and programming can't possibly be art.

The MS millionaires are making Seattle an interesting-looking place. In addition to the Gehry-designed rock museum, they just opened a very cool new public library.

Er, well, the building basically exists, but the students in your story do not.

The building is Kresge Auditorium. It was designed by Eero Saarinen, one of the most famous architects of the 20th century. He also designed (e.g.) the St. Louis Arch and the TWA Terminal at JFK Airport.

A somewhat biased but detailed view of Kresge Auditorium is available here. As you can see, no PhD theses are mentioned.

The building's roof is a single thin concrete shell. The original design was very ambitious, such that the roof was to be supported only at the three points where the shell contacts the ground. The design was later changed so that the mullions in the large banks of windows would bear some of the load.

Kresge Auditorium was one of the first buildings of this type. More thin shell concrete structures available here.

Er, well, the building basically exists, but the students in your story do not.

The building is Kresge Auditorium. It was designed by Eero Saarinen, one of the most famous architects of the 20th century. He also designed (e.g.) the St. Louis Arch and the TWA Terminal at JFK Airport.

A somewhat biased but detailed view of Kresge Auditorium is available here. As you can see, no PhD theses are mentioned.

The building's roof is a single thin concrete shell. The original design was very ambitious, such that the roof was to be supported only at the three points where the shell contacts the ground. The design was later changed so that the mullions in the large banks of windows would bear some of the load.

Kresge Auditorium was one of the first buildings of this type. More thin shell concrete structures available here.

What ignorant bullshit. Have you ever been to Spain? Have you ever seen the al-Hambra? The fact is that during the 7th through 10th Centuries, while Europe was little more than a stinking barabaric backwater, Islamic civization was very highly developed. They even had soap. During the Crusades, many Christian lords would try to get hold of Saracen physicians, because everyone knew that their medical methods were far superior to the European ones (which tended to consist of bleeding and wrapping the wound in dung).

It was Arab scholars who preserved much of the ancient Greek litterature. Without them we would have none of it. As for your statement about the library of Alexandria, you should read this.

In addition, who do you think invented algebra? (a hint: it should be al-gebra). Most of the stars visble to the naked eye have Arabic names (Aldebaran, Almitak, Algol, Betelgeuse, Achernar etc etc.), meaning that they had highly developed (for the time) mathematics and astronomy.

I understand you're pissed about terrorism; who wouldn't be? But don't make the mistake of letting current events color your view of the past. It's bad enough the other way around.

At first, I hated the look of the Stata Center, but after a little while it grew on me -- now have a strong urge to see it in person.

I'm sorry, but this is contemporary art. As much as I agree with the author's premise that video games is art, his writing style bears no reality on the current status of art as a discipline and offers about as much insight as my grandma would on the state of open source in the computing disciple. Comparing it to hollywood, which has it's own artistic foundation totally removed from the authors writing, is grotesque.

Holy frickin art snobbery batman!

Really, there is a shitload of good art in videogames. In fact ANYTHING CAN BE ART.

What really makes something "art" is the effort and thought put into it. That's why some buildings are "art" while others are not.

A cheap, pre-fabbed home is not art (typically) but something designed by a guy like IM Pei is.

The medium does not decide if something is or is not art.

The Holocaust Museum in Berlin is an amazing work of art*, but a trailer park is not. The medium is the same, the difference is all in the effort and mastery that was put into their aesthetics.

*So much so that the museum was actually shown before there was even any art in it.

Rice paddies are usually very large, and they require a LOT of water and sun.

The sun part would do okay in a greenhouse, but the water would be difficult. And, building a structure that is large enough, without any type of support that would impede mechanical planting/harvesting would make this hugely expensive.

Option 1- buy some land, plant rice. Harvest.

Option 2 - but some land, build a huge building that has a crud-load of fresh water in it, maintain the building, and harvest.

Option 1 of course is cheaper.

I drive over rice paddies all the time, and the way they handle it now is pretty simple. They divert a river to flood out a few gazillion acres. They plant the rice, and the only other things I see happen are the occasional crop dusters and the harvesting. This seems to be a fairly low-maintenance crop. And I think that is one of the great benefits of rice- other than the water, it is very cheap to grow.

An even better explanation of the costs of rice farming can be found. But when the 'typical' farm is 700 acres, that would be a lot to cover. The Pentagon only has 34 acres of floor space. The Mall of America is only 92 acres total (stores/entertainment, etc)

700 Acres per farm is a LOT. Constructing a building that large would not be very cost-effective.

On the other hand, architectural deconstruction has lead to some wild buildings, like Gehry's Guggenheim Bilbao.

it's still a research problem. The engineering begins when we have a cable even a few feet long

The headline (you did RTFS, right?) says it all: "Rice engineers make first pure nanotube fibers"

Johnson Wax, 1936

The difference? Your place is built before a great depression, the Johnso wax building is built at the end of one. David Byrne says, "Watch me work. Ah, work, work." Now get back to it, slave. That or revolt to take your life back. Home is a place you take care of and take comfort from your spouce and children, not simply sleep and change clothes. Then as now, the non freeness of forgeiners leads to our own. Fight for your life and that of others.

There already is one:

Really, today's design trend in computer UI and the web is utter gaudiness. I recently compiled the KDE 3.2 series alpha and loading it's default look is kinda shocking. Same with that Windows XP and OS X. Give it a rest, people! Stop with the fussing already!

How well does CSS Zen Garden stand up to scrutiny when you actually have to read the text. . . er, filler? I had a shocking design revelation (once again) a few weeks ago when I got religion looking at Craigslist, and that is that simplicity is chic (ampersand iacute;).

You have to checkout Taliesin West. This is the winter home of the Frank Lloyd Wright Architect school. Very cool things to see and do. There are are also a number of buildings in the surounding area that are very cool as well.
If you feel the need to come to Seattle do so but be warned of two things. 1) Do not go outside of the city of Seattle 2) It does not rain all the time.

"Just because something is publicly funded doesn't mean you can use it for any purpose you want."

True -- but I also believe that not many things should be publically funded :) Those that are ought to answer to as many purposes as possible.

"Your kids don't play on the interstate. Nor do you drive your car through the park."

You can drive through, for instance, Central Park, though ;) And sometimes the kids can play *nearly* on the freeway.

"Some laws exist so that a certain degree of orderliness can be achieved. Highways are for high-speed transportation. Use them however you want, as long as its for that purpose."

The purpose of anything paid by the public should be subject to (peaceable, non-destructive, mutually compatible) human desires, not the other way around. Transportation, Yes. High-speed is nice, but not the only possibility. I've seen lots of wide-loads going slower than some bikes go, for instance, and plenty of different types of traffic which might not fit together aesthetically. (Semis and Harleys on the same road, there *is* danger, but there's danger everywhere.) (Though as yerricide wrote in his own reply, 'The government has provided an "alternative interface" for bikers, namely, the federal highway system.' I did not know that.)

"You just have to ask yourself, what if something you liked, that you happen to know does or might peeve someone else, were banned? Where's the freedom in that?"

Hmmm. Maybe we're talking at cross purposes, but I am not generally on the "ban it!" side of things :)

"As I said elsewhere, discrimination is unlawful when it's based on something the person can't control (sex, race) or something society considers sacrosanct (religion). In virtually every case, your browser is your choice, so crying "non-IE discrimination!" doesn't win much sympathy from me when phrased that way."

oh, *lawful* discrimination. I was just thinking 'discrimination.' :) There are lots of situations where it's OK to discriminate based even on the characteristics you mention (let's say my Catholic church is hiring a new priest), but I understand that's not the sense you mean. Probably there is no law that makes IE-only sites illegal, but I can / do / will justifiably call it discrimination all I want. In this case, I'm not particularly interested in the specific sense that some people use that word in. (And it's not the first word that would come to mind, I was just reacting to your reaction to someone's use of the word ... I'd call it stupid, pig-headed, poor stewardship, myopic and a lot of other things. Appealing to 'discrimination' I think is a weak argument.)

And again, IE only sites are like requiring Cross pens to fill out forms, or requiring Ford cars to use the highway (the poor highway is being abused). Driving a certain make of car is as much a choice as using a particular web browser, more so in fact, since many people don't realize that web browser *is* a choice.

Further responses read, but likely not responded to, hands tired ;)

timothy

"Glass would seem to be relatively inert, but who knows."

There you go! how about an all glass house. I know i've seen one in an architecture magazine. it was pretty cool, and not necessarily transparent, either. The walls were made like a foot thick, with 1" thick panes of glass stacked against each other. Hypoalergenic, and kindof cool looking. I can't find a link right now but there's some cool pictures out there somewhere, i think it was Architectural Record. (no i don't mean the Farnsworth house, or that one from the movie. Of course the furnishings would have to be all glass too. I'm sure they could be cast into nice non-sharp, form fitting shapes...

the only unplesentness would be the view of the glass pipes from the upstairs bathroom running through the glass interior wall, especially when in use... :-)

Call me hopelessly tacky, misguided, a fan of The Prisoner, or simply an (unwilling) product of the 1970's, but I still think those chairs are damn cool.

Having grown up in the "Space Age", all the futurists promised that we'd all get flying cars, space travel would become commonplace, and we would all get to live on the moon or on orbital space stations. Universally, the images accompanying such prognostications were of sleek, clean, sweeping lines and curves; neo-art deco, if you will. You can see a prototypical example of this vision of the future in last half hour of the film Things To Come. The interior of Klaatu's spaceship in The Day The Earth Stood Still is another well-known example. Frank Lloyd Wright's architecture probably evokes this best. (It also probably doesn't help that I grew up in San Rafael, CA, just two miles away from this, Frank Lloyd Wright's last public building commission.)

So I can't help it, but every time I see designs like that, it still evokes within me a vision of a bright future, where people are happy and prosperous, we're going to the stars, and everything looks darned cool.

Schwab

Pompeii and (even better) the Greek ruins at Paestum

I wonder what the "resolution" of the twin towers .would have been..according to this it had 110 levels but what would the resolution have been if both towers would have acted as one big screen? X x 110...any ideas?

A supercooler ain't nothing! The same company has a revolutionary new motor.

Can a lightweight Brooklyn Bridge be far behind? Investors wanted!

Sounds interesting? That ain't nothing! The same company has a revolutionary new motor.

Can a lightweight Brooklyn Bridge be far behind? Investors wanted!

The vast majority of the world's titanium reserves are in Russia (or former soviet satellite countries). Rather than provide a steady stream of titanium into the world market, they usually release only small amounts (equivalent to every other world producer), then every few years they will hold the equivalent of a "blow-out sale" on titanium. The prices worldwide go through the basement as Russia floods the market, and you get people like Frank Gehry building entire museums out of the stuff (see: Guggenheim-Bilbao). This current titanium trend is probably related to a recent flood of supply from Russia.

Two large buildings with a bridge between them? Sounds like the Petronas Towers.

I would go there for birthdays, all the way up to to the observation deck, and spend the day there with my Grandmother. I have more childhood memories from these buildings, by far, than anywhere else in the world.

It was an amazing place. Structured yet mysterious, metalic yet comforting, with an amazing variety of nooks, crannies, personalities, and other secrets to discover.

It was also a very social place, with people having lunch at the plaza, looking up at the building and sky [1] or sharing time on the observation deck or in line to get there [2].

I went to the observation deck every time I could; every time I was in New York City... I've easily spent over 100 hours there throughout my life. In March, I spent the day at the observation deck on tower 2, then had dinner at Windows on the World on top of tower 1 [3].

It was a spiritual place for me, as strange as that may sound. It presented an eagle eye view of the world I grew up in; my childhood in one panoramic view [4] [5]. There I could reflect on my past and look forward to tomorrow.

I would always sit at the same bench on top of the observation desk. The one closest to the Statue of Liberty. I'd stay there, looking out to the Atlantic, for hours and hours on end. I learned many things about myself and other other trade center visitors there. I would focus on that spot, on top of the building, on top of the world, one small, specific spot ... yet everywhere in the universe, in an expanding stream of thought. It was my own form of meditation, on an amazing bench that no longer exists.

When my wife and I got engaged, I wanted to get married at the top of the trade center. We didn't end up doing it, but others did. [6]

I loved it for the unique place that it was, but not nearly as much as I -- or anyone -- loved all of the unique individuals who have now died there. The tragedy is unreal. The reasons absurd. The people, and their lives, invaluable. I will never forget them.

I am not a vindictive person, but this calls for something beyond revenge. This requires a defense of our way of life, about our principals and individuality. Anything that can be done to remedy this should be done, and will.

God help us all, and especially those who did this.

-Jonathan
( at the World Trade Center ... http://www.robpatton.com/photoalbum/jontaylor/9.jp g )

If you're willing to discard the "semantics", then you'll have to call the CN Tower the biggest. Right now it's the world's tallest "free standing structure", but it's taller that both the Sears Tower and the Petronas towers.

Despite how much we have changed the world around us and despite all the scientific discoveries, all ages of philosophy an culture: humans have not significantly changed as beings for thousands of years. I've seen the other day on "Discovery" that a 100.000 years old pair of skeletons was discovered - a female and a child - and those skeletons are no different from our own. It's hard to say when civilizations started, but some buildings built 2000 years ago are still in use (for example Pont du Gard) and others built up to 8000 years ago still exist. Writings about social problems that were created at that times and made it to ours are still valid, still interesting. Just a short example - a quotation I received today:

"We trained hard--but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we were reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while actually producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization."

Petronius Arbiter, 210 B.C.

Isn't this still valid today?

Someone may ask why did I write all this and what is the connection between ancient civilizations and the topic of the article. I think that before we will speculate about huge changes in the way our society would be organized we should have a proper prospective. We have to realize that for thousands of years our ancestors lived first as cavemen and then in various forms of society - and that those years have formed us, not those few mere years that passed since computers were invented, Internet was created or even liberal, media-backed democracy became dominant form of social organization. I don't think those few years can outweigh those thousands of years of human history. It is really stupid to expect for example, that suddenly society would not be composed of many people being led by few who have power and vision to do so. It is really funny to expect that the role of wealth and money would change - since it didn't for at least 60 centuries.

I think that it's the toys we play with that change - not the way we play.

It sounds like the designer in question was emulating Frank Lloyd Wright's attitude without his skill. FLW did thorough planning in many of his designs, right down to the furniture, plants, and textiles. Some of his house designs basically need his furniture to be functional. But he was good at striking a balance between the technical requirements (function, lighting, security) and the human requirements (comfort, accessibility, etc).

If you're only good at one end of the spectrum (as seems the case with the technical requirement-driven undersized desk/noisy environment example), you ought not be in the business of designing total environments -- especially not trying to come up with an ideal environment for a large number of people with differing functions, habits, and needs. Why is FLW so famous? Because it's really hard to get the environmental design balance right. And even his best designs don't fit everyone -- some people find his office spaces to be ugly and unlivable.

The upshot is that the definition of my ideal workspace is probably useless to anyone else. A more reasonable approach to designing a successful workplace, IMHO, would be to meet the technical requirements at a common level, while not expecting to meet human requirements at a similar common level. That appears to make some designers' brains hurt, offending their sense of consistency. Get the hell over it.

First, I am sure that everyone here knows how much work goes into usability and interface design, as most people here have some modicum of programming experience. One of my favorite web pages, AskTog, goes into great detail on the ins and outs of computer user interface design.

I know that many people would use the building/ architecture analogy-- mere building is not art, while architecture is. "Normal" applications, they say, are mere building, while games would be considered "architecture" due to their beauty.

Poppycock! Architecture is art not because it is beautiful, although one goal of the architect is indeed visual appeal. He goes about attaining that beauty, however through the use of some language-- a visual vocabulary-- to make some statement or invoke something in the imagination of the viewer. An example: Le Corbusier's Villa Savoye is a private residence, but its visual elements combine to evoke a steam ship cruising across the lot. That is what makes it art. Art is communication, not pretty colors or "photorealistic backgrounds." Art tells you something that the artist wanted you to hear.

It is my opinion that the true art lies in making complex operations decipherable by even the simplest users. A good GUI is a work of art. Reducing complex-looking physical phenomena to a few mathematical equations, such as Ohm's Law or Maxell's Equations, is art. Pretty pictures are just that. And nothing more. They convey no extra message to the viewer; they are merely eye candy.

Don't get me wrong; these new games are beautiful. The intense graphics do enhance play by making it easier to submerge yourself in the play-world presented. But there's more to art than pretty pictures.