【轉貼】地球第一場性愛 5.7億年化石見證 When the earth first moved: Fossil was first animal to have sex 570million years ago

Funisia dorothea素描假想圖 (上圖) ; Sketch: How the rope-like creatures would look (top)

Funisia dorothea化石 (下圖) ; Fossil love: The funisia dorothea is thought to be the first creature to have sex 570m years ago (bottom)

【轉貼自自由時報】

〔編譯陳成良／綜合報導〕

科學家最近在澳洲發現曾存活在距今至少5.7億年前的新物種化石標本，見證地球第一場動物性愛。這種管狀生物稱為「弗尼瑟．多蘿西」（Funisia dorothea，見上圖，下圖為素描假想圖，取自每日郵報網站），會成群地將自己固定在砂質淺灘的海床上，當初的棲息地現在已成為澳洲內陸。
生物性愛史前推3000萬年
研究人員認為，Funisia dorothea應該是地球第一種進行有性繁殖的動物，將地球的生物性愛史往前推了約3000萬年。
英國每日郵報報導， 距今5.7億年前，這種細長管狀生物已經在海洋中生存，據信牠們是以和珊瑚及海綿類似的方法繁殖。科學家認為，Funisia dorothea具有性繁殖的能力，因為化石標本是以群體的形式被發現，而且這群生物年齡相仿，而群聚生長的方式，讓牠們浮在水中的卵子和精子可以安全結合。
精卵結合 近似珊瑚繁殖
Funisia dorothea是負責這次化石挖掘的古生物學者瑪麗．卓瑟根據她母親的姓名來命名。
任教於美國加州大學河濱分校的卓瑟及同僚在「科學」期刊（Science）的報告中指出，由於沒有以Funisia dorothea為食的天敵，牠們的生活平和，有時進行有性生殖，有時則以出芽生殖等方式進行無性生殖。
Funisia dorothea可以長到約30公分，彈性的軀體能隨著海洋潮浪彎曲。由於牠們在幼體或受精卵階段附著於海床上，就無法尋覓交配伴侶，可能因此演化出與現代的珊瑚、海綿類似的繁殖方式。

When the earth first moved: Fossil was first animal to have sex 570million years ago

(News from Daily Mail) By CAROLINE GRANT Last updated at 16:20pm on 21st March 2008

It may be more than 570million years old and look like a knobbly rope, but scientist believe they have discovered the first animal on earth ever to have sex.
The fossilised remains of this new species of organism was unearthed in Australia where the tube-like creatures lived in abundant flocks.
The discovery of the animal, called Funisia dorothea, has put the history of sex back by about 30million years and set the scientific world into a frenzy.
It is thought that the sex lives of the long thin creature would be similar to corals and sponges.
Researchers came to the conclusion that the mysterious animals were sexually active because the fossil specimens were found in groups that all seemed to be of the same age.
Nothing appears to have evolved to eat them, so they lived peaceful lives, reproducing sexually at times and by asexual methods such as budding at other times, Mary Droser of the University of California Riverside and colleagues reported in the journal Science.
The remains of organisms were found in the Australian outback that would have once been a shallow, sandy seabed.
Scientists believe that sex for the creatures would have been functional rather than social.
Professor Droser said: "I think they would have been way too basic to have enjoyed sex.
"I don't think they would wind around each other. But I could be wrong - I would like to think they enjoyed it."
Professor Droser added: "They were complicated enough to have different modes of reproduction and a fairly complex ecosystem in general."
They lived in dense groups of similar size and aged animals, like mussels and oysters do.
"It is common modern ecological strategy, and these guys were doing it in the earliest animal ecosystems on this planet," she said.
"We think of these strategies as having been in response to competition and in response to predation."
Dense clusters, such as the ones these animals lived in, allow eggs and sperm floated in the water to meet up safely.
"They would have been hitting you mid-calf as you walked in these very dense clusters," said Professor Droser.
"Almost always, organisms that do this do it as a result of sexual reproduction."
Multicellular animal life is believed to have arisen around 600 million years ago.
The Funisia dorothea would have thrived in the Neoproterozoic era, which ended about 540million years ago and lasted for about 100million years.
They would have grown to about 30cm long and been flexible enough to bend with the currents and tides of the sea.
Once they had rooted themselves to the seabed as larva or a fertilised egg they would have been stuck in one place and unable to search for mates.
Professor Droser added: "In Funisia, we are very likely seeing sexual reproduction in Earth's early ecosystem - possibly the very first instance of sexual reproduction in animals on our planet."
Funisia dorothea's name comes from the word for rope in Latin and dorothea after Dorothy, Droser's mother.

雙語 Bilingual

昨天轉登了一則變形金剛的文章，因為轉貼聯合報和其來源的英國的新聞，所以包含中英兩種語言。今天赫然發現一則來自陌生訪客的回應，而且是英文的。

他說「很高興這是雙語的部落格.....」。我並不確定這是否是來自外國人的聲音，但對於這個意外，讓我確實有了這個念頭，用雙語來記錄事情。

我始終覺得我在從事一件國際性的研究，雖然看起來非常在地，事實上也是在台中縣市交界處和龜山鄉授課，一個人在台北鑽研在國外是一整個團隊在從事的工作，週遭也很少有人可以交換心得(可惜學校的學生也常常沒眼光、不識貨...)。我想我的網路空間是可以擴展它可及的範圍，像某些一直對外太空播放地球訊息的工具一般，企盼某天外星人真的來訪；或者像lost影集那法國女人播放的求救信號，聯繫到不可知的接觸。

我想中英文混著記錄會是件有趣的事，therefore我想大聲說「中文外的世界，here I come!」

Speed Shifting Scale

I took a computer course the other day about the microcontroller. During the class we experimented how to control the led lights by writing some simple scripts. There are 8 led lights programmed together for various performances. In one test run, the lights are supposed to turn on one by one in order, but its outcome seems to be turning on in the same time. The reason for that error is the speed of the electric flow in that circuit is too fast which makes an illusion to our eyes. They were really turned on and off one by one in turn but in a very fast speed, 0.000001 second per cycle. That is the trick!!

Several months ago, I took the Taiwan High Speed Rail to Tainan CKU to give a speech about my new book, Responsive Volatility. When the train were about to departure in the Taipei Station, five women caught up with the train in the last moment. It is easy to tell that they are "different" among most of the passengers in the car by their appearences. They are all in fashion brand dresses, nice shoes, shining jewelries. They chatted noisily and I reluctantly overheard their conversation a little and found that they are wives of doctors in Taichung, a city in middle Taiwan, 2hr car drive southern from Taipei, and they were up to Taipei for shopping that morning and now on this train going back to school in Taichung to pick up their children on time. The high spped rail now saves more than a half travel time from Taipei to Taichung which makes me confronted this real incident. I realized that the speed really changes the way people live though in this case only for the rich.

Speed shifts the scale and the contents, configurations....

【轉貼】英研發變形金剛 真實版來了

早上看到這則新聞，感到很興奮。雖說類似的想法不是第一遭發佈，但這樣的企圖一直以來就是心中有關建築夢想的一部份。轉貼給大家瞧瞧！

【聯合報╱編譯田思怡／報導】2008.03.14 03:47 am

英國每日郵報報導，英國科學家將以460萬英鎊（台幣2.87億元），仿照電影「變形金剛」中可任意改變形狀的機器人，打造真實版的變形金剛來幫忙救人。
這項實驗將建造成群的小機器人，每個機器人如方糖般大，能自行移動，並連結成一個較大、具有人工智慧的機器人。
研究員說，第一批會自動行動、有智慧而且會變形的機器人，可望在5年內上陣。西英格蘭大學和約克大學研究小組的一名發言人說：「這些機器人可用於醫療、太空探測、研究和救難任務。」
這名發言人說：「你可以想像在一棟建築物倒塌後，把千百個小機器人扔進縫隙內，它們會自動找到彼此，也許連結成一個蛇形的機器人，在瓦礫中蠕動，也許再變形成一隻會爬牆的蜘蛛，或是可移開瓦礫的機器手臂，有無限可能。」
每個機器人都有輪子或觸手，可單獨行動，並內裝小型的電腦頭腦，和iPod或iPhone一樣聰明，利用紅外線找到彼此進行連結。
一旦連結在一起，這些方糖般的機器人可分享能源、運算能力，創造出和筆記型電腦一樣聰明的變形金剛。西英格蘭大學教授溫菲爾德說，變形金剛不會對人類構成威脅。
他說：「這些機器人集結在一起，會更多變，像是水母或海綿的細胞。不同的機器人可合作創造出更大的有機體。」
在電影「變形金剛」中，外星來的機器人入侵地球，偽裝成汽車、機車和貨車，互相發動戰爭。
這項稱為「Symbrion」的計畫由歐盟出資。

【News From Daily Mail】

Real-life Transformers: Shape-changing robots could help save livesBy DAVID DERBYSHIRE

It sounds like something straight from a children's comic.
But British scientists will today take the first steps in an astonishing project to create the first real-life Transformers - the science fiction robots which can change shape at will.
The £4.6million experiment will attempt to build swarms of tiny robots, each the size of a sugar cube, that move around on their own and connect together to form larger, intelligent machines.
Researchers say the first swarm of autonomous, intelligent, shape-changing robots could be in use within five years.
"They could be used in medicine, in space exploration and in search and rescue missions," said a spokesman for scientists at the University of the West of England in Bristol and the University of York.
"You can imagine dropping hundreds of these small robots into a crevice after a building has collapsed. They would find each other and maybe connect together to form a snake-shaped object that could wriggle through the wreckage.
"Then they could re-form into a spider to climb over a wall - or a robot with an arm that could lift rubble away. The possibilities are endless."
Each robot would have wheels or tentacles, allowing it to move around independently.
It would contain a small computer brain, making it as intelligent as an iPod or iPhone, and use infra-red to find other cubes.
Once connected, the cubes would be able to share energy and computing power, creating a machine with the intelligence of a computer laptop.
The scientists have yet to work out how the swarms would connect together. But their connections would need to double up as joints, so that the resulting larger machine could move around.
The Symbrion project, announced to mark National Science and Engineering Week, is funded by the EU.
The robots will also be able to manage their own hardware and software and will be "self-healing and selforganising", the researchers say.
Professor Alan Winfield, of the University of the West of England, denied that they could pose a threat to humans.
"The robots have functionality on their own, but they can also combine together or adapt and change as the situation requires," he said.
"The individual robots won't change physically, but they will adapt and evolve their functionality.
"Once the robots come together they will be more versatile - like a colony of cells such as those found in a jelly fish or a sponge.
"The different robots will co-operate to create the larger organism. In a sponge even if there is damage to some parts, the overall organism still survives.
"In this way the artificial robotic organisms might in theory become self-configuring, self-healing and self-optimising from both hardware and software perspectives."
The project has echoes of last year's Transformers film in which alien robots trapped on Earth disguise themselves as cars, motorbikes and lorries to wage war on each other.

號外！捷報！

【外電訊】根據土也酉己設計香港特派記者「金毛」實地查訪後，原本欲調查陳X希事件的後續發展，但意外地發現令人更振奮消息，比情慾更叫人熱血噴張的事件，那就是「活潑建築」已登陸香港藝術中心的書店─阿麥書房(有圖有真相)，而且是在門面的一級戰區喔。

狂喜狂賀是開玩笑的！這不過就是通路的作用罷了！

但也是承蒙境外書店瞧得起，書要有一定水準才能獲得人家的青睞與訂購，也不枉過去所有參與人員的辛勤付出。
雖說高興有這樣的成績，但也期待書要賣的出去，才能有溝通與影響。

持續努力，將這份喜悅與追夢的你們分享！

活潑建築之旅第九站_台灣科技大學

2007年12月28日晚上，來到基隆路旁的台科大。

首先要感謝黃聖傑老師替我安排這場演講，也謝謝吳明修老師讓我參加專題演講這堂課，以及廖婉筎助教和另一位神祕男助教的諸多幫忙。

從未到訪過台科大，因為當天早到，所以就到該校學生餐廳用餐。用餐處是美食街的型態，有做裝潢，雖稱不上impressive，但比東海、銘傳的餐廳而言，顯而易見國立的學校經費多些，空間的品質有差。但反過來比比國外大學的學生餐廳，又有點俗氣而不見空間的氣質(我曾到訪Utrecht大學Koolhaas做的Educatorium的學生餐廳，那是另一層級的空間設計，見圖。斜板下方就是學生餐廳，在偌大的傾斜天花下，學生三五成群地用餐)。另外餐廳附近的男浴廁，裝潢的好像坊間的溫泉館，再次證明國立學校的財力。

演講的地方，在一座貝殼聽內，設備裝設不算時髦但很齊全。因為是堂課，來的人數還算多，差不多八成滿，應該五六十人以上吧。特別的是聽眾包括在學學生，也有實業界前輩。演講還算順暢，90分鐘講完，進行現場的問題互動。印象比較深刻而與之前演講不同的意見問題有二。一個來自非本科系的學生，一個來自執業界的先進。學生說第一次看到「建築可以這樣玩」做為起頭，導引到台灣目前有這樣的實例嗎？職業先進問到這樣的建築，是不是只能存在於像Foster之類的高科技建築？

雖然不同的問題，不過似乎都跟可行性有關。

關於學生的提問回應：在實際環境的考驗下，台灣目前比較欠缺這樣的研究，更稱不上有這樣的實例。因此一般人順勢用「紙上建築」來稱這些蓋不出的建築。雖說這是鐵一般的事實，無法否認，但是更重要的是「紙上建築」代表的是一種開拓未來的精神，企圖聯繫未來與現在，在目前的限制下，暫時停留在紙上，找尋建築的可能。前衛內涵的養成與實際執行的能力都很重要，兩者相輔相成，建築藝術會比較均衡發展。只有實際的繁殖量，欠缺建築思考的精神，整個都市、建築都會失色許多。

關於先進的提問回應：有實驗精神的想法，當然希冀有一天能被落實。但在那天來臨前，其實還是可以可能在許多角落中實現。例如公共藝術、或小型的方案、家具...等。在經費比較少，門檻比較低的限制下，委身在另一具軀殼上，這也是演化的生存之道。至於Foster的例子，那是成熟的機制運作所示範的範例，是另一個層級的參考目標。

會後同學們熱情買書回饋，不讓我將書又扛回家！演講費也讓我見識到「國立」的威力！跟各位分享，要演講別忘了來國立的學校喔！口袋滿滿喔！

【轉貼】Willem-Jan Neutelings How to Design an Icon

轉貼自archinect。

轉貼這文章的主要意義，在於此文章開宗明義便質疑Columbia-AA-Berlage連成一氣的邪惡新潮流製造者。
前些時候一位師長也約略提到，此流是英美某部份菁英提供給資本主義的菜單......
雖然我目前應該仍算是此流的愛好者，對其中的奧妙魔力仍深感無法自拔，繼續在鑽研，也無意就此罷手；但是我也覺得保持一份開放的態度的必要，隨時傾聽別人的批評。
不過此篇所談的建築方向對我而言，並不是那麼有趣。大家自己看看吧！

Willem-Jan Neutelings How to Design an Icon

Jan 31, 2008

A conversation with Willem-Jan Neutelings about the tradition of architecture and the way iconography should be applied in architecture.

by Michiel van Raaij

An old profession

“The axis Columbia – AA – Berlage Institute is the axis of evil,” Willem-Jan Neutelings laughs. Then serious again: “For ten years the American architecture schools, in combination with a couple West-European schools, have promoted the idea that new means give birth to a new architecture. I find it evil that this is being explained to the youth, because the youth doesn’t understand how architecture works anymore, and that keeps on getting worse. There is no writer that would say, that because books are now typed on computers, he makes a different literature. But that is what architects say.”

“The Mercedes-Benz Museum is a building of which one says it is because the flows of the public have been studied, or because the computers have all designed it, or because the French philosophers have thought it that way. But one could also say it emerged because Ben at one moment drew a beautiful charcoal sketch. All that is not important!”

“These are all decoys to position oneself in a contemporary debate, but the essence is that Ben van Berkel is just a Beaux-Arts architect, because he handles the architectural instruments incredibly well. We all use a very old set of instruments, in the sense that a building is driven by composition, tectonics, partie and pochet, arrangement, light and dark, material skills, all those matters that make up the classic, 5000 year old methodologies to design architecture.”

“We are now planning to create a school, in the office, where we invite old teachers to explain color-theory, composition, or perspective, because nobody knows that anymore. They all have knowledge that is completely useless to create architecture.”
The argument of Willem-Jan Neutelings was an answer to a question I didn’t ask. Mr. Neutelings has a mission, and takes every opportunity to educate it.

In the past years Willem-Jan Neutelings and Michiel Riedijk, partners in Neutelings Riedijk Architects in Rotterdam, have become the leading architecture intellectuals in the Netherlands. The surge came on all flanks: An oeuvre with consistent innovation, coupled to a series of high-profile projects all located in the Netherlands. Then there is the book ‘At Work’. And the final strike was a number of polemic lectures that were everywhere applauded. At the ‘Architectuur 2.0’ conference last October a thousand Dutch architects made an (almost standing) ovation to Mr. Neutelings. The advocated message? You just read it: after the end of theory, after all emergent blobs have popped, the tradition of the architectural practice is back.

Instead of hoping for a revolution that will never come, the agenda has refocused on a cultural conservatism. But, “our call for tradition is not about style, it’s about methodology”, Mr. Neutelings assures me.

Highly significant is the reoccuring pointing by Mr. Neutelings to the nineteenth century, not by coincidence the moment just before Modernism interupted that tradition. It was also the moment representation blossemed like never before in the neo-styles. When studying ornament and iconography the nineteenth century is the place to be, even though it looks like a paradox: Look back to move forward.

The thin line between the banal and being misunderstood

The question I did ask was: Since the nineteenth century the themes in architectural representation have broadened enormously, as shown in the work on Neutelings Riedijk. The exterior cladding of the Shipping and Transport College in Rotterdam refers explicitly to the stacked containers in the harbor. The interior features ceilings like sails, windows like portholes, and a lecture room with square, red ‘life jackets’ for acoustics. It’s a building that echoes maritime industrial products. How can that still be connected to the tradition of our profession?

First Mr. Neutelings denies: “Let’s say that when the old Greeks used an Acanthus-leaf for a theatre, it was just because they were inspired by an Acanthus-leaf. Nothing has changed.”
But then he agrees: “The themes are different. A writer still uses the same grammar as 150 years ago, but he writes a book about a very different theme, because different things are happening now.”

The metaphor of the writer is smart: Iconography translates as ‘image writing’. That’s is the direction I aim for. In the contemporary debate I think three positions on the use of iconography can be distinguished:

First there is Charles Jencks who advocates the ‘enigmatic signifier’. Only an icon that allows multiple readings grasps and keeps the attention of the public. Take the Swiss Re tower from Norman Foster: Is it an egg, a cigar, a dick, or a gherkin? That is success, Mr. Jencks says.

Then there is Alejandro Zaero-Polo who put back the old element of ‘truth’ in representation: A façade should not just be an image, but should represent, in honesty, what kind of construction and organization a building has. Iconography should have a ‘double agenda’. His Yokohama Cruise Terminal applies the image of the Hokusai wave, a tsunami, in such an integral way that it enhances the flow of passengers, and the load-bearing steel structure. Iconography, organization and construction should come simultaneously, Mr. Zaero-Polo says.

After the Yokohama Terminal Mr. Zaero-Polo has not realized a similar integral building – it’s an agenda that seems too ambitious. Neutelings Riedijk on the other hand seems ti represent a far more pragmatic approach: The appliance of a singular, deliberately chosen iconography for the form and texture of a building, without a direct connection to the construction or functional organization behind the facade.

“I don’t know”, is all Mr. Neutelings says. He likes to think of himself as just an architect. But later on, when I ask him about the criticism of being too literal when applying iconography, an answer does come up:

“I agree, that is our lack of talent. It is important that the meaning is layered. In general, one takes out the things with a very singular meaning. That also goes for a book, a film, anything. Pieces of art that are rich with meaning last longer.”

But the example of the urinoir of Duchamps Mr. Neutelings then puts forward immediately poses a difficult question: How to recognize a ‘layered’ object? How to distinguish layers?

“It is true that some of our buildings are a bit too… thin, in the sense that they don’t succeed in touching all those layers. Sometimes that is because the commissions are just too limited to live up to that ambition, but sometimes it is also just because we can’t do better. That’s the way it is.”

That would prove my hypothesis of a specific position on iconography wrong: Neutelings Riedijk aims for the enigmatic signifier, described by Charles Jencks, but wasn’t talented enough to realize it.

As Mr. Neutelings talked further though, a more unconscious concern with readability comes up, a concern that contradicts the idea of the multi-layered iconography: “The funny thing with buildings with a lot of layers… Our Tax office in Apeldoorn is very layered, but because of that a lot of people find it hermetic and hard to understand. So it happens that currently, in our image culture, an easier understandable form is faster absorbed.”

“I don’t say that’s better”, he adds. But you hear him thinking: We want our buildings to be popular, to be part of society – without becoming totally uncritical, or fully banal.

And wasn’t the Acanthus leaf in Greek architecture a singular iconography, abstracted though it was?

How Aldo Rossi has limited the number of icons

“The misunderstanding of our time is to think all buildings should be icons. We don’t think that. A building should only be an icon when it’s nature allows it. The reason to actually want iconography is, because it is an important building, you think it could have a specific expression, and should not conform to anonymity.”

The icon in the view of Mr. Neutelings is connected to the idea of the monument, of the (public) building that - because of its form and position in the city - does justice to its important program: “Iconography is never a goal in itself, but always a result of the commission. On the sly I have to admit we mostly don’t strive after that kind of commissions, but that is something else.”

When I say that reminds me of Aldo Rossi, he just knots. It is like that. “One of our secrets at the office is that Michiel Riedijk has studied by Aldo Rossi.”

For me that is a revelation. Was it Aldo Rossi who theorized the icon so it could emerge?

In search of the right expression

The most mentioned word in the interview is ‘nature’: The nature of the building, its character, its essence. The iconography of a building should represent that nature.

As an architect Mr. Neutelings doesn’t theorize the representation in architecture, but talks more on how he designs the iconographic thing: “We want buildings to have a great sculpturality, one that could possibly represent something. Iconography is in the first place tectonic.”

“In the case of the Shipping and Transport College the iconography has to do with the fact that we didn’t want the expression of school - because is not really a school; we also didn’t want the expression of an office - because it also isn’t really an office. It is an institute that has a lot to do with maritime business, where inside stands all kinds of equipment to simulate that. So we wanted to try to make an object that would connect to the harbor, that would appear like a harbor building, that would be familiar with cranes, silo’s, warehouses. Those buildings are in themselves more expressive, have weird forms, curious cantilevers, or large beams. Because that is the nature of such architecture.”

“The iconography of our buildings doesn’t express the function, it doesn’t display how the building works”, Mr. Neutelings further explains, “We search for an expression that connects to what’s inside, but also links with the context. For instance the harbor.”

In the case of the Shipping and Transport College those two representations match: It’s a harbor building in the harbor. It’s the kind of ‘reinforced’ strength in image that features the best work of Neutelings Riedijk.

The chosen reference, like the harbor, is abstracted into architecture by tuning it with functionality and building technology, but also by following the irrationality of the sculpture: “We do that by making a lot of models, to try a lot of sculptures, and choose from that.”

In four steps:

0. If it is a contemporary monument,
1. You have to make a distinct building,
2. That represents the nature of the building in its form and cladding,
3. While still connecting to the context,
4. And following the logic of the sculpture.

That’s how one designs an icon.