Sponsor

AD BANNER
Theme images by MichaelJay. Powered by Blogger.

iOS

5/Life%20Style/feat-tab

Facebook

Featured Post

Just over half of Canadian respondents say they believe  religion does more harm than good in the world , according to a new survey. ...

Continue reading

Business

5/Cars/feat-tab

Post Bottom Ad

ad728

Videos

6/Tech/feat-videos

Technology

3/Tech/feat-grid

Fashion

5/Life%20Style/feat2

Header Ads

ad728

Breaking News

Featured

Android

5/Tech/feat-tab

Fashion

5/Cars/feat-tab

Follow Us @templatesyard

Labels

australia (1) education (2) Space (6) Sports (5) Technology (8) trump (1) videos (2)

Tags

Categories

Recent Slider

5/Tech/feat-slider

Comments

3/recent-comments

Post Top Ad

ad728

Beauty

About & Social

Culture

4/Future/post-per-tag

Recommended Posts

randomposts

Popular Posts

Thursday, 25 January 2018

Women to get equal prize money in Tour Down Under cycling event

South Australian government’s announcement hailed by this year’s winner Amanda Spratt as ‘a huge step forward for equality’


Riders in the Women’s Tour Down Under will receive the same pay as their male counterparts for the first time, the South Australian government has announced.
On Monday the state government announced that from 2019 it would increase the prize pool in the women’s cycling event by about $90,000, putting the competition’s prize pool on par with the male event.
The initial women’s prize pool had been about $15,000.
“These athletes are at the top of their game, displaying professionalism, determination and skill during every stage of the hard-fought race,” the South Australian sports minister, Leon Bignell, said.
“It’s only fair the prize money they receive is on par with their male counterparts for each stage as well as the general classification.”
Australian Amanda Spratt won this year’s Women’s Tour Down Under, as well as the Queen of the Mountain prize for best climber. She called the decision “a huge step forward for equality”.
“Having equal prize money will result in even more interest from top international female riders and help take this race to the next level.”
The UCI – the world governing body for sports cycling – has introduced equal prize money for men and women at its world championship and world cup events, but unlike men, women cyclists still do not receive a minimum wage.
In January last year the former Olympic and world champion cyclist Nicole Cooke told a British House of Commons inquiry in the sport that cycling was “a sport run by men, for men”.
She pointed to a number of examples, including the 2006 British cycling championships, in which the women’s event was given “token” support.
“British male success on the international circuit at that time was nonexistent and previous British winner, David Millar was still serving his ban for doping.

Wednesday, 24 January 2018

The IQ test wars: why screening for intelligence is still so controversial – podcast

File 20180124 107943 k9ytg7.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
shutterstock.com

Online IQ “quizzes” purport to be able to tell you whether or not “you have what it takes to be a member of the world’s most prestigious high IQ society”. But despite this hype, the relevance, usefulness and legitimacy of the IQ test is still hotly debated among educators, social scientists, and hard scientists.
To understand why, it’s important to understand the history underpinning the birth, development and expansion of IQ tests – one that includes their use to further marginalise ethnic minorities and poor communities. Listen to our in depth article, which explores this history.
It is written by Daphne Martschenko and read by Gemma Ware.
You can read the text version of the article here. And click here to read or listen to more in depth articles.

The ConversationThe music in this episode is Night Caves, by Lee Rosevere from the Free Music Archive. A big thanks to City University London’s Department of Journalism for letting us use their studios to record this podcast.
This article was originally published on The Conversation.

North and South Korea to unite at Winter Olympics: here are the hidden agendas behind this sports diplomacy

North and South Korean officials meet with International Olympic Committee president Thomas Bach in Lausanne on January 20. Laurent Gillieron/EPA

Udo Merkel, University of Brighton

For many Western ears, Pyongyang and Pyeongchang sound very similar. Both are names of cities on the divided Korean peninsula. But the former is North Korea’s capital and show city, and the latter is the host town of the 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea’s Gangwon Province. It is located just 80km south of the heavily fortified border between the two countries.
Some observers may think that this choice of location was ill considered. But it allowed South Korea to claim in its application to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 2011 that the event would also contribute to an improvement of inter-Korean relations.
As the games approach, this is becoming more of a reality. On January 17, the two Koreas agreed to march under one flag, and to field a joint women’s ice hockey team. And on January 20, representatives from both countries met at the International Olympic Committee headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland, to discuss and agree the details of North Korea’s participation in the Winter Olympics.
The focus of the Lausanne meeting was on Olympic protocol. The unified team at the opening ceremony on February 9 will be called Korea, marching with the Korean Unification Flag, carried by an athlete from each country. The team’s anthem will be the Korean folk song Arirang. Under a “wild card” system, North Korean athletes will compete in figure skating, skiing and the joint ice hockey team.
Until the final days of 2017, this looked extremely unlikely as the governments of both Korean states had not talked to each other for over two years.
Foreign policy – and sports diplomacy is part of that domain – usually happens behind closed doors, as do the processes behind it. Detailed knowledge of North Korea and the country’s internal, political dynamics is also rather limited. This is the most secretive and least understood country in the world, and as a result, some issues have been overlooked or misrepresented regarding the upcoming Olympics detente.

A long time coming

Much reference has been made to Kim Jong-un’s New Year’s speech on January 1 in which he wished Pyeongchang all the best for a successful Winter Olympics and offered to talk about the participation of North Korean athletes. But to consider the speech as the trigger of recent events is wrong. He was simply responding – albeit belatedly – to a speech given by the South Korean president, Moon Jae-in, in June 2017 at the opening ceremony of the Taekwondo Word Championships in Muju, South Korea in which Moon explicitly proposed to send a unified Korean team to Pyeongchang to improve inter-Korean relations.
Moon also reminded his audience of sport’s power to improve relations by referring to the “Sunshine Policy”, which was in place from 1998 to 2008. It focused on engagement and rapprochement and led to the two countries marching together at various Summer and Winter Olympics as well as other regional sporting competitions.

The Korean Unification Flag, waved at the East Asian Football Federation Women’s Cup in 2005. Jeon Heon-Kyun/EPA


What most commentators overlooked was that Moon’s invitation to North Korea was also an encrypted diplomatic message to the US administration that the newly-elected South Korean government did not intend to follow the more confrontational, often incoherent, foreign policy approach favoured by the American president, Donald Trump.
By using his New Year speech to make his announcement, Kim knew it would attract both national and international attention. His words were clearly chosen for both audiences and contained two interrelated but different messages. For his domestic audience, they read: “I have Korean unity and reunification on my radar and will not forget it despite being preoccupied by developing our nuclear programme, testing missiles, UN sanctions, US threats, the warmonger Donald Trump, and so on.”
For the South Korean listeners, his words meant: “OK, I’ve got my missiles working now. That’s the American imperialists sorted. But I think we Koreans are somehow stuck in a cul-de-sac and, perhaps, should talk. Let’s keep it easy and simple at the beginning, leave Donald Trump out of it and talk about sport; and then we see where we go from there.”
The speed of the subsequent developments indicates that North Korea had thoroughly thought about this and was well prepared when the first talks between representatives of the north and the south took place on January 9. In comparison, almost a decade ago, negotiations between the two countries to send a unified team to the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics took several months and led to nothing.

Playing politics

There is little doubt that the world of international sport continues to be a serious and very useful diplomatic tool. On this occasion, it may be a significant stepping stone for an improvement of inter-Korean relations. But, that depends on how serious Kim is as there is some concern that this is just a well-timed but short-lived public relations stunt. It also depends on whether this kind of sports diplomacy is fully embedded in a wider foreign policy from both North and South Korea that aims to achieve the same objectives.
Sport on its own is fairly powerless, but when skilfully integrated it can make significant contributions and promote wider foreign policy tools. It also provides the Korean people with access to a field of politics that usually lacks transparency.
The ConversationFor the IOC, this recent development was of course extremely good news and may distract from the Russian doping scandal and their other major concern, the steadily declining interest in hosting mega sports events.
Udo Merkel, Senior Lecturer in Events Management, University of Brighton
This article was originally published on The Conversation and here is published with permission. Read the original article.

Sunday, 21 January 2018

NASA Examines Technology To Fold Aircraft Wings In Flight.



NASA conducts a flight test series to investigate the ability of an innovative technology to fold the outer portions of wings in flight as part of the Spanwise Adaptive Wing project, or SAW. Flight tests took place at NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center in California, using a subscale UAV called Prototype Technology-Evaluation Research Aircraft, or PTERA, provided by Area-I.
NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland developed the alloy material, and worked with Boeing Research & Technology to integrate the material into an actuator. The alloy is triggered by temperature to move the outer portions of wings up or down in flight.
The ability to fold wings to the ideal position of various flight conditions may produce several aerodynamic benefits for both subsonic and supersonic aircraft.

Saturday, 20 January 2018

Robots and smart devices at tech show : CES 2018.



The biggest consumer technology expo in the world is wrapping up in Las Vegas.
The Consumer Electronics Show, or CES, featured thousands of smart gadgets, artificial intelligence devices and hi-tech cars.
One of the main trends in the expo was the drive toward more and more sophisticated technology in automobiles.

Friday, 19 January 2018

Huff Post Editor On Anzari Story: I Would Not Have Published This Piece .

The Dutch city that's more like Dubai.

You should always arrive in Rotterdam by train. That way, as you leave the station, you can turn around, as I did last month, put your bag down and look back at one of the most joyful buildings in the world. It’s the most exuberantly designed transportation hub since architect Eero Saarinen’s TWA Flight Center at Idlewild Airport (later renamed JFK). Rotterdam Station soars, ignoring gravity, a balletic leap captured in steel, glass and wood.

This is the architectural test kitchen of Europe.
In any other city it would be a centrepiece, probably an anomaly, like Bilbao’s Guggenheim or Toronto’s City Hall. But in Rotterdam, it fits right in. This is a city of wild experimentation, the architectural test kitchen of Europe, a post-war Dubai or Doha, but done better. Instead of being thrown up by a single generation of wealthy people looking to make a global reputation, Rotterdam has evolved over three quarters of a century in response to the developing needs of its people and the times they have lived in. It’s a liveable, walkable, bikeable city. But it’s managed, like those Gulf state insta-cities, to impress at every turn, not with two or three standout buildings – a Transamerica Pyramid here, a Walt Disney Concert Hall there ­– but dozens.
But it wasn’t always this way.
Rotterdam Station is one of the gems of an architecturally jubilant city (Credit: Walter Bibikow/Getty Images)

At 1:28pm on 14 May 1940, a sinister apian buzz could be heard on the streets of the Dutch city, coming from the east. It was a sound they’d been dreading. Within a minute, the swarm was directly over Amsterdam’s twin sister with its own canals and ancient skinny timber and brick houses. Rotterdam was the industrial engine of the Netherlands and the world’s biggest port.
Fifteen minutes later, the planes turned back, leaving the city in flames that burnt for six days until there was nothing left to burn: 250 hectares, 25,000 homes, 11,000 commercial buildings in ashes. Rotterdam was gone.
Nearly gone. The fires weren’t even out by the time city officials met on 18 May to decide what to do next. Though the walls had mostly collapsed, there was more than enough to rebuild. It was the logical choice. It was a choice that Coventry, Warsaw and scores of German towns and cities would make over the coming years, putting Humpty Dumpty together again, piece by historically accurate piece, until a post-war visitor walking through the medievally narrow streets might never know.
In 1940, Rotterdam was reduced to ash and rubble by German bombers (Credit: Keystone-France/Getty Images)

Though there must have been some debate and some impassioned pleas to restore this 14th-Century city to something that could provide some sense of comfort and stability to generations of families, the decision that came out of that meeting was to bulldoze it all and start again. The city architect, Willem Witteveen, immediately started working on a plan. It would be new, but monumental and grand.
Then something even more remarkable happened. In 1944, when the city was still under German occupation but with an end in sight, industrialist Cees van der Leeuw called another meeting, this time in relative secret, in the tea room perched like a fascinator on top of his Van Nelle coffee, tea and tobacco factory. The factory was the city’s first modern architectural masterpiece (Le Corbusier called it ‘the most beautiful spectacle of the modern age’) and it was far enough from the centre to have been untouched by the war. There was an opportunity, van der Leeuw said.
After the city’s destruction, officials decided they would rebuild Rotterdam from scratch (Credit: robertharding/Alamy)

“These captains of industry thought it was better to have more flexibility than Witteveen,” explained Rotterdam architectural historian Michelle Provoost, pointing out that this business-led modernisation had started in the city even before the war, with buildings like CafĂ© Unie (destroyed and since rebuilt). “His plan was seen as too strict.” Witteveen wasn’t thinking big enough or modern enough for the businessmen or the German occupiers, who liked the idea of a blank slate to build a new, Reich-inspired city (which never got off the ground).
Van der Leeuw convinced the city to fire Witteveen and hire his assistant, Cornelis van Traa, to do something altogether more radical. “Van Traa introduced a free-flowing city of objects,” Provoost said.
This was the moment the new Rotterdam – the most architecturally serious, intense, playful, jubilant city in the world – was born.
Rotterdam is like Disneyland for architecture geeks (Credit: Geography Photos/Getty Images)

When you’re done gazing at Rotterdam Station, hop on one of the trams to Blaak station to get the full impact of the city. Walking out from under the subway station’s suspended peacock tail awning, you’ll see two masterpieces of late 20th- and early 21th-Century architecture. On your right are Piet Blom’s Kubuswoningen (1980-84), 39 cube houses, each balancing on its vertex atop its own stem, making for something that looks like a concrete forest. To the left is the Markthal (MVRDV, 2014), a massive horseshoe-shaped market with apartments and condominiums built into the sides. Inside is a mix of things to buy and things to eat (so much stroopwaffel). In addition to being iconic – the shape is simple but utterly unique – it is the logical evolution of the city marketplace where people can meet, eat and live.

Rotterdam is the most architecturally serious, intense, playful, jubilant city in the world
But what’s best about Rotterdam is what you see between the showpieces. Turn back around towards the tram stop and you’ll see Blaak 8 (Group A architects, 2012). It’s just an office building. It really doesn’t need to be as cool as it is, but look at its trapezoidal windows, its shape shifting every few floors. And over to your right, another office building, Blaak 31, has an Italian restaurant on the ground floor before it rises in three storey-high steps for no particular reason. The tax company that occupies much of it just announced that they’re building new headquarters in the shape of an hourglass; once again, just because.
Usually when I travel, I pick hotels based on location, history or amenities. In Rotterdam, I pick them for the architecture. For my first trip a couple of years ago, I stayed at Citizen M, part of a European chain of high-design, low-amenity hotels, this one low and flat, looking like something between a warehouse, a 1970s elementary school and a Mies ottoman. This time I stayed my first night in the Marriott in the Millennium Tower (WZMH, 2000), a late nod to postmodernism next to Rotterdam Station. My second night was in the city’s newest accommodation, a one-room hotel called the Wikkelboat. This floating room, moored in a marina, is made of 24 layers of wrapped cardboard, complete with deck and barbeque. It bobs under the Red Apple (KCAP, 2009), a cantilevered multi-use complex made with anodised aluminium that reddens naturally over time.
The shape of Rotterdam's Markthal is simple but utterly unique (Credit: EschCollection/Getty Images)

Rotterdam loves its buildings like Santa Monica loves its beaches. The best cafe space in town, the bottom floor of a post-war Bauhaus brick building with a glorious corner curve, is called the Dudok, named for its architectHugh, the bar and nightclub at the high-Modernist Hilton (1962), is named for Hugh Maaskant, the city’s premier post-war architect (who also did the Euromast, the city’s big tower).
Rotterdam is like Disneyland for architecture geeks. But it may be even more fun for the rest of us, who don’t usually pay attention to the buildings we work, play and live in, and who’ll go home and wonder why our cities can’t be a little more like Rotterdam.