Hubevents energy (and other) events – may 20, 2018 grade 9 static electricity quiz

The demand for more sophisticated human-computer interactions is rapidly increasing, as users become more accustomed to conversation- like interactions with their devices. In this talk, we examine this changing landscape in the context of human-machine interaction in a shared workspace to achieve a common goal. In our prototype system, people and avatars cooperate to build blocks world structures through the interaction of language, gesture, vision, and action. This provides a platform to study computational issues involved in multimodal communication. In order to establish elements of the common ground in discourse between speakers, we have created an embodied 3D simulation, enabling both the generation and interpretation of multiple modalities, including: language, gesture, and the visualization of objects moving and agents acting in their environment. The simulation is built on the modeling language VoxML, that encodes objects with rich semantic typing and action affordances, and actions themselves as multimodal programs, enabling contextually salient inferences and decisions in the environment. We illustrate this with a walk-through of multimodal communication in a shared task.

Amanda Sturgeon, FAIA is the CEO of the International Living Future Institute (ILFI), a leading organization that focuses on the transformation to a world that is socially just, culturally rich and ecologically restorative. She is the author of Creating Biophilic Buildings (November 2017), the founder and driving force behind the organization’s Biophilic Design Initiative and is a sought-after expert on biophilic design around the world. Amanda is an award-winning architect who enjoyed a successful 15-year career working to harmonize the relationship between people and nature on projects such as Islandwood on Bainbridge Island, Washington. In 2013 she was elected as a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) in recognition for her extensive advocacy and volunteer service to the green building movement, for which she has been a visionary leader. She was named one of the top ten most powerful women in sustainability in 2015 as a recipient of the Women in Sustainability Leadership Award.

DETAILS While nanotechnology has significant potential to address numerous societal needs, innovators, policy makers and the public have concerns that the novel properties of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) may cause harm. The number of new ENMs continues to outpace efforts to understand their impacts on biological systems. To keep pace, we have advanced the use of the zebrafish model to interrogate the interactions between ENMs and biological systems. Early developmental life stages are often uniquely sensitive to environmental insults, due in part to the enormous changes in cellular differentiation, proliferation and migration required to form the required cell types, tissues and organs. Thus, this life stage is the ideal life platform to determine if precision-engineered nanomaterials can target biological pathways. With small quantities of test materials, we broadly assess the impacts of ENM exposures on growth, organ development, cardiovascular function, and complex neurobehavior using high throughput screening (HTS) methods. Through automation, we use a systematic and iterative strategy to elucidate the nanomaterials properties that drive biological responses. To date, we have assessed hundreds of unique nanomaterials from a number of sources that span diverse classes of materials. This talk will discuss the detailed approaches, advantages, challenges and examples using HTS in vivo approaches to assess the biocompatibility of ENMs.

The ability to resolve distant objects within a complex visual scene probably emerged more than 500 million years ago during the Cambrian explosion, a period characterized by the appearance of diverse new sensory innovations, including every major type of eye found in living vertebrates and invertebrates today. David Edelman, Ph.D., argues that distance vision and its underlying neural circuitry provided the first critical substrates for sensory consciousness. Seeing objects from afar engendered a new sort of neural faculty that effectively linked space and time. Animals equipped with this faculty were able to not only monitor their environment for salience (e.g., identify and track predators or prey), but also make predictions about future outcomes on which their survival likely hinged. Making such predictions must necessarily have relied on an ongoing linkage between perception and memory: a connection that, some suggest, is a critical requisite for conscious experience. He makes the case that, as a capable predator with acute vision, the octopus provides a striking test case for subjective experience in an animal quite distant from the vertebrate line. Indeed, probing the octopus visual system could conceivably help identify neuroanatomical and neurophysiological properties of conscious states that are universal among animals with sophisticated sensory faculties and complex nervous systems, regardless of profound morphological differences and divergent evolutionary histories.

Such ‘destigmatizing’ has prompted hot contestation about disability. Bioethicists in the ‘destigmatizing’ camp have lined up to present non-normative accounts, ranging from modest to audacious, that characterize disablement as “mere difference” or in other neutral terms. The arguments for their approach range from applications of standards for epistemic justice to insights provided by evolutionary biology. Conversely, other bioethicists vehemently reject such non-normative or “mere difference” accounts, arguing instead for a “bad difference” stance. “Bad difference” proponents contend that our strongest intuitions make us weigh disability negatively. Furthermore, they warn, destigmatizing disability could be dangerous because social support for medical programs that prevent or cure disability is predicated on disability’s being a condition that it is rational to avoid. Construing disability as normatively neutral thus could undermine the premises for resource support, access priorities, and cultural mores on which the practice of medicine depends.

In Gay Priori Libby Adler offers a comprehensive critique of mainstream LGBT legal agendas in the United States and a new direction for LGBT law reform. Adler shows how LGBT equal rights discourse drives legal advocates toward a narrow array of reform objectives—namely, same-sex marriage, antidiscrimination protections, and hate crimes statutes. This approach means that many legal issues that greatly impact the lives of the LGBT community’s most marginalized members—especially those who are transgender, homeless, underage, or nonwhite—often go unnoticed. Such a narrow focus on equal rights also fixes and flattens LGBT identities, perpetuates the uneven distribution of resources such as safety, housing, health, and wealth, and limits the capacity for advocates to imagine change. To combat these effects, Adler calls for prioritizing the redistribution of resources in ways that focus on addressing low-profile legal conditions such as foster care and other issues that better meet the needs of LGBT people. Such a shift in perspective, Adler contends, will serve to open up a new world of reform possibilities that the law provides for.