tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-65447947336418303612024-02-20T12:33:30.453-08:00An Old Coventrian Goes MagneticCommercial archaeologist/geophysicist. Occasionally engages in digital posthumanist research. Sometimes posts about other things.Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-30354116264924396832022-09-25T05:12:00.004-07:002022-10-13T00:41:06.624-07:00Buy my Book! Multiple Bodies, Multiple Dimensions: Digital Ontology and Archaeology by Alistair Galt<h1 _ngcontent-chf-c114="" style="background-color: #fafafa; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 24px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 400; line-height: 32px; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">Multiple Bodies, Multiple Dimensions</h1><h2 _ngcontent-chf-c114="" style="background-color: #fafafa; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 20px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 500; line-height: 32px; margin: 0px 0px 16px;">Digital Ontology and Archaeology</h2><h3 _ngcontent-chf-c114="" style="background-color: #fafafa; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 400; line-height: 28px; margin: 0px 0px 16px;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 0.875em;">This study seeks to understand the relationship between digital ontology and archaeology through a combination of computer sciences and anthropological approaches. Through such concepts as philosophical engineering and eccentric positionality, this study presents the digital realm as a tripartite system, with a reappraisal of the digital characteristics we take for granted in the modern age, particularly in relation to our own senses, which has consequences for how we see the totality of the universe around us. This is fed back into archaeological case studies to demonstrate the radical nature of the digital and how positive feedback loops make the digital so unique in relation to our current reality, and how we should come to understand the digital for future studies.</span></h3><div _ngcontent-chf-c111="" class="flex-container small" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-direction: column; font-size: 0.875em; height: auto; margin-bottom: 50px; max-width: fit-content; min-width: 100%; overflow: hidden;"><div _ngcontent-chf-c111="" class="row ng-star-inserted" style="--bs-gutter-x: 1.5rem; --bs-gutter-y: 0; box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; flex: 1 1 0%; height: auto; margin-left: calc(var(--bs-gutter-x) * -0.5); margin-right: calc(var(--bs-gutter-x) * -0.5); margin-top: calc(var(--bs-gutter-y) * -1); overflow-y: auto;"><div _ngcontent-chf-c111="" style="box-sizing: border-box; flex-shrink: 0; margin-top: var(--bs-gutter-y); max-width: 100%; padding-left: calc(var(--bs-gutter-x) * 0.5); padding-right: calc(var(--bs-gutter-x) * 0.5); width: 645px;"><section _ngcontent-chf-c111="" class="ng-star-inserted" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 20px;"><br /></section><section _ngcontent-chf-c111="" class="ng-star-inserted" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 20px;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjy1MtUeqlPTuLD7wUiCxZ7H3VERvmTPLkn7xNUnd3ogLIh2ksG6SwYi4O0SdMNISNuTq-Uey0qyzRHDVp6OkX0ew5ArHy-D_YMVzCrQQY12L9qIaFRLldhhy_OZVyAT9YLq-A0S3DbCsTg18y-OKM9GET4VuYZAq5hSCWSrzl5HJmg_8d2-xjBZ61w" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="716" data-original-width="486" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjy1MtUeqlPTuLD7wUiCxZ7H3VERvmTPLkn7xNUnd3ogLIh2ksG6SwYi4O0SdMNISNuTq-Uey0qyzRHDVp6OkX0ew5ArHy-D_YMVzCrQQY12L9qIaFRLldhhy_OZVyAT9YLq-A0S3DbCsTg18y-OKM9GET4VuYZAq5hSCWSrzl5HJmg_8d2-xjBZ61w=w272-h400" width="272" /></a></div><br /><br /></section></div></div></div><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>See link for book launch sale - https://www.morebooks.shop/shop-ui/shop/book-launch-offer/221937051ae3f7940dda20d19f25c4894d2600f3</p><p><br /></p><p>Also see my Researchgate profile at www.researchgate.net/profile/Alistair-Galt</p>Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-92048237713963681532018-10-21T06:28:00.000-07:002018-12-08T09:52:51.619-08:00Hadrian's Wall Polyline v.1For anyone who needs a polyline for Hadrian's Wall, here it is! Please use this <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iL395geTwp1LmCVgRaQR-GfGoay9nShG/view?usp=sharing">link.</a> I'm planning on refining it in the near future, which shouldn't take too long. As I wasn't able to access more refined information on the wall some of this is educated guesswork based on an OS 1:25,000 map and some Satellite imagery, as well as some other sources. Any students/practitioners of any subject that involves Hadrian's Wall are free to use it, although I would like you to reference where you got it from (i.e. this blog!!) and the problems with the dataset (not accurately referenced, should be used as a rough guide to the location of the wall etc.). It has a few attributes that can be filled in, depending on whether it is Hadrian's or Severan's Wall.<br />
<br />
<br />Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-74547229636448836042018-05-28T13:50:00.000-07:002018-05-28T13:50:56.820-07:00Running free?In <i>Running Free, </i>Richard Askwith argues that running in a commercial event such as <i>Tough Mudder </i>or <i>Rat Race</i> is not the same as running in a traditional race in, say, an athletics meeting, a fun run or a charity event (I assume as much; he simply says "Big Running wants you to run in a rut (...) But don't let them tell you that's the only option", where Askwith states that Big Running has successfully created a whole new market for runners where the emphasis is on paying a lot of money on both the equipment and for the experience when really you could do all this for much less and possibly for more entertainment).<br />
<br />
However, it occurred to me that despite my affiliation with a running club, not spending very much on running gear and nothing on gym fees (except the fell running essentials for about £40, minus trail shoes) and running for the sake of my own enjoyment and not necessarily for the times (except <i>Parkrun</i>), what I had just done today (see date of the article) ideologically amounted to the exact same end product of the antithesis of what Richard Askwith would like us runners to do. Bear with me. Today I ran in the Bamford Sheepdog Trials Fell Race. The race itself isn't important; it had a 300 metre ascent over a 1 mile stretch of a 4.5 miles race, with fantastic views of the Derwent Valley all round at the top. If it wasn't for the narrow path maybe I could've taken a few more runners on the uphill... but I digress. I paid £5 for that privilege. The problem I realised posthumously is that essentially any event you pay for could fall into this "Big running" category. Admittedly in Tough Mudder you pay upwards of £50 for the race itself without the extras, which is a lot more money and very limiting to those with a decent disposable income.<br />
<br />
"Big Running" is seen as bad by Askwith as it implies that you are letting capitalism control every aspect of your running life by sanitising the experience into something marketable and "enjoyable" by making you think you are enjoying the countryside whereas really you are rather safe and not actually experiencing the environment. The entrance fee is the most problematic part of this. Askwith would say that Bamford is a charity and not a commercial venture so they are not making a profit out of the race. I would argue that if people are willing to pay for a Big Running experience, then fell runners are just as culpable in paying for an event run by a charity. Most races I attend are run by volunteers and charities, and with the exception of Parkrun, I pay for pretty much all of these. I <i>could </i> have organised my own event but if I had charged for it surely I would have been culpable too!<br />
<br />
However the other argument here is that a charity/volunteer event is much more likely to give back to the community. It gives the communities, often relatively isolated ones, a chance of making some much needed cash for their communities. The Bamford race I mentioned above explicitly states where the money from the fell race goes to, such as the local girl Guides (see <a href="http://bamfordsheepdogtrials.com/donations/" target="_blank">here</a>). But it is still within the confines of a capitalist system. It may not be as bad as the commercial ventures but it still legitimises the system and justifies paying for a race. This in itself isn't a bad thing - races can rarely be done for free. However in fell running a large portion of the races are locally grounded, in contrast to the Big Running events, which have little historical association with the areas they are hosted. Relations between locals and the events are not usually the reason why you go to a Big Running event, whereas the nostalgia of running in a fell race sometimes involves an entire village coming out to help organise a race (see the Burnsall Classic). So the simple act of paying for a race entry immediately blurs the community and commercial lines. At what point are you paying for the race organisation, the upkeep of the church, or just lining someone's pockets? This is a very cynical view, and certainly in the fell running scene is almost unheard of. However, I feel this is something that Mr. Askwith could address in a future article.<br />
<br />
The second part of this is the branding/advertising of said events. In a similar vein, at what point does advertising an event become branding? Simply having your race on the Fellrunner website in itself may be grounds for branding as you are exposing yourself to market forces (there are a lot of adverts on the site from some big fell running names). However, this argument does fall down a bit as many fell races don't spend money on advertising and often rely on word of mouth more so than Big Running events.<br />
<br />
Ultimately the Big Running events are mostly motivated by profit while the charity and local events are run for the locals (no pun intended). At a fundamental level comparing the paid aspect of these different types of events doesn't give us the ideological difference we are looking for. The way they are marketed is better, and Askwith does identify this as a factor. His other factors I don't have a problem with (sanitising the experience, selling merchandise and "the experience"), but a refinement of the differences should focus more on the community of who these races benefit would be a better starting point.Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-86582067565658648722018-01-11T13:50:00.003-08:002018-01-11T13:50:20.568-08:00A Hitchhiker's (brief) Guide to the Ontology of the Digitisation of Archaeology<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">The
digital world is one of representation that relies on the abstract
use of binary numbers over a computer-based network. We treat the
digital as we treat the real world, i.e. in a largely visually
dominated environment, so perhaps we can phrase the question as an
off-shoot of what is </span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><i>really
</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">real
and not just visually there. Yet archaeology is uniquely placed to
utilise the digital; namely to re</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><i>construct</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">
</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><i>the
past</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">.
So what is the ontological difference between an interaction with an
archaeological object in real life and one based in the digital
domain? Are we addressing these challenges in archaeology? By using
a philosophical framework I will analyse this question through Jos De
Mul's four characteristics of the digital world, and by relating it
to archaeology through photogrammetric models and photography.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><b>change
slide</b></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Humans
struggle to visualise the scale of the digital. To quote </span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><i>The
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">;
“Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely,
mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down
the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space”.
Traditional analogies do not work for the digital realm for a variety
of reasons; Jos De Mul proposes that a better analogy for cyberspace
is space travel as they both contain spatial and temporal
characteristics that we don't experience on Earth. For example, if we
are recording this session, you could watch this session from another
planet and this session could be listened to in the future. However,
this argument falls down because you can use analogue technologies to
do some of these tasks, e.g. analogue radio. It is also difficult to
comprehend digital space - space is an abstract notion of nothingness
but also it is situated within our reality. It is possible to travel
through space, but you are still subject to physical laws.
Nonetheless, outer space is so large and the amount of information we
can store in the digital realm is so large that we can perhaps
compare the two in this respect. An object that can contain infinite
representations can be any size you like, and yet it can contain more
numbers than you could possibly count, like a dice with a digital
display capable of outputting any number you program it to, while an
analogue dice is limited to the number of sides it has. Much like
when staring up into the night sky; you can visualise the stars
easily enough, but could you count every known star out there? The
digital makes it possible.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Thus
we should approach digital archaeology similarly, particularly
online. Archaeologists have already highlighted the importance of the
digital image and its contribution compared to an analogue method,
showing how important the professional illustrator is to capturing
the complexities of a site. However, many studies focus on just the
visual critique of the digital, not the underlying ontology. To
balance this critique I propose De Mul's analysis of the digital,
which provides four main characteristics; Multimediality,
Interactivity, Virtuality and Connectivity.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><b>change
slide</b></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Multimediality
is the combination of words, sounds and (moving) images. Digital
information is in its simplest form a binary code. The digital media
can then be transported and replicated easily, which puts objects out
of their original context. Everything on this screen can be
translated into 8 binary numbers, which could then be coded into 256
different linguistic signs, which can then be used in any program
which can read a binary code. How well it will work in subsequent
programs is a different matter. Aden Evens sees multimediality as an
abstraction as well as a manipulation; by capturing information in
binary form you are also divorcing the processes of the digital from
the temporal and spatial particularities of our reality. In fact,
Evens goes so far as to say that it is THE defining feature of the
digital as all digital information is superseded by and becomes
either 1 or 0; everything or nothing.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Multimediality’s
most common function is manipulation, which isn’t a purely digital
characteristic. To illustrate my point, one of these images is the
raw image, and the other was used in the first Picture Post Magazine
in October 1938. Which of these images has been edited for
publication? The raw image (on the left) has been “airbrushed” to
spare the dignity of the young woman; an early example of an
Photoshopped image! However, analogue technology cannot combine
visual senses with audio and other senses without resorting to
different media sources. The binary code makes the digital different;
it allows all of the senses to be used in the same representational
platform. In this respect multimediality creates an easier interface
between digital computers and humans. I will come back to this point
later.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">The
Picture Post image also demonstrates the media also becomes unstable
as they are in flux. The analogue and digital photographs may look
the same but they are not structurally identical, as photogrammetry
encompasses both traditional photographic methods and digital
imaging; yet these media are technologically and fundamentally
different. This leads to a common criticism of digital archaeology;
de-contextualisation. This is a serious ethical issue that concerns
the ontology of the dataset. Multimediality allows us, or a computer,
to “Photoshop” an image without us noticing the difference.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><b>change
slide</b></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">The
second of De Mul's characteristics, Interactivity, focuses on the way
in which the user navigates through the digital. If humans will
interact with computers in new ways, then we should investigate how
this might be an ontological issue. In this case, interactivity is
best described by hypertext; a non-linear network of fragments
through which the user can navigate. Unlike a book, where the author
has put the words in a set order, you can intervene on a web page or
digital medium, such as a computer game. A book in the digital
requires no page number; you may navigate them as you please. Evens
argues that this is a significant break from analogue media, as page
numbers are considered secondary to the text in the book itself. The
referents are the text themselves. In a computer game you can
determine the actions and outcomes of the game much more so than a
book; the player is free to determine the objective of the game. You
are free to set the rules of what you are looking for in, say, a
photogrammetric model, becoming your own author and creating an
unique experience that may be shared with others. It is also possible
to do this with board games too; as long as you are create your own
rules. What this also shows is that the viewer in a sense becomes an
“author” of the work. The original author becomes a creator of
narrative spaces that allow multilinear paths to be taken.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Other
definitions of interactivity only occur when the audience actively
participates in the control of an artwork or representation. Such an
example is crowd-sourcing; a photogrammetric model can have multiple
contributions of photographs from a variety of users who are
contributing to the final product. We see such active examples in
Google Earth where models of existing structures have been
crowd-sourced, but there is no rigourous way of checking whether a
photograph is acceptable or assessing this data against the
objectives of a grander strategy. Conceptual models are also used to
fill in gaps in the model, which are entirely created in the digital
medium, which are true proxies of our reality as there is no true
basis in reality for them.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><b>change
slide</b></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Now
we must move on to virtuality. Here it is concerned with, to quote
Heim, “an event or entity that is real in effect but not in fact”.
In computer sciences reality and Virtuality are considered part of
the same continuum. A virtual world is a simulation of a world which
is not real in a physical sense but its effects come across as real;
think of nausea from flight simulators, or the stories of PTSD
effects from drone pilots in an army. Virtual reality takes
multimediality one step further by becoming the interface that humans
can use to access the digital. However, the consequences for
archaeology are far-ranging. Western philosophy has traditionally
made an hierarchical opposition between being and illusion, but the
digital subverts this opposition. The digital image is created from
its representation, which is then used to judge reality, creating a
positive feedback cycle where the representation can gain more
credence than the original it was based on. We may fall into this
trap if we overly rely on the virtual. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">What
about virtual entities? Jeff Buechner argues that if we see reality
as a purely phenomenological experience then augmented reality is any
change in the totality of our sensory and cognitive experience that
is produced by some form of technology, via addition, manipulation or
deletion, thus </span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><i>augmenting</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">
reality, like wearing rose-tinted spectacles. This definition
excludes hallucinations or illusions, of what is created by the mind
but is not real. If virtual entities are modelled on people or
objects, what happens is that you question whether the virtual entity
is a different entity from the thing it is modelled on, or whether
there is only one entity. If we believe the latter statement (there
is one entity) then you accept that a recording of said entity is the
actual entity, and the actions of the virtual entity are also the
actions of the real entity, contradicting the idea that Augmented
Reality is not reality but a change to the totality. If you believe
the former statement (there are two distinct entities) then you
encounter issues of what is natural; our reality or the virtual
entity, especially if the latter does actions that may be considered
“unnatural” to the former. For archaeology, it is particularly
problematic as it is impossible to psychoanalyse the dead; how can
you say the real person would have or not have done that action in
the past when you have never observed them doing those actions
yourself? There are no principles in defining what is considered more
ontologically “natural”. This argument creates a form of
scepticism which ultimately questions the basis of reality itself;
something that Buechner ultimately denies as the image is simply a
pictorial representation of an entity. Note however the creation of
multiple identities in the digital realm (just look at how many
overlapping or contradictory social media profiles you may have), so
individuals may not necessarily see your actions in reality in the
same way they do with your online presence, even if your actions in
reality and the virtual are identical.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">What
about printing your digital model? A 3D printed model is based on the
numerical representation of the object in a virtual environment,
which is then converted into a model through a separate process. At
what point can you accept the model as a true representation of an
object or site? By creating a model you are creating an unique
creation. In a certain sense every “copy” is an “original”.
Therefore copies are not truly representative of the original work.
But what does this mean for the biography of the original as well?
Moreover, digital models are often made separate from their spatial
and temporal environments, which are often full of human detritus,
which may aid our interpretations of the site. This is not to devalue
copies, as they can still enhance our understanding of archaeology.
Nonetheless in the digital the manipulation of the image has taken
precedence over the exhibition value or cultural value of an object,
which are both central to how we display and interpret archaeology. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">What
about the consequences of all this digital data? If our aim is to
record the world as it is, then we may reflect on Cripps's statement
that “information that goes into databases is far too perfect and
too often a perfect view of the world”. This is interpreted as our
methodologies of data collection are flawed by being too
representative; we are seeing what we want to see. This is difficult
to quantify as we extrapolate from an incomplete datasets and this is
difficult to scientifically test without having the whole dataset to
work with; in archaeology this data is often destroyed before it can
be recorded- a catch 22. However, by using the digital realm to
record our world we are creating a new world, not just a copy. This
is reflected somewhat in the modern/postmodern dialectic of the
mimesis/poiesis; i.e. the idea of recreating an object against the
idea of creating new ones. The computer is traditionally seen as a
modernist ideal; Nelson Goodman argued that an analogue object is
impossible to differentiate in a finite manner; it can only be
absolute in a continuum, like a thermometer. A digital computer's
strengths lie in giving definitive readings and repeatability. Can
scientific methods, such as photogrammetry, be used to create new
worlds, rather than just recording them? Archaeology's raison d'etre
is being a steward of the past, which seems a modernist ideal.
However, interpretations from archaeological features are often
multilinear, even though we are only trying to record our supposedly
unilinear world! This multilinearity is arguably a form of poesis. So
not only is the digital realm giving us the space to record our
world, but that this “recorded world” is a new world altogether.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><b>change
slide</b></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">The
final characteristic, Connectivity, links everything we do within in
the digital realm through the medium of the internet. This brief
synopsis will highlight some further considerations. As mentioned
before digital models are de-contextualised; with connectivity a
scenario may arise when a group of schoolchildren are given a tour of
a virtual excavation with inhumations in their classroom. Without
proper supervision, education or advice from an informed person, the
children could start reciting Hamlet with the skulls. Does it matter
whether you use an unique model or a copy of the original? Should the
digital models be given as much respect as analogue ones? What about
virtually teleporting oneself into an archaeological site? Even if
you were fully immersed in a simulator, your body is still not on </span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><i>the</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">
site, but you may feel the effects as if you were there. Furthermore,
this </span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><i>positionality</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">
may allow the mind to occupy multiple bodies at once; excavating
multiple sites, attending multiple conferences at the same time. A
flight simulator isn't real, but the effects of it are. Could our
minds cope with multiple spaces? Even today some of these scenarios
are possible!</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><b>change
slide</b></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">To
conclude, is there an ontological difference between analogue and
digital models? With apologies to Douglas Adams, </span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><i>The
digital space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely,
mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way to
the computer but that's peanuts to digital space.</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">
The abstract is made possible and apparent. The digital doesn't work
to our laws, and should be treated as such. All information is either
everything or not-(everyt)hing. Although the digital is pure
representation, the characteristics of multimediality decontextualise
everything you record; interactivity makes the participant more of an
author of the work. Using nothing more than human interaction the
representation of reality becomes the yardstick we use to judge
reality itself, creating a positive feedback cycle. It becomes
difficult to believe historical characters in a virtual reality
simulator. You can break out of your human limitations and experience
the world in a trans-geographical and trans-historical arena that
surpasses anything possible in the real world, although its effects
are apparent. Perhaps the most devastating outcome of this question
is whether we are actually using the digital to record the past, or,
in using multiple interpretations of archaeology as an analogy, we
are creating new worlds altogether that seek to enhance the human
experience through the digital medium. This dichotomy of recreation
versus creation is perhaps the question that will define digital
archaeology in years to come. It all feels real, but that should not
distract from the abstract nature of the digital.</span></span></div>
Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-55545946006210519982017-10-14T16:27:00.002-07:002017-10-14T16:27:19.737-07:00An Open letter to Robot Wars
<br />
<table style="width: 100%;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><div style="text-align: right;">
An open letter</div>
</th>
<th><br /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>To whom it may concern,<br />
<br />
I am extremely concerned about your next series of robot wars (series 10 or 3, depending on your point of view). I will outline the reasons why I am not going to be watching your next season when it airs in October 2017.<br />
<br />
For one, you are changing the format of the show, with less robots being used in the upcoming series, thus leading to less fights. By contrast, you had upwards of nearly 100 competitors in a single series of Robot Wars before series 8 (or one, depending on your view) This not only denies spaces to budding entrants who want to spend time and money to enter your show but also limits the action in the arena. If you are looking to attract more people to fight in the arena, who may potentially bring a new weapon or tactic into the warzone, then surely you are limiting the talent pool?<br />
<br />
Next, and perhaps more criminally, a number of errors keep appearing in your websites and press releases. Behemoth was never a champion, strictly speaking, unless you count the Challenge trophy, which they started with without actually having to fight anyone. Even your website could not make its mind up as to whether you should continue calling it series 9 or series 2, depending on whether you looked at the tab or the actual web page itself. Typographical errors such as these really infuriate the passionate fan, who want grammatically correct sentences. It feels as if you are not employing staff who can sufficiently QA their own work. Either that, or you do not employ staff who are as committed to Robot Wars as perhaps they could be, which is clearly hindering the product.
<br />
<br />
Additionally, your promotional material is not actually allowing me to enjoy your show any more than if I was actually watching it. This is not how promotional material is supposed to work. I cannot remember any of the promotional material from the original series, but currently you appear to be both hiding and revealing things at the same time. You say that there is a new arena threat, but there has been little explanation of it? At the same time your preview demonstrates a robot flying higher than any other robot may ever have done, and from the looks on the faces of the teams this was NOT due to the flipper. This leads me to conclude that either a team has a flipper capable of this (perhaps one we already know or don't know) OR you have lied to us about the arena changes. I suspect the former, which is fine, except that this is indicative of a style of programming that relies on being able to constantly deliver these big shocks, and unfortunately this leads to a certain amount of burnout if there are too many of these types of huge shocks. It may have been better to not show this clip at all, but rather focus on a new house robot or the new arena threat.<br />
<br />
Until you rectify these issues, I abhor the viewer who is willing to watch a show which contains fewer robots of overall lower quality, while turning the entire format into a parody of the original series 3. If this was your intention, well done. I feel that you are having something of an identity crisis which is ruining the show. In spite of your apparently successful series ratings, I fear you are dragging the show down into a spiralling descent of falling interest, until you realise what the show is all about. Is it a sport or entertainment? Is it going to be the UK Championships, as it used to be, or is it therre to showcase the achievements of schoolchildren alongside amateur and professional competitors? If you really want to hark back to the "good old days", why not employ some of the more unique aspects of the show, such as the non-gladiatorial games they used to do on series 1 and 2, such as the pinball, sumo, football or other games? Even better, attend one of the live, untelevised shows that occur all over the country, like Robots Live and Extreme Robots. This would level the playing field by increasing the emphasis on driver control. Swarm bots might get an advantage in some games but overall I feel this would appeal to many different fans.
<br />
<br />
Yours sincerely,
<br />
<br />
Ali</td>
<td><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
To whom it may concern,<br />
<br />
I am delighted by the changes you have made to the show, and I will make it my mission to ensure that as many people as possible tune in to watch your show.
Why do I feel it necessary to express these feelings? Your focus on fewer robots allows people such as myself to really get to know the robots we actually care about. To aid this, your press releases have been useful in allowing us to really get to know the new and returning competitors in a style that fits the tone of the show for the 21st century, while giving a nod towards the somewhat silly yet still dangerous antics of the old series.<br />
<br />
Although less robots might be seen as a bad thing for the competition if you want constant, no-stop fighting, it really can take you out of a show if all you want is a 60 minute clip of robots bashing each other. It can actually get quite numbing, so spending time in the pits, learning cool information about the world of robotics from the judges and having two of the most engaging presenters in the business really help to create an atmosphere that I can get behind.
However, while I enjoy the promotional material, I have noticed a few errors on your website which could be rectified. Now, no one is perfect, but under the circumstances I am willing to accept the errors if you correct them in due course.<br />
<br />
I believe that the advertising has been very good in showing the current state of robot fighting in the UK. It is in rude health, with new teams, and a new winner of the heavyweight championship every year for at least the last 5 years, for the last 2 these have been brand new robots and teams. Furthermore, the variety of robots out there is arguably better than the US, with their Battlebots, which actually showcases a number of British teams who have also been on Robot Wars. Robot Wars has so far not mentioned Battlebots, and I feel any mention of foreign competition at this moment in time may be detrimental to the product until more time has been spent on any potential collaboration. So overall your advertising reflects the current state of robot fighting well in the UK.<br />
<br />
While some may bemoan that the show is no longer the original product, all products need to move on with the times. This might lead to the accusation of having an identity crisis but this is still a relatively new product. Top Gear managed about 20 series in the 00's and early 10's, of which a number of the earlier episodes had the same problem with trying to maintain it's earlier identity, ultimately changing into something that was presented differently but was fundamentally the same programme. I feel that Robot Wars is going through the same thing. Robot Wars has the advantage of a 15 year break, so the change can be more pronounced and more reflective of the present day.<br />
<br />
Yours sincerely,
Ali</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-21901458558061166892017-08-16T10:57:00.001-07:002017-08-16T10:57:18.187-07:00ICAP conference 2017: Talking 'bout my Generation<div>
<img alt="12th International Conference of Archaeological Prospection" height="149" src="https://www.ap2017.brad-vis.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/AP2017_WP-1.jpg" width="640" /><img height="190" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEiKqhQuIqVFjJ7YZ4HGaUK9JQ0fiwBOU2-z0ztHash-VlGtBHKtp6poheV1RNxU6KikSAiMWiWVRqGKUrzbbrtHLGYkhKQpBlfBBiYQMtjgZ8nYFfnSzXOBbGIEO3dWLrELvQ8dyiPOn65TENRxlqSbKC2o5rnF8E793OqvrAHf1qyoHIynqGTHgAsYApwRQqUEpQ=s0-d-e1-ft" width="640" /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<img height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEj2Pku7CaIZJRRumZHhMXwRL4Ryf_ISY5Nu503ocXYOx2GGDOKITaBe4vvGFVY6ZMkrRpD79da-zFwtYSw7_YK6g2_gJ8lSXOGt-7uSuEUVxjJexXxE8bxZgyRtAfOpPZPG4fyhSirg3jlUay5U00fWg200V6MVFhLrM3iz6knz7hGRKC0CK26XptScNPTkR0uwqkz6exBKDw2nQGehigjjKt9HfBYY-mQP-1u6QafqssNGYXT9ID-CJH26CGrqDqpYg_-kIhenVMst=s0-d-e1-ft" width="640" /></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The Chartered Institute for Archaeologist’s New Generation group and Geophysics Special Interest Groups are working with ICAP (the International Conference of Archaeological Prospection) to facilitate a session aimed at Early Career Archaeological Geophysicists* at the 12th International Conference of Archaeological Prospection on Friday 15 September 2017 at Bradford University</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">.</span></span></div>
<div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="font-size: 14px;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">GeoSIG and New Generation group are able to fund up to four Friday day delegate tickets for presenters for early career CIfA members, thanks to the support of the Institute.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="font-size: 14px;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The session will include an Equipment Trouble Shooting CPD training workshop and a number of short papers (approx. 5 mins each) given by Early Career Geophysicists, and intended for Early Career Geophysicists and those who are looking to enter the profession. We are keen to hear from you if you would like to present on the academic/career path that led you to your role, how you gain(ed) experience or what your current role entails. Following these papers, there will be an open discussion for new and experienced delegates to exchange views, ideas and knowledge.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="font-size: 14px;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">If you have a topic you would like to present, please email your expression of interest using the<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en-GB&q=http://track.mailerlite.co.uk/link/c/YT02OTQ4MzgzMzY2Mjc0MTAzMjImYz1pMWY2JmU9MTkyOCZiPTExODQ2Mjc2NSZkPWc4ejR4Nm4%3D.PZPmXqt6EJxpd3Jssq2ZlrZ_JW_-iIcPyXDq6w9HMaE&source=gmail&ust=1502991323238000&usg=AFQjCNEidrDnJsr_eWtDVu0UzUwYFxfGRQ" href="http://track.mailerlite.co.uk/link/c/YT02OTQ4MzgzMzY2Mjc0MTAzMjImYz1pMWY2JmU9MTkyOCZiPTExODQ2Mjc2NSZkPWc4ejR4Nm4=.PZPmXqt6EJxpd3Jssq2ZlrZ_JW_-iIcPyXDq6w9HMaE" style="color: #3498db;" target="_blank"> proposal form </a>to <a href="mailto:groups@archaeologists.net" style="color: #3498db;" target="_blank">groups@archaeologists.net</a> by midday <strong>Monday 28 August 2017</strong>.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="font-size: 14px;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">For full conference details please visit the website: <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en-GB&q=http://track.mailerlite.co.uk/link/c/YT02OTQ4MzgzMzY2Mjc0MTAzMjImYz1pMWY2JmU9MTkyOCZiPTExODQ2Mjc2NyZkPW8wbzZtNWM%3D.kK5UceaThk554BSCHKJ7wlGlsrfs6baPHPJx6l6DcKk&source=gmail&ust=1502991323238000&usg=AFQjCNEyPoHpCCl3ioiTD_4JhOOTEPhWvw" href="http://track.mailerlite.co.uk/link/c/YT02OTQ4MzgzMzY2Mjc0MTAzMjImYz1pMWY2JmU9MTkyOCZiPTExODQ2Mjc2NyZkPW8wbzZtNWM=.kK5UceaThk554BSCHKJ7wlGlsrfs6baPHPJx6l6DcKk" style="color: #3498db;" target="_blank">www.ap2017.brad-vis.com</a></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> *Early career geophysicist in this instance refers only to the time working as a geophysicist, not period since graduation. This is different to the ICAP definition for early career practitioner for the full conference reduced registration fee.</span></div>
</div>
Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-9976871261996735712017-08-01T13:20:00.002-07:002017-08-01T13:35:23.577-07:00Wibbly, wobbly, timey, wimey ... stuff (Theoretical Archaeological Group conference, Cardiff, 18th-20th December 2017)<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">If you would like to present a paper at TAG Cardiff 2017 this year, why not apply to our session, <i>Wibbly, wobbly, timey, wimey...stuff</i>! Ask questions about the very nature of our consumerist and digital existence that will even have Tom Baker baffled!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">For more information, please visit our session on the TAG website</span><br />
<a href="http://tag2017cardiff.org/2017/07/31/wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey-stuff/"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">http://tag2017cardiff.org/2017/07/31/wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey-stuff/</span></a><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Or you can listen to the podcast below for an audio version of our session abstract.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Paper abstracts to be submitted to caitlin.kitchener@york.ac.uk or alistairgalt@gmail.com before Friday 25th August 2017.</span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #747474; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; word-wrap: break-word;">
<br /></div>
<iframe frameborder="no" height="200" scrolling="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/335843871&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true" width="100%"></iframe>Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-21311485884249563042017-07-16T11:32:00.001-07:002017-07-16T11:32:04.220-07:00Festival of Archaeology 2017: Middleton Park Ice House dig<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This year, for the<a href="http://www.archaeologyfestival.org.uk/about"> Festival of Archaeology 2017</a>, I have decided to talk about the community project I am involved in! The Leeds branch of the <a href="http://www.yac-uk.org/">Young Archaeologists Club</a> have been running an excavation over the weekend of the 15th-16th July 2017, with a huge turnout of over 40 children and adults!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">We were approached by the <a href="https://southleedsarchaeology.wordpress.com/middleton-park-ice-house/">South Leeds Archaeology Society </a>about the prospect of excavating within the grounds of Middleton Park, where YAC Leeds are based. They had previously excavated the Ice House in Middleton Park to some extent in 2013, but left with more questions than answers (as always seems to be the case!). To the uninitiated an ice house is an old fashioned freezer; a place where owners could put ice before the advent of home freezing. Basically what it says on the tin! They are often found in high class estates, as they were not cheap to build for such a specific purpose! Therefore any entrance needed to not left any light or heat in or else the ice would melt! This ice house in Middleton Park was built by Charles Brandling in 1760, and the ice house existed until 1992. They left the top of the foundations of the interior of the ice house partially exposed but with a large area within the ice house itself not excavated (ice houses tend to be dug quite far into the soil to maintain a cool temperature).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Needless to say we were very excited at being able to run our first ever excavation in the local area, which would be accessible for the kids who come along to the dig. However, because excavations can be very physically tiring for people of all ages, we decided to split the weekend into 4 half-days, so we invited YAC groups from across Yorkshire to turn up for a half-day and contribute to our excavation.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The remains of the Ice House in Middleton Park are a series of brick foundations in a circular fashion. We believe it dates to the 17th/18th century but there is <a href="http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/environment/archaeology-group-unearths-ice-house-in-leeds-park-1-5655364">little information to go on</a>, in the history archives. Its location is actually quite hard to find in the woods, so no wonder there has been little work done to it!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">On the first day we had set out the areas where we wanted to dig. We had an area stretching outside of the ice house to try to find the entrance, and a small area in the interior of the ice house, which may have been disturbed by animals, so we wanted to excavate it. We took the trenches to about a foot across the entire area, exposing a new wall that may be the entranceway. Meanwhile, a number of nails, glass bottle fragments and pottery were found across the site, mainly in the entranceway. We also found that the interior of the ice house might be sloping inwards, which would agree with the general shape of other known ice houses.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxWRigkhaGQHJYvCbcug7bssDP1BbLNYyMoRLy3o03tOL3XwIOg04oV1Msn6XaIma3gKvaj2B3ZSEai5V9Lv8REj-ZLSLBVKH-nzIi7_DYtVWJ7PtdZOUbw9d80lUumhCG2qmPearBUH4/s1600/DSCF0527.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxWRigkhaGQHJYvCbcug7bssDP1BbLNYyMoRLy3o03tOL3XwIOg04oV1Msn6XaIma3gKvaj2B3ZSEai5V9Lv8REj-ZLSLBVKH-nzIi7_DYtVWJ7PtdZOUbw9d80lUumhCG2qmPearBUH4/s400/DSCF0527.JPG" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The second day focused on the possible entranceway, with the interior fill taken down to a lower level and the trenches inside the ice house taken very far down, so far in fact we had to get the adults to dig them! However, some very nice pieces of pottery came up and even some animal bones! This ice house also seems to now be sloping away from the centre; this seems unusual for an ice house. MAybe it has a bulbous shape? The kids helped with site recording, photography, finds washing and surveying after we downed tools. Some of the kids from the Leeds YAC did both days, which was a little bit of a surprise!</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi23A4YawibucMlHZic-ZpApfxoZEKWBmG5EEsM33H6k_ZxLhBOG8aAEDJSwcRHq_m9HHNIqg5-GNOwqf_8I38R7W6aoOClzUMM8GFTnENiYUiOKTR2mQ-lFwDMqIBINMTPa63Uxvdcdtc/s1600/DSCF0532.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi23A4YawibucMlHZic-ZpApfxoZEKWBmG5EEsM33H6k_ZxLhBOG8aAEDJSwcRHq_m9HHNIqg5-GNOwqf_8I38R7W6aoOClzUMM8GFTnENiYUiOKTR2mQ-lFwDMqIBINMTPa63Uxvdcdtc/s400/DSCF0532.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">I can't say too much more as I'm not writing up the site but it is amazing how many sites there are that could be waiting to be researched and excavated. The aim of the site were to learn more about the ice house, and we know more about the location of the entrance and the shape of the ice house. More importantly, the kids learnt new skills in archaeology, from excavation to site photos, from finds washing to drawing plans and surveying with a total station. However, the story is unlikely to end there. Indeed, there is the possibility of a future dig on the site to uncover more parts of the ice house to further understand the shape and reasons for collapse!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">Thanks go to South Leeds archaeology group for their knowledge to the site and CFA Archaeology and YAC for providing tools for the dig!</span>Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-20731991280662377762016-12-19T13:54:00.002-08:002016-12-19T13:54:22.742-08:00Terrible TV Review: Digging for Britain, series 5...and as soon as I declare my hiatus, out comes an archaeology program on the TV that has me tearing my hair out so much that I want to dissect it in a blog post. So that hiatus will have to wait until after you've read this post! Digging for Britain has been going since 2011, and normally hosted by Professor Alice Roberts, sometimes with a co-presenter. They've moved away from site visits by the presenter to getting each dig team to film their own digs to get as many as they can inside an hour for each episode, splitting the country into North, Central and South (more on this later). I was actually in the first series at Binchester with my University course mates back in 2011! That bias aside, this first episode of the latest series had me pulling out my hair and stopping inches away from the remote as a good bit of archaeology was done. Why? Although all the archaeological sites unto themselves have some amazing finds that are pretty much all unique in their own right, and could happily be expanded upon, sometimes the analysis and the interpretation (or lack of explanation in the interpretation) had me fuming. Or maybe I just misunderstood what they were saying...<br />
<br />
One of the issues they had is, as hinted above, is that they are trying to squeeze as many sites into the show as possible. With 10 sites, that's about 5 minutes realistically for each site. There were 6 in this episode, BUT there were a lot of segments involving talking about collections in the National Museums Scotland, which reduced the overall amount of time spent on site. As a comparison, Time Team got one site for a whole hour to explain it in depth, usually over 3 days. Some of these sites had fantastic stratigraphy but I imagine they had to miss out a lot of it because they normally had 3 weeks of filming, which then had to be heavily edited to show the "juicy bits". don't get me wrong, these "juicy bits" are what attract the attention and lead to further investigations, but as an archaeologist, I do wonder how much of the wider picture had to be left out to fit all these sites in, so maybe more programs to fit in the same sites, so they get more time to talk about their sites and some of the other things they've found next time please. Burnswark could have done with more time (or possibly a GIS specialist); two Roman era camps (which could have dated to any period in the Roman era and not necessarily an aggressive military application e.g. a siege) surrounding a hillfort in southern Scotland (presumed early 1st century). They dug the camps (not the forts, interestingly) and found huge quantities of worked stone for slings. They assumed that the Romans made the stones without telling us the provenance of the stones, and simply stated that they must have been fired at the local besieged population in the fort. Why couldn't it be the locals also firing back? I'm aware that the evidence is limited for slings in Iron Age/ Romano-British Britain but it just seems too much like something else is at work here. That being said, they did find a nice stockpiles of sling shot, which probably indicates a reasonably long period of activity for the siege. That being said, the hillfort wasn't investigated at all, and there was no mention of excavating it in the past, or plans to do so in the future, although the area had been fieldwalked. The GIS wasn't used well here at all... there was no way of determining the direction of the shot without some serious assumptions (admittedly quite hard to do), and the map itself didn't differentiate between those shots that appeared to have been fired and those that had been left untouched (either in the stockpiles or otherwise). A bit of use wear analysis fed into the GIS could have gone a long way into making this a much more informed conclusion. Even then, the sheer quantity of sling shot in the area could have been a series of training rounds, as originally the camps were thought to be training bases. Instead, I nearly turned off the TV at this point as this one sites' very selective approach to the wider context of the area was unbearable!! Moral of the story here- assumptions make asses out of you and me. At least the camerawork was reasonable in showing off the sites they did dig, and the experimental archaeology was quite fun to watch on a slow motion camera while informing us that slings are dangerous in the right hands.<br />
<br />
Other sites were not so reliant on a quick and dirty approach to interpretation, but probably still have a number of juicy finds that are being missed out for time constraints, as is normally the case with excavations. The hospital at Thornton Abbey could have had a quick map to illustrate the hospital layout on site, because the preservation of the walls and the skeletons are fantastic, but on a video you don't capture the scale of the building, or the position of the skeletons within the hospital. Perhaps even a 3D model? Even a relatively small site, like Loch Arnish in the Isle of Lewis, has only 3 minutes of footage dedicated to it. They spent a good 6-7 hours exploring the underwater landscape and they have probably barely scratched the surface of these island houses (crannogs). What annoyed me on these prehistoric sites is that they didn't even tell us how they could tell it was Neolithic pottery! Even just saying slipped ware (it's not, but as an archaeologist I can say that it is from its appearance) would give the general public a better understanding of these crannogs, which are basically middens (rubbish tips) that was deliberately made into a habitable piece of land. Such sites (including Tells), involving reusing materials to build these "monuments", are not as rare as you think in ancient civilisations, but most are found on land in Europe and the Middle East. Some more discussion on why they thought they built crannogs would have been good, although they did have a good discussion with Professor Alison Sheridan on trade and travel in the Neolithic. Otherwise, a nice showcase of Britain's small but growing underwater archaeology sector.<br />
<br />
Lindisfarne, another coastal site, is given a going over by Durham University and Digventures, this time focusing on the famous monastery. Not the one you can see but the earlier one it replaced. That much is nicely summarised. I won't focus on my worries of Digventures and Durham University cherry-picking Lindisfarne but as if to epitomise my previous argument, a monastery is a massive construction, likely to have a large network economically, socially and politically. Dr David Petts has been on this program before and his experience in summarising the site is evident. Again though, much like Thornton Abbey, I suspect only certain finds were not put on TV to form a particular story, just for time constraints. At least they managed to squeeze in the context of Lindisfarne into the wider history of Britain, with the Viking raids and continuity of Lindisfarne post-793AD.<br />
<br />
It is difficult to cover the sheer variety of archaeology in northern Britain, but this program does try, but it is a Sisyphean task. That said, the Hunteston Brooch they describe is a great example of early christian art in British metalwork. Any site on Orkney is going to be unique, to both Britain and itself, as there is simply so much that remains standing. The South Ronaldsay Broch is hardly known outside of Orkney, so it is nice to see it, like Burnswark, getting some much needed attention. Especially as it also demonstrates the reuse of the site from a Broch into a sacred site (with only the bones as supporting evidence). But in discussing the emphasis on the transformation of the site (which apparently takes 17 days!) they have missed out talking about the Broch itself in any great detail. Again, the discovery of bones of various animals makes you wonder what else they found. Bone doesn't survive well on many sites so if bone is being found, what else could have been there? Especially to support such a tentative theory as a sacred site? Why not just a midden with comparatively few animals?<br />
<br />
Little Carlton, the last site in this selection, focuses on the recent Saxon discoveries made by metal detectors, leading to a large scale excavation of the area. Here, they finally get it right, showing off the context of the site trenches (albeit by accident), some unique finds and more discussion on the context of the archaeology, in particular the skeletons. It should be said that east to west is a traditional christian practice in burial.The last skeleton they focus on is unusual and merits attention. It also shows us finally why Professor Alice Roberts is an academic, pointing out the knee joint in its incorrect position and this observation gives us a clue into who the skeleton might be. Again though, this is tentative, and relies on the skeleton being a christian to support the hypothesis. Little Carlton is rightly summed up as hard to decipher.<br />
<br />
My final thoughts: The definition of north in this episode covers half of the country, from Orkney all the way to Lincolnshire! Even on the northern tip of the East Midlands, that still means that there is a huge amount of land that is covered in this program. This means that either there aren't enough sites to cover the program, which on the face of it is worrying, because it would imply that there is less emphasis on sites in the north. However a more realistic explanation is that there are simply less people. However, this rough guide encompasses 2 countries which have 2 slightly different agendas to archaeology, which weren't focused on in the program. the other problem appears to be that if there is a north, where are the boundaries for the other cardinal points? The previous episode focuses on the West of Britain, but doesn't include the West of Scotland. This also means that the East of Britain won't include a large amount of the east coast of Britain. However, this is covered by the North but also by another recent program from Channel 4 - Britain at Low Tide, which focused on coastal regions with archaeology at risk from the sea. These distinctions are rough guides but could have been better aligned as they don't seem to match current thinking on what the "North" is, in historical or contemporary terms. They could have titled the episode "North and Midlands" and it may have felt a bit more appropriate, but you would still be missing large swathes of Midland area, which are included in the next episode and the last episode. Interestingly, the south is amalgamated into the east and west regions; perhaps this is a deliberate attempt to shake up perceptions of what is east, west and north in Britain? They don't reflect on why they did this but its a nice idea.<br />
<br />
Perhaps a little harsh saying it merits "Terrible TV" but sections could be improved as outlined above, particularly with the interpretations, which haven't either been explained fully or just didn't get any decent theoretical treatment, or even simply not stating how the archaeologist knows that it is Neolithic pottery!!. As much as I want to see as many sites as possible in a program, because at the end of the day they are all quite interesting and merit further work, this program demonstrates the difficulties in this program's approach, rather than an in-depth "Time-Team" style approach which has one site dug up for an hour on TV (or maybe longer) and gives you an impressively detailed perspective of a very small area. Other shows seem to fit somewhere between the two on the spectrum.<br />
<br />
With that min-rant over now I can enjoy my hiatus... pop over to <a href="http://www.arc-robotics.org.uk/">www.arc-robotics.org.uk</a> for more information on my new joint project!Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-41578960271169237982016-12-11T14:43:00.002-08:002016-12-11T14:43:33.119-08:00A Christmas hiatusI am taking time off from this blog for the foreseeable future, so I can focus on one of my childhood passions, Robot Wars. I will be making blog posts for team ARC as the team's driver. Follow my progress at <a href="https://www.arc-robotics.org.uk/">https://www.arc-robotics.org.uk/</a>. With that, have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-49880946184356571282016-11-06T03:43:00.001-08:002016-11-19T07:40:33.269-08:00Heritage Theory and Practice Conference Summary, 5th November 2016<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The
Heritage Theory and Practice Conference was a one day event at Leeds
City Hall, hosted by Leeds Beckett and Northumbria Universities. It focused on the practical applications of heritage theory (as the name suggests). I
attended in my professional capacity; as a largely academic
conference I hoped that there would be some commercial input, and
that the practice element would contain elements that archaeologists
and heritage practitioners at large could take away from the
conference. As it was the first time this conference had been run,
there was a wide variety of papers, focusing on a number of areas of
theory and practices within the heritage sector.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Dr
Bernadette Lynch provided the excellent keynote speech, reflecting on
her time in Canadian institutions, opening her eyes to how different
cultures perceive museum practices in positive and negative ways, but
also how museums can be proactive in understanding different
cultures. Sounds easy, but the reality of some of the issues museums
face was demonstrated by her work as director of the Manchester
Museum, where minority ethnic groups were openly invited to have
their say on how museums work for them, which had some surprising
results, particularly if you see museums as part of a "power-charged
set of exchanges", which often manifest as political and social
exchanges. She concluded that museums should be used as spaces for
"friendly enemies", where you can have conflicting opinions
and debate in a safe space, and criticising Scottish museums for not
exploring Scottish-ness during the 2014 referendum.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The
first session was titled Establishing Heritage, which had papers on
the intangible heritage of women during the Upper Clyde Shipyards
strikes in Glasgow (by Tara Beale), the Church Heritage Record (CHR)
(by Rob Piggott), and the influence of heritage studies on
designation practice for listed buildings and scheduled monuments (by
Claire Price). This session was the one I was professionally most
interested in as understanding the forces at work in defining our
HERs allows you to think about what could be missed out- what about
feminist heritage, for example? Often the HERs and the CHR (which
both feeds into and uses the HERs but is used by the Church of
England and the Church of Wales, some 16,000 entries to date) is
biased towards the architectural records, rather the social
significance of the entry; a hangover from when the first legislation
for scheduled monuments was made in 1882 (The Ancient Monuments Act).
There was also some discussion on to what extent the bureaucracy
involved in church heritage records are dictated by the legality
given to it by being a "servant of the state" (i.e.
Historic England's position as a part of government).</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The
second session Participatory Approaches in Heritage Practice, with a
presentation by the Bam! Sistahood project (by Rosie Lewis and
project volunteers, The Angelou Centre), which looked at how a
successful project focusing on ethnic minorities can be easily
mishandled if it's done from a top-down approach. While museums can
help with these projects, empowering minority communities by
discovering their own heritage and presenting it in a unique manner
that doesn't necessarily have to be recorded. The focus on training,
sharing information and creating safe spaces for women have proved to
be good ways of getting women from minority groups to come together
and explore their own heritage in North East England. The other paper
in this session was by Tara Beale on travelling show-people in
Glasgow, and how their heritage has been preserved in a collaborative
project with Glasgow museums, which also led to reinterpretation of a
small number of the museums collections!</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The
third session, Rethinking Heritage, had a theory-heavy paper on the
Museum as a deep map (by Adrian Evans). This explored architecture's
relationship with landscape in the modern world (as a detached
entity), and used this as an analogy with museum collections, with an
implicit objectivity and variety of presentation and preservation
techniques, including narrative. The most important aspect was how
much you interpret an artefact- too much and you lose the mystery of
the object. Too little and you risk going into pataphysics and
escapism (the science of imaginary solutions). The deep map allows a
narrative to be built up as layers, thus you regain the identity of
the object within it's locality. The other paper by Taras
Nakonecznyj, focusing on his work with the Cockburn Association,
Edinburgh's Civic Trust, and their attempts at promoting Edinburgh's
architectural heritage to a wider audience using social media. With
Edinburgh's cultural heritage being prioritised by the council,
potentially threatening the historic aspect of Edinburgh and
endangering it's World Heritage status, this could be an interesting
case study for the rest of the UK.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The
final session was Immersive heritage, which felt more like an outlet
from the Annual Student Archaeology conference, with a mixed bag of
quite fun and interesting papers, but with less of a critiquing
theoretical focus. However, these works should be commended as they
had no research frameworks to fall back on. There was a paper on
ghosts by Alison Edwards, who argues that as a phenomena has been
criticised too much for being a pseudo-science (with a top-down
approach) and a number of valuable points can be taken away from her
exercise (people who actively hunt ghosts themselves often do so as a
reaction to feeling left out of mainstream heritage interpretations,
much like minority ethnic groups) and the way ghost tours are
marketed and organised could be used as a model for archaeology and
heritage. However the statistical analysis of the tour was a little
thin on the ground. Rhiannon Pickett presented her work in
collaboration with the Nottingham County Gaol, where new research
into the lives of the inmates and workers there allowed for an
impressive overhaul of the interpretation of the museum, although
there was conflict in what information should be on display to the
public. The final talk of the day was given by Lisa Traynor, who
looked at reconstructing the events of 28th June, 1914, when Archduke
Franz Ferdinand was killed by a bullet. The question she sets out to
answer is "Could the archduke have survived?" (with body
armour available at the time). She isn't trying to re-imagine the
historical events but to see if the silk body armour at the time
could have stopped a bullet from the weapon it was fired from (at 2
metres). The results will be released on BBC 4 in January 2017.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Overall
this conference (which was free to attend) provided a good platform
for debating current heritage issues in the UK. It touched on a
number of pressing concerns and I feel I can take away points that
will feed into my own commercial projects. While it was
overwhelmingly academic in outlook, there were commercial
archaeologists who made the effort to go and make sure that our
voices were heard, and that relations between University researchers and
professionals are healthy.</span></span></span></div>
</div>
Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-43498559486631010532016-10-29T03:44:00.004-07:002016-10-29T12:36:34.051-07:00Protecting Westminster Abbey and the Houses of Parliament<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">A couple of years ago the Right Honourable MP Chris Grayling stated that "<a href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/lucy-powells-bid-parliament-come-9486223">if we ended up having a debate about alternative venues for this House, we would very proably find 650 different arguments being made"</a>. As it is being highly recommended that MPs have to now move out of Westminster Abbey, a number of alternatives are having to be looked at, and a location outside of the M25 isn't not completely out of the question.</span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> There is absolutely nothing in the constitution of the British government that says we can't have parliament being held anywhere else. They could debate in my back garden (all 5 metres of it) and if all the relevant people are present and the protocol is followed, then constitutionally any laws passed there and then would be as valid as they would be in Westminster.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">What do we know of the history of Westminster Abbey and the site of the Houses of Parliament? This is a very quick rundown taken from the <a href="http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/abbey-history">official westminster abbey website</a> and the <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/palace/">Houses of Parliament website</a>. Founded by Edward the Confessor, who had it dedicated to St. Peter, near the <a href="http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history">site of a benedictine monastery</a>. Previously there had also been a Saxon church on the benedictine site. It has been at the centre of British monarchy for almost a millennium, as Edward was buried there in 1065 and William the Conqueror was crowned there; only 2 kings haven't been crowned in Westminster abbey. It's called Westminster because St. Paul's was in the Eastminster. The original church was mostly replaced by a gothic structure under King Henry III. Subsequent additions by Henry VII and even later in the 18th century with Nicholas Hawksmoor.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Meanwhile, the Palace of Westminster (the current seat of the government) was established by King Cnut in the early 11th century. The layout of the palace, and in particular its relation to the abbey, has not changed dramatically over the years. For example, the placement of different courtyards. The old courtyard was also where Robert Catesby, Guy Fawkes and co. rented one of the houses which ran in a row across the centre of the yard and actually tried to tunnel through to the House of Lords through the Old Yard before discovering the cellar under the House of Lords!! The New Palace Yard was built by William Rufus and </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , sans-serif;">It now conceals a five-level underground car park with space for 450 cars, constructed in 1972-4. An archaeological investigation undertaken at that time yielded much information about the history of the Yard. In particular, it revealed the octagonal base of a large canopied fountain built in 1443 by Henry VI.</span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The old monastery was dissolved in 1540 by Henry VIII, who then erected Westminster into a cathedral. However the abbey was refounded by Elizabeth I, and these clergymen had important functions within the civil government of Westminster until the 20th century. The whole complex of Westmnister suffered partial damage during the Second World War but could have been much worse. This wasn't the first time fire had threatened the Abbey- in 1834 a fire in the Houses of Parliament gutted both houses of parliament but the Abbey was prioritised and also saved by the change of direction in the wind!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Today, the building is in a dire state, but not through lack of trying. <a href="http://www.restorationandrenewal.parliament.uk/IOA-report.html">Rodents have taken up residence</a> (not good, particularly considering food is prepared on site), not to mention the </span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">antiquated heating, ventilation, water, drainage and electrical systems combined with extensive stonework decay, leaking roofs </span></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">and the external fabric could collapse into the Thames if there's a big storm (disclaimer: this last fact based on its perilous position next to the Thames rather than any report information). And not forgetting the biggest risk in working inside old buildings-<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/jul/17/houseofcommons.lords">asbestos</a>. Lots of it, in perilous and dangerous places near where people are working. Asbestos related cases are being reported from people who worked inside Westminster, who could now sue the government for allowing them to be exposed to asbestos (from an article in the Metro, 24th October 2016). Would you want to live and/or work in a place like this? If it wasn't for the history, architecture and cultural surroundings, of course...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The main source of contention (I suspect) is the cost of repairs. Much like any big project the final costs are yet to be worked out but it somewhere between £3.1bn to upwards of £7bn. Now, if they go for the cheaper option, all MPs and other residents (if there are any) would have to move out. But where to? Coming back to the Right Honourable Chris Grayling, he may have a point. Everyone could legitimately have a space that could be used in their constituencies.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">So how to resolve this issue? Find a space that everyone agrees on? The Thames? There are genuine plans for a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/02/architects-propose-floating-home-for-mps/">floating Houses of Parliament</a> as a temporary space while restoration happens, connected to the Westminster banks. It should be said they are not confirmed at this stage, but the architects, Gensler, appear to have called it Project Poseidon. One wonders how this would fit into the <a href="https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/planning/setting-and-views/">setting of the central London character</a>, which has been recently described as under threat from modern development. However, the advice given is just that, advice. It is up to the archaeologists, councillors, MPs, developers and other interested parties to create that dialogue to preserve our heritage in a suitable way. That said I'm not against a floating Parliament, it is forward thinking and flood proof (to a point). The National Assembly of Wales and Holyrood are modern buildings that are arguably more suited to modern democracy. My personal favourites for potential new locations are the St. George's National Football Centre, seeing how it is barely used (from my understanding), or one of the many empty mills in Bradford, to kill 2 birds with one stone (regeneration in Bradford and attract more income to the local area, badly needed). Or an abandoned mine shaft? Save on heating bills with underground heating... A lot of arguments for leaving London rest on the distance travelled by many MPs to London, and that a more central location in the UK would resolve this. However, there are just over 70 MPs in London out of 650 MPs. With this number set to decrease by the end of the decade, will it make a less London-centric location more feasible? Other major cities like the West Midlands region (Birmingham, Coventry, Wolverhampton etc.) (28) or Greater Manchester (26) enjoy less MPs, even when put together. So that's a large chunk of MPs who would all have to travel out of London to get to another destination. Or buy a second home...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Furthermore, its World Heritage Designation is great for highlighting its cultural value to the city of London, but this is not a barrier to funding or stopping maintainence. It is simply a sticker stating its importance in global culture as approved by UNESCO, the United Nation's education and culture sector. Therefore, any changes to the fabric of the building should be in keeping with its cultural value to the city of London, although this statement includes the setting of the buildings as well as their </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Another threat to consider are groups like ISIL, who are now a major threat to global cultural heritage, including Westminster. Supporters of ISIL seem to support the idea of "If you're not with us, you are by defintion against us". <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0615mxc/dan-cruickshanks-civilisation-under-attack">An interview with the BBC's Dan Cruickshank confirmed this</a>, and this makes the Houses of Parliament, a symbol of democracy for western governments, arguably even more of a target than before the 7/7 attacks 10 years ago, when there were less organisations committing iconclastic acts. UNESCO has recently recognised this threat with the <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1303">Unite for Heritage Coalition in Bonn</a>, which is designed to strengthen the mobilisation of governments and heritage stakeholders in the face of deliberate damage to cultural heritage. So with this Westminster and the Houses of Parliament must evolve against these threats, either physically or through other means. However, other threats, such as the immediate condition of the Houses of Parliament, must be addressed first.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This is an excellent opportunity to answer a few research questions about the archaeology and history of Westminster. What about the site before the creation of the palace? The abbey was nearby but not directly underneath the palace. Was it chosen as a natural high point on the Thames bank? Get some archaeologists in and dig up a few mass graves while we're at it! However, we have to weigh up the cost of more people walking around Westminster while it is still functional, which would help in explaining how archaeology works to the users of Westminster and visitors, or going for the cheaper and quicker option and hope that the archaeologists get to explain their findings to the public. My gut feeling says the latter but for the sake of saving money (especially as it would look very bad on the current government); archaeologists should proactively seek ways of investigating and publishing their findings to the wider world while the repairs are being carried out.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Finally, it would be nice if Westminster Abbey was given some climate change resistant upgrades. Maybe a rising water barrier?</span>Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-62677069957356798902016-09-02T14:28:00.002-07:002016-09-02T14:34:51.910-07:00Robot Wars 2016 review, episode 6 (Final)<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">After 5 weeks of pure carnage and controversy, of audiences and announcers, of rising stars to fallen giants (ok, that was meant to rhyme, but if you pronounce the nt's as r's it works...), we are at the final of the revamped series of Robot Wars!! Now for my own text based commentary, one week late (because mainland Europe doesn't show the BBC).</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">The intro sequence, I'm fairly sure it's re-hashed from the previous intro sequences, with a bit of extra voice over from Dara and Angela. Dara sums up the previous episodes nicely in one sentence! Although he misses out the spikes in summarising the perils of the arena.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">So we have TR2, a thoroughly enjoyable robot to watch with the youngest driver. Carbide, probably the most popular! Apollo, with a very powerful flipper. Shockwave, who shocked us by beating Thor. And Shockwave, the controversial winner of the last episode after being beaten in the heats. Nonetheless, there is one spot left for the runners up. And the judges have gone for... Thor! Good to see at least one former Robot Wars competitor. Now we see the format for the episode- group battles, followed by another set of head to heads.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Group battle 1: Pulsar, TR2 and Thor. Possibly the less destructive of the 2 group battles but could be tactically very interesting. TR2 seem a bit nervous about the fight. Thor has the experience but can it survive more flips and hits? Pulsar are possibly the weakest one in here, especially with their motor issues!</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Judges get the first view of the night there just before the battle. Shropshire, Northampton and Gateshead, a distinctly midlands/northern battle we have here! Shhhhunt and Dead Metal, the brothers of brutality, take their positions in the arena. And off we go (with some odd gestures from the cockpit)!! A direct reference to the controversy fro Pulsar. Thor moving round the most but currently no real damage being done, but Pulsar is already having problems with the motor. TR2 misses with the flipper! Second time lucky and Thor goes over! TR2 on top here, sending Thor to all sides of the arena. Pulsar has been flipped and will be lucky to progress any further, but Thor is picking a fight with Shunt! Not a good idea... TR2 still not perfect on the flips but they constantly applying pressure onto Thor. Pulsar may have been counted out here, but not before causing some damage to Shunt's axe!!! TR2 very impressive overall, a slightly disappointing battle but TR2 demonstrating their credentials. Pulsar unlucky but I'm not sure what else they could do. Sounds like those flips Thor took have shifted bits inside it. Again those graphics aren't very clear. I can sort of tell that Pulsar is out...</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Group battle 2: Carbide is worried about Apollo? They should be fine but they're not sure with Apollo in their heat. Apollo have a simple plan, but maybe they can just go for the house robots?? Shockwave maybe have a disadvantage in not having the most powerful weapon, but they have this worked out! They think they do anyway...</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Again, Shunt is in, but now we have Sir Killalot. A challenge for Apollo? Will we have lift-off for the knight of the realm? And Carbide go for Shockwave! But Shockwave are able to get underneath Carbide and the power of Carbide's weapon TAKES OUT PART OF THE WALL!!! Typhoon 2-esque that is........ 2,500 rpm is less than Pussycat's circular saw but the momentum on that bar is so powerful, it's taken the wall clean out... meanwhile, the the camera just caught the moment Carbides hit Shockwave's side and hit the tyre and its protective cover, doing a ridiculous amount of damage, so much so that it would be almost impossible to repair in a day, never mind 2 hours!! Carbide, setting the "bar" (sorry) high there. Apollo did almost nothing in the few seconds that fight happened. Turns out Professor-god Noel Sharkey likes his carnage the Typhoon 2 style.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 1: Carbide v Thor. Some interesting modifications to try to counteract that incredible bar weapon, even adding his special axe. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">.... I'm sorry, I can't write and watch this match at the same time. This is incredible. Carbide just ripped Thor to shreds. Literally... That was MADNESS!!!! Every time Carbide hit Thor, whole bits came off Thor, even the defences added onto Thor came off fairly quickly. Can Thor be repaired in time??? That is so destructive, Thor may not be able to compete any more in this episode!</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 2: Apollo v TR2. Flipper v Flipper. I've vented my anger about flippers but these two have been the best flippers in this series and both of the teams are really enjoyable and have added a lot to the series. Who will fly? TR2 starts better,and seems to have the better ground clearance, but once Apollo gets his mark, they almost send TR2 out of the arena! Instead, Dead Metal has some fun. But now, TR2 turns the tables and Apollo is forced to TRY TO FLIP DEAD METAL... but fail. Just! This is very back and forth here. Neither has a clear advantage here, but they are both running out of power... but wait, TR2 is flipped on its backside and TR2 is struggling to self right!! It must have been counted out there. TR2 came so close here to finishing the fight... That was a great spectacle to watch! Great camaraderie between the teams, that could be one of the fights of the series.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 3: Carbide v Apollo.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Jeeezz!! A massive hit on Carbide by Apollo. I think Apollo have a chance here.... but wait, they're not moving... oh no... they've taken too much damage in that ONE hit from Carbide! Carbide were flipped over but that was some hit, even only on half power. A cheap shot at the end from Carbide, but it looks like Apollo could still get to the final.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 4: TR2 v Thor. Wow, Thor has been completely rebuilt! That's a fantastic job in under 2 hours. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">TR2 seems to have the measure of Thor here, forcing them around the arena. But that axe is a good schrimech. What a push and flip from TR2 to throw Thor at Dead Metal!! Nicely done. I really can't see Thor coming back from this. And now Matilda's tusk flip Thor! A rare piece of poor driving from Thor. You can actually hear the axe hitting TR2 at times. Thor seem to be getting back into this but they are hit by Matilda's flywheel!! That's a HUGE hit! Are they immobilised? No, Thor manages to restart itself. But it is taking flip after flip from TR2, the floor flipper and finally Matilda's tusks take Thor clean out the arena! Finally, nearly 20 years after her debut, those tusks show their potential. Well done TR2, a commendation from Professor Sethu! Surely the youngster from TR2 will do engineering at Uni? That is one fine robot he has there.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 5: TR2 v Carbide. Surely Carbide don't need to do very much here? Can TR2 do any better. Some good insight from the dad of the team, maybe some good tactical advice. Oooof! TR2 take more hits than Apollo and are still moving, but Carbide and ripping that flipper apart! After Sir Killalot has a nip on TR2 they hit the pit release and Carbide have now lost power and the bar HAS STOPPED MOVING!! I am getting goosebumps, TR2 still have enough of a flipper to flip Carbide! The arena flipper gets Carbide. Shunt gets Carbide! The crowd is behind TR2 here! TR2 is struggling with its turning circle but Carbide is next to useless and without their bar their driving and control has been appalling! TR2 push Carbide into Shunt...and he has Carbide on its backside...but not long enough to not go to the judges. They almost certainly have at least 2 points, do TR2? That may well be the best match of the final, but how on earth did TR2 survive that incredible punishment? Angela sums it up nicely by starting with "Unbelieveable"! And she reveals that the 2 points go to TR2! If Apollo mess up, TR2 will have a rematch with Carbide. A good observation from Dr. Lucy Rogers showing how Carbide tried to use the floor flipper to overturn. Even Carbide took internal damage! Great underdog victory for TR2. At this point even I'm going for TR2!</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 6: Thor play for pride, Apollo for so much more. Hah, Zombie Thor... nice to see Dara getting support for Thor. A nice tribute from Apollo to Thor. Interesting that Dara and Angela are watching from the cockpit with TR2.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">No mention of the house robots! However, the fight is very quick, with Thor being very quickly flipped around by Apollo, the back end came off and finally the floor flipper sends it onto its back. There isn't any power left in it and Apollo win with 3 points. After that slightly anti climatic match we now have....</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Final: Carbide v Apollo. Arguably the most destructive robots (at least one of them has been the most entertaining). Carbide have the advantage, but how much damage has TR2 done to Carbide? I agree with Dara. This is reminiscent of my classic fight, Chaos 2 v . Hypno disc.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Ahh!! Carbide and Apollo hit front on. Anotehr HUGE hit, but this time, crucially, Apollo survive and something flies off the arena floor!! Carbide have the advantage, managing to knock plates off Apollo, but they're superficial, but not for very long!! Apollo manage to stop Carbide by getting behind it into the CPZ! Carbide are in real trouble now!!! When they're flipped, the bar isn't working.... and Apollo has the advantage here, almost flipping Carbide out several times!! They eventually activate the pit, and Apollo start to run out of steam. Carbide manage to flip themselves over, but not before Shunt gets some hits in there. At the end Carbide are slowly eaten by Apollo's flipper while Shunt hit the armour with his axe. That's a close one... I think Apollo have this but that damage may count against them. A special mention to the crowd, when they're their moment, you can almost feel their passion and enthusiasm for the fights! I've said before many of them are probably old enough to remember the old series, but now they aren't using stock footage of the crowds, it definitely adds something in the final.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">The judges have to make the decision as it goes all the way... and it goes to.......</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Apollo!! Much like Chaos 2, they overcome the incredible destructive power of their opponent by going flipping mental, being more aggressive and ultimately being the better robot (once it could withstand those hits). Congratulations. I would have preferred a Cassius v Panic Attack style finish with the underdog winning by beating the flipper bot, but one could argue Apollo was technically the underdog ther for losing in the head to head. I guess I'm just bitter about flippers, although Apollo is a deserving champion. Especially one that can take on anyone, even the house robots!!</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">So next year, we have to see even more powerful (and more reliable) weapons to take on those flippers! A flipper as champion will give them the glory but Carbide did well until those last 2 fights to show that destructive weaponry is definitely a viable alternative. Here's to next series!!</span></div>
Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-67420412281245154792016-08-21T14:11:00.002-07:002016-08-21T14:11:36.562-07:00Robot Wars 2016 Review, Episode 4So time for a very belated review of the latest episode of robot wars!<br />
<br />
Good to remember TR2's increbile driving getting them through the 3rd episode.<br />
<br />
Group battle 1: Apollo looking very much like a shuttle. Unofficially a "launcher", not a flipper! Sweeney Todd have some unique wheels, those should be interesting to see in the arena! Kan-Opener are a returning robot, who have an incredible crushing ability. PP3D have an odd design, I don't think it will do too much damage despite it's position on the robot primed for hitting wheels. It also has the biggest spinning wheel, AND 3-D parts! 12 tonnes of crushing power for Kan-Opener, surely Kan-Krusher would make more sense? How will the CO2 supply fare for Apollo? So off we go with Sir Killalot in tow. Kan-Opener opens the pit immediately! Apollo has trouble with the floor flipper but quickly get back and assault Kan Opener. PP3D are being slowly crushed by Kan Opener, eventually released after a trip to the floor flipper and Apollo's flipper! PP3D are flying all over the place, their spinner is actually generating uplift if it is sent upwards by a flipper! Kan-Opener are gone in the meantime. Sweenet Todd are now just taking a battering from PP3D and Apollo. How wrong I was about PP3D! It's more of a helicopter than a grasscutter, but what a likeable robot! It moves around so much when the spinner is on the top, not the bottom! So Apollo and PP3D are through. Thoroughly enjoyable. I was smiling when PP3D went spinning around. Kan-Opener taking damage from Apollo, and Apollo losing a wheel from PP3D. Trying to repair that is causing problems for Apollo although that said they could still move quite well after the wheel was ripped off.<br />
<br />
Group battle 2: Terror Turtle don't look too competitive with the fibreglass, although a clusterbot might help out here. Storm 2 cost how much? £20,000!! They surely didn't cost that much when they were fighting in the grand final of the 7th series! Sabretooth has some teething problems they can't fix before getting into the .arena. I like the look of team Eruption, even though it is another flipper and I don't like flippers as a rule. Well the fact that the captain was head of Greenpeace for 6 years explains his haircut (and the robot design)! Matilda is looking lovely as ever... and away we go! Terror Turtle sends in its mini cluster bot into the carnage. Eruption is on Sabretooth and Storm 2 is pushing Terror Turtle. And now Sabretooth is flipped over by Eruption! They're not going anywhere without a schrimech. Terror Turtle now being double teamed! But the fight finishes with a bang as Terror turtle is flipped out of the arena by Eruption with an amazing flip! Does that come under animal cruelty? Someone call RSPCA! Dara was a little unfair on Storm 2 there. Sabretooth did try to get some damage to Eruption but it was too little too late.<br />
<br />
There is a LOT of tech on Storm 2! That gets the nod of approval from Sethu the judge.<br />
<br />
Head to head 1: Apollo v PP3D. These two did a lot to each other, relatively speaking. This could be fight of the series! And Apollo sned PP3D flying without even using the flipper! Good tactics from Apollo, stopping PP3D from getting the spinner from moving at full speed. Apollo managed to flip the wheel off PP3D and now both of the robots have trouble moving! Some retribution... finally Apollo get to flip PP3D and immobilise them completely! Poor PP3D but another great performance from them, some real damage taken. This time Apollo comes off lightly.<br />
<br />
Head to head 2: Eruption v Storm 2. Flipper v Ram bot. Previous history shows that the Ram bots are better in this case (think Chaos 2 v Tornado). And the battle start with a lot of pushing, but actually Storm 2 doesn't have that much pushing power! Eruption is putting up a good fight but they've gone onto the floor flipper! By self righting, they've hit the pit release. Sit Killalot nearly get hold of Eruption. Storm 2 have learned how to get underneath Eruption and are now more confidently pushing Eruption, but Storm are still getting flipped by Eruption. Oh my, that's a close one! Were Storm 2 immobilised for long enough? Its definitely going to the judges. Storm 2 surprisingly happy with their performance. Good assessment by the Eruption team of the battle. Storm 2 I think got lucky there. A split decision!! That's a first. Just too little too late for Eruption, a shame really but since I'm not a big fan of flippers, I guess I have to eat my words if I say Eruption deserved it.<br />
<br />
Head to head 3: Apollo v Storm 2. Apollo now running on full power! I think Storm should've gone for the spinning disc really. Storm 2 is finding it easy to get underneath Apollo but WOW that floor flipper is really powerful! Now we can see Storm 2's schrimech in action. Apollo seem to be without some drive but WHO CARES THEY'VE JUST FLIPPED DEAD METAL!! The hairs are standing on their ends on my back and arms (and pretty much everywhere)! Apollo clearly still working well, they've flipped Storm 2. AND NOW APOLLO HAVE RIPPED THE ARMOUR OFF MATLIDA WHILE SHE'S TRYING TO SELF RIGHT DEAD METAL AND FLIPPED HER OVER!! This is the battle of the series, even without considering that Storm almost had Apollo in the pit at the end but were just about ok! It goes the judges, while the technical team inspect Matilda. Will she fight again?? The winner is Apollo!! Well deserved. Even the judges approve of flipping the house robots!!<br />
<br />
Head to head 4: Eruption v PP3D. A hard act to follow then. Both teams know this. Eruption trying to go in hard. JP making a subtle pun about tyres there. Huge hits from PP3D! Bits flying off everywhere! The side plates are shattered on Eruption!! And a wheel is broken inside Eruption. But so it one wheel on PP3D! Now they're both circling around themselves like broken hooverbots. A shame really but that fight demonstrates how powerful these robots can be. JP got a bit bored at the end. Definitely one for the judges. Control to Eruption, damage to PP3D, aggression...??? The winner is PP3D! Sounds like a lot of work for Eruption. Meanwhile less work and more a need for a need for a new motor!! Nice to see the roboteers sharing parts on the sly...<br />
<br />
Dr Lucy Rogers almost interrupted by the sounds of hammers on metal!!! She discusses about the usefulness of internet interactions to crowdsharing, including the use of Raspberry Pi and sensors.<br />
<br />
Head to head 5: Apollo v Eruption. The 2 flippers here and Eruption need the points. Eruption is struggling to get underneath until Apollo hit the floor flipper and Eruption hits them hard with several hits! And they've been immobilised here by Eruption. Surely they've got all 3 points. A lot of dancing from Eruption, shame they can't qualify, Angela leading the tributes after that lovely pirouette. Apollo now need some repairs.<br />
<br />
Head to head 6: Storm 2 v PP3D. Can PP3D overcome the technical prowess and ramming speed of Storm 2? Who dares wins... Good plan by Storm but every hit from Storm 2 is sending PP3D into the and allowing them to power up! Even Shunt's scoop is damaged! from the hit! I think PP3D are unable to move off the pit and Storm 2 hit the pit release, good tactics there. They nearly flew out of the pit! Storm 2 not being too nice to the opposition there, I'm not liking that.<br />
<br />
Heat final: Apollo v Storm 2. Can Apollo follow up from their incredible run against the house robots? Storm 2 using their front to stop Apollo from flipping the and now shunt has Apollo.... BUT OH WAIT, THERE GOES SHUNT!!! Storm 2 has the pit released and are getting underneath Storm 2 but WHAT a flip! Storm 2 are unable to self right but can keep going. Apollo flip them over while Matilda selfs right Shunt. Oh my goodness, Storm 2 are flipped OUT of the arena! Poor positioning from Storm 2, they can only blame themselve there. A few more inches backwards and they could hav hit the side wall, not the thin air they went through. These guys, the "boy band" of the pits, have a real chance of winning the final with flipping power like that... Dara is taking apart Storm 2 here (verbally), maybe going a bit too aggressive on the captain but possibly deserved?<br />
<br />
Easily the best fight of the series goes to Apollo and Storm 2's first fight, with both Dead Metal and Matilda being flipped over! Very enjoyable episode, although PP3D will never be forgotten. Maybe next series for them? That is one heck of a spinning disc!!Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-21764085003597085082016-08-21T13:12:00.001-07:002016-08-21T13:14:48.633-07:00Robot Wars 2016 Review, Episode 5<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Time for the penultimate show! How time flies...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">So we start off with a quick statement about how varied the robots are. Fair enough... I thought I wouldn't like the variety of the intros but it is actually getting me hyped for the next episode!! Especially after the last episode (the best so far). I wonder if Dara did that "This is Robot Wars" intro every time, or did they just use one good take? Angela doing the NOT Phillipa Forrester routine with the brevity that gets us to the fighting quicker. Lovely!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Team Pulsar look like they are in pieces in the pits but sounds like it will make some serious noise! Chompalot looks nice but how much power is in that crusher? Oh, *only* a ton. Team Ironside is going for the massive arm, but no testing? Sounds like the sort of amateur team we need more of! Finally, Team Thermidor, the only golden oldie in the first heat. The team captain has an incredible set of teeth! </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Group battle 1: Turns out Ironside 3 (Nottingham) and Chompalot (Derby) are recreating the Clough derby! Shunt is in the arena... and we are off! Chompalot goes after Ironside but Thermidor and Shunt double team Chompalot! You can hear Pulsar, but not doing too much here... they hit Ironside but now they're spinning on one wheel! Thermidor is OUT in the melee! Massive hit from Ironside meanwhile, on Chompalot, rips the side panel off!!! Incredible robot. Chompalot is all over the place here, almost in the pit but mostly on the front of the immobile Pulsar...it goes to the judges while Chompalot tries to push Pulsar into the pit. And those through are Ironside and Chompalot (the most deserving fighters)! The Clough derby continues, but for how long? Bits are falling off left right and centre, will they be able to fix it in time (2 hours is surely too long)?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Group battle 2: So now we have Crazy Coupe 88, a fairly chrome-y looking fellow, but not looking too dangerous. Proper old-school, even getting the fiancee involved! good old Dara. Gabriel looks like a giant cousin to the old Stinger, very tall. I forget what the height restrictions is. Not easy to explain how Gabriel works. Beast is your conventional flipper bot but with a roll-cage on top. All the weight is in the flipper? Interesting... Infernal Contraption another returnee from the old series (I think, it looks very similar to the old Infernal Contraption). There are quite a few teams from Norwich. Oh dear, JP can't pronounce coupe... And away we go! A lot of hits, it turns into a complete melee! Beast flips Crazy Coupe, but its invertible! Dead Metal gets Crazy Coupe and they aren't moving! Gabriel just spinning around. Infernal Contraption and Beast dance around each other but Infernal Contraption pirouette their way into the pit! Gabriel and Beast are through. Meanwhile Dead Metal leaves Crazy Coupe on the flame pit.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 1: Gabriel v Chompalot. Gabriel's huge blade has flipped Chompalot but eventually Chompalot have their crusher on Gabriel. The flipper gets Chompalot and launches them on their side and across the arena! They can't self-right! And now while Angela is talking to the team it has caught on fire... Poor Chompalot. They stood up so well in the group battle too. That is a lot of smoke, they've even had to take it outside. I think Pulsar will get in over Thermidor, and the judges select Pulsar! </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 2: Ironside 3 v Beast. Beast and Ironside are dancing around each other and the first hits are ripping chunks out of Beast! Very manoeuvrable and after a slight malfunction they hit the exposed tyres on Beast and almost completely immobilise Beast! Eventually it is unable to move completely. Will it go to the judges? No! It's been given as a straight victory.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">A quick break to talk to Dr. </span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 16px;">Sethu Vijayakuma </span><span style="line-height: 16px;"> about prosthetic arms, which is actually quite cool! T-1000 style hand holding the flask. A cheeky reference to the old techno games?</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 3: Gabriel v Ironside 3. A change of weaponry for Gabriel but how much damage can it do with that axe? Too late, Ironside is way too quick and is hitting Gabriel's wheels and Sir Killalot gets a hold.But it's still going... the wheels are doing very well considering how many hits are going in from Ironside and Killalot! The flamepit is getting a lot of use today and Gabriel is in trouble here. They eventually escape and it goes to the judges. That might be closer than we think.... but the decision goes Ironside's way.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 4: Beast v Pulsar. A bit unfair on Pulsar to only have 2 fights but such is the way of Robot Wars! That said both robots need the win.. Pulsar seem to be in trouble with their drive. Both of them are in trouble... but what a hit on Beast!! And that seems to have immobilised them! Well done Pulsar, although the cameras seem to have missed out most of the rest of the battle, which might have been really good, but I suspect it was a bore-fest.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 5: Beast v Gabriel. Would Beast have had time to see Gabriel's problems on the flame pit? Back to the arm for Gabriel. Beast having some technical problems. On that same wheel that was ripped apart before... Gabriel's arm sounds good on hitting the floor. A strange ending there with Gabriel not wanting to do any more damage after immobilising Beast. A mercy killing? If you're not going to, Dead Metal will... the judges still have to decide, that is one less point if they do decide and that would be crucial. But they've been given the full points as Beast was immobilised for longer than 10 seconds.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 6: Ironside v Pulsar. Spinners fight each other, they didn't do much against each other in the group stage except for the one hit that has given Pulsar so many drive problems. Now we will see their true powers... OH MY WORD THAT WAS INCREDIBLE!! Ironside flipped by the sheer power of Pulsar's vertical spinner when the horizontal spinner collided on it!! Sir Killalot controversially self righting Ironside after a very long time!! Ironside have suffered heavily here, only chance is to pit them. But wait, Pulsar aren't moving!! They've both gone into the pit... judges are looking for more than control, damage and aggression! They've gone for Pulsar!! Fantastic! Ironside were immobilised for more than 10 seconds. In just 2 fights they've gone through to the final against Gabriel! Of course that is a controversial decision, perhaps cease should have been called after the 10 seconds?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Heat final: Gabriel v Pulsar. Wow, I thought Ironside would walk through this heat, but here we are. Gabriel are so big that Pulsar are going straight under them! Pulsar are hitting the wheels, but Gabriel is still moving around, those wheels are almost indestructible. Pulsar are more manoeuvrable, Pulsar are having issues and almost stop in front of Killalot! Pulsar continue to hit the wheels of Gabriel, causing it to flip around. Again Pulsar are in trouble, right next to Killalot!! And again Pulsar is immobile! And again they start again!! They seem to be starting again within ten seconds so it will go to the judges... even the flipper can't get a hold of Gabriel!! Who would want to be a judge! Very enjoyable final, Pulsar did more damage but that drive will count against Pulsar. Aggression to decide? Gabriel are surprisingly robust, I will agree with the team on that one. Pulsar get the win!!! I think Gabriel ran them very close, although on criteria alone, Pulsar had 2 categories going for them.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Overall, an episode that will go down as controversial for Pulsar's inclusion (maybe it should have been left blank?) and for Pulsar getting a win over Ironside when they maybe should have lost. Yes it has happened in the old series but something just doesn't seem right about it. At least this time there are no bad losers! Plus we've had our first robot so completely destroyed they've had to retire! No Matilda I see in hindsight...too much damage maybe from the 3rd episode??</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">The grand final is next week, let's see how it goes down...</span>Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-28323124437190407602016-08-07T13:02:00.004-07:002016-08-07T13:19:02.465-07:00Robot Wars 2016 Review, Episode 3<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">So far, we've had action. We've had shocks. We've had controversy (Foxic, you will not be forgotten)! But more importantly, we've had a new Robot Wars which is fresh and exciting without relying too much on the nostalgia of the old show. So will this episode live up to the standards set by the previous episodes???</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">The show begins with the usual montage, with a slight change to the video preview to show the last episodes highlights. A quick montage to Sir Killalot there... this week's combatants are a real throwback- DanTom(ni)Kia (DTK) and King B Remix (old King B Powerworks in the same heat! For that DTK reference, see series 6 of the old Robot Wars, the announcer struggled to pronounce it... Glitter bomb going for the WOW factor of all pink coat (similar to Thor, maybe a sisterbot?)! Overdozer's got a couple of holes in it, is that a petrol engine and it's made of wood?? More dangerous to use in the arena but potentially more reliable over a longer fight... King B's had a paint job too. This seems to be a recurring theme! Dantomkia is not the same team as the old series, it was sold to the new team last year and has been modified with more power.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Heat 1: JP making some interesting comments about the teams before the bout. Turns into 2 1v1's with Glitterbomb and DTK going into each other, and Overdozer out in 30 seconds! And soon Glitterbomb's in trouble now! Flipped by DTK!! Overdozer is in serious trouble here, with DTK taking control now. So much damage on Overdozer by DTK, taking on all the robots here!! Worthy winners there, but King B did very little really other than leave Overdozer on its side. Nice reference to the 3 little pigs by Dara. Angela trying to entice the little girl to betray her dad!! That's something that Craig Charles might do. Overall a good analysis of the fight by the judge, showing just why you don't build a tank out of wood!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Heat 2: Supernova!!!!!!! One of my favourite older competitor and one of the underdogs of the old series!! Should have done so much better but reliability was always their achilles heel. Other teams (team TR2) include members related to George Stephenson, I am so behind them (even if the youngest member gets to drive)!!! Team Orte might not even be in the arena with mechanical problems... Finally Big Nipper given the usual pre-match treatment. Now to the battle itself. Orte looks like Bigger Brother. Sir Killalot patrolling this one. And a three way hit has sparks flying! Orte loses bits to Supernova straight away! TR2 pushes supernova around. And now Big Nipper and Supernova clash weapons!!! Big Nipper almost skids into the pit soon afterwards. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Supernova are gone into the pit with their big spinner creating too much momentum to turn. Best heat battle so far, mostly because of Supernova being involved in everything! TR2 showed some potential with pushing power. Orte lost all power after one hit from Supernova. Big Nipper through with TR2. But at what cost??? Big Nipper's spinner is damaged from the hits with Supernova. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 1: DTK v King B Remix. The first old school fight between 2 old series robots in the head to heads. Why is DTK smoking with the interview with Dara??? The team leader sounds utterly evil, but not Foxic evil. King B has some interesting features shown in the preview video that haven't been tested yet, like those rotating spikes! The battle itself: A tactical affair, King B hitting hard to avoid getting flipped, and even DTK gets trapped briefly on the floor spikes! But it is only a matter of time before DTK flips its opponent, and WHAT a flip, Trapping King B in that weird side wall, Matilda doing the rest and flipping the first robot out of the arena!!</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"> That was surprisingly enjoyable for the tactical battle early on, full of speed and aggression. However, you could argue that the side of the arena is unfairly designed to trap robots like that, maybe a reason for having Refbot to get a robot out of those situations? That said, that is one of the few times Matilda's tusks have done anything so maybe that is why the arena is designed as it is. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 2: TR2 v Big Nipper. A change here, Big Nipper living up to its name and going for its crusher instead. Big Nipper's predecessor looks like it was in the old wars too, but unconfirmed. TR2 is focused heavily on the teenage driver, and he has a good knack for interviews. He'll go far regardless... TR2 and Big Nipper try to hit each other on the side, but TR2 get a flip in! Big Nipper get away but TR2 flip them in the CPZ with Dead Metal! Lots of sparks. Round 1 to TR2. But a slight hit on TR2 by Dead Metal. The pit is down! What a mistake, almost immediately after activating the pit release, they get stuck on the edge of the pit and TR2 push them in, picking up all 3 points. Possibly not operating fully for Big Nipper. TR2 was very much on top there. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Dr Lucy Rogers gives a nice presentation on animatronic robots in the interlude, looks like the sort of things you see at Wookey Hole. "She" looks quite cute if it wasn't so life-like (the robot, not Dr Lucy Rogers)!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 3: Dantomkia v TR2. A bit of a surprise top-of-the-table clash, TR2 look solid but not that powerful. 2 flippers against each other, could be a flipper frenzy!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">TR2 start the better and push DTK around the arena. Maybe I was wrong about TR2, that flipper is causing DTK all sorts of problems! Mind you there was a flip on TR2 by DTK. JP wrong to say DTK was one of the first schrimechs in robot wars! TR2 have dominated and may have knocked the electronics in DTK! TR2 the surprise winners! That flipper might have been deliberately underpowered for the previous heats. TR2 are all but through now. The "bum" axe apparently being used there (I didn't see it being used!) and DTK's evil leader living up to his expectations by hitting DTK when it isn't working! Now that moment I did smile at.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 4: King B Remix v Big Nipper. Big Nipper is giving us fighting talk by changing their weapon back to the spinning disc. King B immediately opens the pit and pushing Big Nipper around! But soon Big Nippers spinner is ripping bits out of King B! In the CPZ so this is not safe for King B, are they in even more trouble? They're not moving and cease is called! Big Nipper wins with that excellent spinning disc! Again I think more damage to electronics than the armour but the floor does indeed look a bit like dandruff from the remains of the rear plate of King B.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 5: TR2 v King B Remix. A dud match? If TR2 win then they may get a wildcard spot regardless. Some good advice from dad to try and counter King B. King B are out but could get some pride out of this match. King B go for the charge and not the pit release and that may be a mistake! TR2 are on top here, pushing and flipping King B, are they still moving? Yes, only just! Almost out of the arena! But now the pit is open! Sir Killalot puts King B on the flame, how much damage did King B take there? They've lost power here and TR2 have another simple push into the pit. TR2 is so well designed, they deserve to go through, the first robot to win 4 battles in a row! Can they make it 5 in the heat final? No more King B Powerworks *cough* *cough* *cough* ... sorry, King B Remix. Nil point.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 6: DTK v Big Nipper. Risks being taken from both sides, upping the power to the max. They have no choice really. Spinner v flipper. Dead Metal and Sir Killalot. DTK start the better with the flipper and Sir killalot has a play! Big Nipper is invertible, but that is only so helpful when you are hovering in the air in the clutches of Sir Killalot! NOw then, DTK seems to have more pushing power, a surprise as it only has 2 wheel drive! Nice combo of push and flip from DTK . Big Nipper is just being thrown around the arena here. But Big Nipper is still in it with a few seconds to go and the judges will decide the victor. Big Nipper did more damage but DTK had more aggression, who had the control? Or was there more damage than I thought? Mind you, being driven by Sir Killalot doesn't count and that has counted against Big Nipper! Dantomkia are through to the heat final. Those upgrades on Dantomkia showing how it has improved considerably in 10 years.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Final: Dantomkia v TR2. Here we go! A bit slower from the competitors here, but TR2 are pushing DTK but the floor flipper gets involved and TR2 is flipped! But now DTK are hit by Matilda's flywheel! DTK in trouble on the side, I think DTK are running out of steam here, they are back up but Matilda are doing well to not be hit too much by Matilda. TR2 pushes DTK onto the flipper and DTk is flipped over! they don't seem to want to flip up! TR2 have won! DTK blame Matilda and not the floor flipper for their knockout blow! Dara controlling the frustrations of the DTK team there.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Overall, not as controversial as last week, all the battles had something to them to like and another new robot goes to the final. Thor still in with a chance of wildcarding. TR2 will find it harder in the final but probably worthy winners. Would've like Big Nipper but that engineering heritage seems to be paying off! Quite a few golden oldies but only one of them lived up to their potential, showing how far these newer robots have come in just a few years (except for Overdozer).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">NB it turns out that the former Bigger Brother chief engineer Ian Watts was in the Orte robot's team, so no wonder it looked so similar!</span>Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-1638576160872353592016-07-31T13:09:00.005-07:002016-08-07T13:11:09.808-07:00Robot Wars 2016 Review, Episode 2<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Seeing how all-over-the-place my last review was, I'm going to try to give a slightly more coherent approach to reviewing the second episode of the new Robot Wars...</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Will they have fixed the timer? Will they have fixed the music? Will the fights be just as exciting? Will they resolve what live entertainment was shown during the intervals? Also is there a Shove replacement (see Robot Wars Wikia)?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">I like the new trophy, although it still has nothing on the old one. </span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Good to see the variety of intros they can do- last week didn't we didn't really get to grips with the arena weapons!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Oh my goodness, so many returning robots, including Northamptonshire's finest, Thor (heavily rebuilt), and one of the most controversial robots in the old series, Tough As Nails (good to see foreign competition regardless)!!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Wow, I didn't realise how old the crowd is compared to the old series, when it was mostly mostly families! Probably the kids have all just grown up...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">What a battle we have here in the first round! Disconstructor spins itself out with some appalling driving, and Tough As Nails being thwarted by Shockwave and Thor (eventually)! That was a close one though, Tough As Nails were very impressive early and could've pitted Thor without Shockwave's interference. That makes me happy but what a shame we're going to miss them... Shockwave one to watch? That timer though, it needs to be a bit more consistent (either have it on all the time or don't have it!)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Second battle: 4 completely new robots, maybe except for Draven, who looks like a mix of Tiberius and S.M.I.D.S.Y.. Chimera looks a bit like Stinger but the team seems to have no connection with the former Nottinghamshire based team. So much for my analysis that nostalgia wouldn't overburden the new series... ok, some of those facts about the teams were directly lifted from the website, but hey, some real nerds in the tournament! Good on them. M.R. Speed Squared did some real damage to Chimera! Bye bye exposed wheels! But where's Dead Metal? Foxic staying wisely out of the way of MR Speed and Draven taking most of the damage. MR Speed Squared looks like a good rival to Carbide, last week's winners. Overall the slowest fight in the series and JP shows he can commentate without losing his marbles! </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">I still don't think that 2 hours is strictly necessary to repair a robot but then the complexity of the robots these days probably justifies the repair time...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 1: Thor versus MR Speed Squared. Thor's experience shining through here, stopping the spinner easily here and pushing MR Speed Squared around. Disappointing with the overall outcome but a great result for experience over youth... but wait? The floor flipper factor comes into play!!! tohr is flipped upside down! That will count against them if it goes to the judges! And Mr Speed is fighting back here, but with no working weapon! Unfortunately MR Speed eventually fell into the pit after some clever driving from Thor.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 2: Foxic and Shockwave. 2 flipper bots here, a first in this series. For all their fighting experience, Foxic may look pretty but their current battle form is not winning many hearts for not getting stuck in. Shockwave the favourite... and it starts with a surprise, the small size of Foxic proving to be an advantage, until they get caught in the flipper of Shockwave! Nice double team on Dead Metal there, but how much damage did they sustain from the saw? Shockwave getting better as the battle goes on and finally proves that size is everything as they pit Foxic while their flipper was stuck upwards. Entertaining battle overall!! The highlights package after each might need a bit of tweaking, they didn't really show the impressive shove on Dead Metal by Foxic. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 3: Shockwave and Thor. Winner v winner, axe versus scoop. Good to see that interchangable weaponry are allowed, so long as we don't have an anti-pit device I'm reasonably happy with interchangable weaponry! Those graphics still need modifying as well. Thor looking stronger early on,even without the axe! Shockwave in all sorts of trouble. Wow! Thor's axe has some power but they did same that it is only made of some plastic piping. Thor looking very strong overall. How are they going to fix that?? Thor getting approval from the crowd. That said, no real damage to the actual body of Shockwave. But, Thor making another mistake here, getting hit by Matilda and losing armour, unlike Shockwave! Judges have got their work cut out now... and Thor should win. Do they? Yes they do! Worthy winners in the end. Nice to see how the judges base their decisions. hove would have his work cut out to get all that rubbish out of the arena...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 4: Foxic v MR Speed Squared. Is Foxic low enough to avoid that terrific spinner on M Speed? Looks like that may be a moot point as the spinnger isn't working and Foxic is focused on getting revenge on Dead Metal. Not good for aggression and control for Foxic. Foxic are just way too much into acting like children around their toy if it doesn't work! Angela picking up on their lack of action between the two competitors. Good to see MR Speed Squared win. Foxic is just too focused on trash talking rather than fighting. Where's their experience?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 5: Foxic v Thor. Is "bloody" a swearword? Discuss. Pre-watershed so that could lead to complaints. Foxic really not endearing themselves to me with their attitude at all! If they make it through this heat... Evenly matched in terms of pushing power but again Dead Metal getting involved on Foxic! Foxic focusing too much on one tactic here and they are in big trouble! Dead Metal proving he's top dog in this arena. Matilda having the last word after the klaxon, pushing Foxic into the pit! The trash talking is just putting me right off Foxic, happy to see the back of them. Will there be a yellow card for Matilda? I guess there's no refbot, so no rules! Thor looking the favourites here in the final.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head to Head 6: Shockwave v MR Speed Squared. No expense spared with the commentating here, the cut on the team member's hand being shown off. I shouldn't be so surprised that Shockwave got the scoop fixed. Poor old MR Speed! Taking damage from both house robots but Shockwave in trouble for losing their drive train! Nicely done by Shockwave to tip MR Speed onto their side and almost immobilise them in the process! Eventually pitted, Shockwave advance as finalists.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Final: Thor v Shockwave. Now this is a good fight. Immediately Shockwave went onto the attack without putting the scoop up (this is what Foxic should've done) and by chance knocked out the electrics in Thor, proceeding to push them into the pit! Fantastic shock result, enjoyed by all. Home in time for tea. With such a high score in the head to heads, surely we'll see Thor as the wild cardentry? Sorry Behemoth...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Overall, another entertaining show, lots of action with only one dud fight (even Judge-God Noel Sharkey saying it might have been the worst fight he has <u>ever</u> seen, and he saw 3 Stegs to Heaven taking on Eleven, the slowest walking robot ever known to Robot Wars!) still needs a bit of work on the graphics, some errors in camera control seem to be creeping in (particularly the head to heads, which is surprising) and maybe tell teams to be respectful of their opponents (looking at you, Foxic). I know it was filmed 6 months ago but there is still time to edit the footage! The presenters are really holding their own and the judges telling us more about the world of robotics is actually really interesting. You never saw trash talking (or judges opinions) in the old series, you only saw Plunderbird and Sir Chromalot dancing in the arena. To be fair they had class (as much as I had hated them back then)!!</span></div>
Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-51488598992839992592016-07-30T09:26:00.001-07:002016-08-02T01:50:56.593-07:00Festival of Archaeology 2016 contribution: Have a Go at Photogrammetry!<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">To celebrate the end of the Festival of Archaeology 2016 (brought to you by the Council of British Archaeology) I've dug out some files I've been working on a side project to demonstrate how easy it is to get involved in archaeology, even from your bedroom (which is where I'm writing this from!).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">My side project has been experimenting with photogrammetry to see what changes occur to monuments over time. </span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">What is photogrammetry? Well, according to a quick google search, it is "</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><i>the use of photography in surveying and mapping to ascertain measurements between objects". </i>Historic England recommend using terrestrial photogrammetry (as opposed to aerial photogrammetry)<i> </i>when you want more than 1,000 points per object (for reference, consider that an image from a camera can contain millions of pixels) and the object is less than 100 metres in size<i>. </i>Traditionally archaeologists used aerial photogrammetry, where photographs taken from the underside of a plane are placed side by side, and seeing if they overlap, creating a much larger picture of a landscape and comparing features from different times of the year. A bit like a giant jigsaw puzzle! This is still done today sometimes. </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">However, in the last 20 to 30 years, the digital revolution has allowed digital images to become a lot more detailed, and software has become very sophisticated too, and they can start to analyse these images with algorithms, allowing the process to be automated. When you combine these ideas together, you can start to see the potential for photogrammetry, particularly applications like Google Earth, which now have a large number of 3-D models created by photogrammetry. These are often buildings, which have been "rendered" by specialist software from these images and then exported into Google Earth, so you can see buildings that are both in the real world (what you and I see) and the virtual one (i.e. Google Earth)! In these 3-D examples, which I will show you my example later, the user doesn't have to be in the air. They don't need expensive cameras (but it helps!) and you don't need expensive software. All you really need is a steady hand, a good eye for detail and some time for processing the images!</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">But why photogrammetry? It is cheap and relatively easy to use, unlike laser scanning or other means of digital recording, but why should we photograph everything and put it in a 3- dimensional digital format? Well, there are times when you need to preserve a monument or archaeological resource digitally because it is about to be destroyed, whether that is commercial development (such as housing), vandalism, pollution, or extreme weather events. For most objects in Britain hopefully this won't happen! If we destroy something, then it isn't coming back, particularly if it holds a lot of value or information about something, such as a Roman military collection, or a rare set of Saxon gold. A digital model can also help us with new interpretations about the past, and answer questions about how an object was made, or what materials were used, or even who made it! A very detailed model of a stone axe could show cut marks that reveal how it was cut or made that are difficult to see with the naked eye. You could even use it to create a mesh (to </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">represent a geometric object as a set of finite elements</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , , sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">)</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"> that can be 3-D printed, and then used as an educational resource.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">However, you should consider whether it is the right thing to do by conserving an object digitally. Not everyone feels that objects should be conserved. Cultures around the world deliberately destroy things, even though they may be very valuable, because it is their tradition to do so. Even you might destroy things to forget about them! In a digital format, it is much harder to delete an object permanently because it is so easy to create copies, especially if it is on the internet. Of course, above all else, photogrammetry shouldn't really be used on its own (unless other methods are not available to you); it needs to be used as part of a wider project to achieve maximum benefit. You should, for example, write down what you see in an object (such as distinguishing features), measure it yourself before survey (if possible) and make use of other resources (such as <a href="https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/">Historic England's list</a> of listed buildings and scheduled monuments). Think of what you want to ask about a monument or archaeological object and then see if photogrammetry is a good idea.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;">By coincidence, it is also 100 years since World War One, and there is a monument dedicated to the soldiers not far from where I live, so I have decided to see if there are any changes to the monument over time by creating models at different times of the year. This could help inform other archaeologists and conservation specialists what work needs to be done to the monument, if any, such as cleaning the monument, repairs, etc. However, if you can think of any questions that can't be answered by everyday techniques, such as (for example) "what is the volume of metal in this monument?", you could measure the space in the model when it has been edited and use to to work out how much metal was needed to make the monument.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">What you need:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">1 x camera (mine is a Vivtar Vivicam, it's rubbish but its cheap). Even your phone will do if you can download the images to your computer!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">1 x means of recording what it is you're recording, when you recorded it, and how you recorded it (or the metadata of the project)- usually a spreadsheet on a laptop but pen and paper is fine. Just don't forget to do it!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">1 x object to take images of. It doesn't even have to be outside, you can practice with things inside your house!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">1x software package- I'm using Autodesk's 123D Catch, but there are lots to choose from. As with a lot of programs they all require a certain amount of playing around to achieve the best results. This is where the magic happens, and your "capture" becomes a mesh you can edit and make videos out of it. A mesh is used because it can be edited and processed, then later exported for other applications.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>Instructions:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>Fieldwork:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Take pictures of your object. Now, this is where you have to be careful, because you can't just take a few pictures. You have to make sure that you have a lot of overlap between the images, and a lot of zoomed-in photos to capture details! You need to find what are known as "reference points"- points that are very clear in a lot of you photos, such as an irregular edge, a different coloured part of your model, or some text that is distinguishable in multiple photographs. You can have a go at making you own reference points (such as small archery targets on cardboard) and place these around the monument/object if it helps. </span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Even though the monument I've used it less than 5 metres high by 2 metres wide and deep, I've taken at least 50 photos of it for my "capture". Needless to say, be careful of what is around you (such as steep drops, cliffs, bins etc) to avoid injury while doing fieldwork! Other factors to consider are the direction of the sun (right angles to the sun are good, directly into the sun or in shade will make a difference with poorer-quality cameras). </span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">One of the advantages of using photogrammetry software is that they know where photographs were taken, relative to the monument. However, it is worth noting where you took the photos by making notes on a map or a spreadsheet, which will help you when it comes to processing the data.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEYvR-WdM6mXAxzUJheawFVyQfTAPiS6J1fHAbWQMg_Px1WwZc4c9a_c8Dom21m4gsC42tZYjvL17AUkVE7Kf4Obq_Q15HNSlby1GI11VlkscoGFO2zF1z3q4sOGY7KlCQlGyQjMoUzmU/s1600/Blog+Day+of+Archaeology+2016+image+1a.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEYvR-WdM6mXAxzUJheawFVyQfTAPiS6J1fHAbWQMg_Px1WwZc4c9a_c8Dom21m4gsC42tZYjvL17AUkVE7Kf4Obq_Q15HNSlby1GI11VlkscoGFO2zF1z3q4sOGY7KlCQlGyQjMoUzmU/s400/Blog+Day+of+Archaeology+2016+image+1a.PNG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Location of the War Memorial in the nearby cemetery (Copyright:<a href="https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/map-search">Historic England 2016</a>). You could use a detailed map like this to show where you took your photos.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;">NOTE: always ask permission to take photographs if the monument or object is on private land!</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>Processing:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">When you have taken enough photographs and you are happy with the quality of them, then you can download them to your computer and edit the photos with the software. If you have taken you photographs at different angles, you may want to adjust them so that they are all in the same angle (with Paint.Net or a similar graphics software). Now, a number of the photographs may not necessarily register at first; these may have to be stitched manually, but the software should give you some help with this.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>The Results:</b></span><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5qZP5CY_JQPGaaJkd4QFNlWV61vZ9FhXRAiIaPpHX63wv64GVkqGP9UVwWxxSgXqUbNaIiYS0QPxcHZS33EjV3YlR8MGrYKU22cQG7eLV6XEgmGVd8MSvUzNUulkTyPKr2zCWAsf45Q4/s1600/Blog+Day+of+Archaeology+2016+image+1.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5qZP5CY_JQPGaaJkd4QFNlWV61vZ9FhXRAiIaPpHX63wv64GVkqGP9UVwWxxSgXqUbNaIiYS0QPxcHZS33EjV3YlR8MGrYKU22cQG7eLV6XEgmGVd8MSvUzNUulkTyPKr2zCWAsf45Q4/s640/Blog+Day+of+Archaeology+2016+image+1.PNG" width="305" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The end result before deleting points.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmSk1vEPXdrRzn9BZGGm58TrhncTHi0DTrY-LS2XPyhtinc-mBUR41sWebovYJXw0oAzYAM3VD_02CMzlUnmjMFNGg_XSrmuDuZOyro1KJ0Rpxp5u7jhBqyfjkTnenvR25K8EpiYHATVk/s1600/DSCF0150.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmSk1vEPXdrRzn9BZGGm58TrhncTHi0DTrY-LS2XPyhtinc-mBUR41sWebovYJXw0oAzYAM3VD_02CMzlUnmjMFNGg_XSrmuDuZOyro1KJ0Rpxp5u7jhBqyfjkTnenvR25K8EpiYHATVk/s320/DSCF0150.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8px;">The War Memorial in a photograph... compare with the above model!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">On the plus side, you can tell it's a war memorial, with the writing being clearly visible and the statue of liberty (not sure, I think it's liberty) being obvious. However, there are a few issues with the Thornton War Memorial model. Mostly its because the angle of the sun made the statue shine, and the shininess of the surface made it hard for the software to work out what was statue and what was sunlight! So sometimes you will have to delete bits which are not "correct" or representative of the model. In particular, small details that are quite far away, such as the outline of the wreaths, proved to be difficult to capture in the software.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Also, the ground surface was not as lumpy as it is shown here. This is because there was a lot of foilage around the base of the monument that interfered with the algorithms in the software, so it just shown a very lumpy surface, whereas in fact the . One of the other problems I had was trying to get an aerial photograph, as the top of the monument is about 5 metres high and I don't have a ladder!</span></div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTqpDmZpbXT_oec-Y-TbpgzwrAWnxc1mRkleFnuKCM4RgaKax3MbWX6JZyfNgtMFuRIae0JOyx0Q5G2HBgbwSGRk5NO64NLYZohwvkBiYYz-o7ZQLvhK-FcBhVbZyjCq_GWSqjJcUNPCk/s1600/Blog+Day+of+Archaeology+2016+image+2.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="169" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTqpDmZpbXT_oec-Y-TbpgzwrAWnxc1mRkleFnuKCM4RgaKax3MbWX6JZyfNgtMFuRIae0JOyx0Q5G2HBgbwSGRk5NO64NLYZohwvkBiYYz-o7ZQLvhK-FcBhVbZyjCq_GWSqjJcUNPCk/s320/Blog+Day+of+Archaeology+2016+image+2.PNG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Bits in red are the areas that the software couldn't tell were part of the model or not. A quick check showed that they were caused by the sun's reflection on the metallic surface.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAodfKcaZ1WL4Pbo6FCqx4YEyh8CHAKMoRFdAm0WRZ_DACUy3uUSxJ5IgUZSlx1thmNdJ_Ihv551GkKKaKVeZU3_5C8Ok9A0bPRHmWz-C5OpFrZO4t8ao0L90WVN9aHA6ypyuNnFBSdiw/s1600/Blog+Day+of+Archaeology+2016+image+3.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAodfKcaZ1WL4Pbo6FCqx4YEyh8CHAKMoRFdAm0WRZ_DACUy3uUSxJ5IgUZSlx1thmNdJ_Ihv551GkKKaKVeZU3_5C8Ok9A0bPRHmWz-C5OpFrZO4t8ao0L90WVN9aHA6ypyuNnFBSdiw/s320/Blog+Day+of+Archaeology+2016+image+3.PNG" width="214" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The quality of the image depends on many factors, such as the number of photos taken and the angle of the light source.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>Publication:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">One of the many things that you can do with the completed mesh is export it for use in an animation (123D Catch has its own animation suite), and for use in other programs that could flesh out the model properly. An animation can really sell your model to an audience, particularly if you use a good flight path to highlight areas of detail or interest and overlay it with audio. You could export the mesh to a software program that can 3-D print your model if you want to! this would allow you to examine a scale model of you model, without having to visit the real thing, which could be difficult to access or has been destroyed. It could even be used as part of a video game!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nUG8Yzmh6eE" width="560"></iframe>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Finally...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>Metadata:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">This bit is often overlooked and doesn't get published (no one wants to see 5,000 data entries on the same thing) but it shows that you didn't copy anybody else's work, you followed correct procedure and showed what software you used so that other people can repeat your surveys and attain similar results. The Archaeology Data Service provide an excellent format for you metadata if you use a spreadsheet.</span> <span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Don't forget to record the position of your photographs!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Overall, there is a lot of room for improvement. The Thornton War Memorial is not quite as jagged in the model as she is in real life, but with better conditions, and better equipment, much of the quality of the model can be overcome. In short, always be prepared! However, compared to even just a few years ago, for a free software package, I am impressed with the quality of the model in some places, and I look forward to creating a second model in a few months time to compare the difference in the models (although I suspect the differences will be caused by the angle of the sun, causing glare).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">So, if you want to have a go, just look at this <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_photogrammetry_software">wikipedia page</a> for some free photogrammetry software! A lot of these provide sample meshes to play with. However, what you need to do before you take your photos is to think about why you want to preserve or publish a video about this monument- are there other ways that you could achieve this, or has someone already done it? Other ways might be better, other ways might be more expensive or time consuming.</span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-42749080228623908782016-07-24T13:10:00.003-07:002016-07-24T13:23:45.528-07:00Robot Wars 2016 Review, Episode 1<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">WARNING: THERE ARE SPOILERS. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlBD2vODBRGCy93b1Qeh6Xy_W7ZHVFuYtPHhwZY7TzPkh-h05GmUzUjzySLTUYcbTCkrbT16jTHnqm53BUmPE8lC7UQBhUJtmpcjcyhEV28ZTxalrdh6FHnZuXeofHAoQXEPEibO3rdfM/s1600/RB+logo.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlBD2vODBRGCy93b1Qeh6Xy_W7ZHVFuYtPHhwZY7TzPkh-h05GmUzUjzySLTUYcbTCkrbT16jTHnqm53BUmPE8lC7UQBhUJtmpcjcyhEV28ZTxalrdh6FHnZuXeofHAoQXEPEibO3rdfM/s320/RB+logo.PNG" width="276" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(credit to the Official Wars website for the image)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">After all the hype, the promotional ads on the BBC (which have been very nostalgic at times, especially when they teased the house robots for the first time!) and the new website, we have finally seen the first episode of Robot Wars. So was it any good?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">The BBC, for all that it has done a good job in the build up, nearly ruined it by putting <i>Real Steel, </i>the film starring Hugh Jackman about a former boxer piloting giant rock'em sock'em robots, before the show. Maybe they're trying to appeal to the family crowd? It is pre-watershed after all, much like the old series. While Robot Wars is ultimately a family show, this didn't really set the dark yet sometimes comic tone that the old series had going for it (I like to think the final act of <i>Hobo with a Shotgun</i>). So not a great start? Hold on, we haven't even got to the show yet...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">The remainder of this review was written during the show, so it will sometimes flow, and sometimes will jump between different themes very quickly. You have been warned (again).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">The introduction: er....what? I didn't enjoy the speech and intro about the robots before the logo was shown. It had none of the action of the old series of weapons and fire. This was in particular due to the use of the slow motion cameras, which are great but aren't given much of a shoe-in elsewhere. But the music has the right tone. I like the trophy and the logo though! Dara and Angela's intros on camera were also fairly good at building atmosphere. I would've liked an emphasis on <i>SSShunt </i>though (personal taste). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">The format: it was very similar to the later series of the original Robot Wars, with no gauntlets, no football or tug of war (although part of me wants to see those again). I have previously mentioned I liked the new arena. The head-to-head format wasn't explained too well before the show, even on the website, although the points system adds another element of competition.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Pits: The banter has changed somewhat, with Dara and Angela seemingly both are doing work in the pits, talking with the teams and actually, I'm getting Phillipa Forrester esque vibes from the way Angela talks with the easy-going manner with the teams. Dara seems a little stiff in his presentation, which is a bit of a surprise. Overall, I think they've struck a good balance by not doing a promo video of each robot, and only making a fleeting reference to the previous series!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Jonathan Pearce, are we going to have good commentary this time? Nice to have the judges given their own introduction. Well, now I see why </span><i style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">Real Steel </i><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">was shown before, they don't use the viewing tower until the end of the fight so all of the competitors are on the ground floor! The voice-over is suitably dark and robotic, not too dissimilar from the original series, but making a distinct difference. I do miss the lack of Holst-remix music though. The info about the robots are slick but a little light on the "data" such as weaknesses or whether it's electric or petrol driven motors.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">First round Battle: Firstly, what on earth happened to the timer? It disappeared after 5 seconds. The robots are so much faster so any comparisons with the old series is difficult, and Jonathan really couldn't keep up with the action (I'd like to see anyone try and mkake some sense of it all!). But my goodness I really enjoyed the carnage and the speed all the robots were going made the battle particularly ferocious. Nuts is through?? Forget what I said about low quality robots, there will be some big, one sided fights if this continues to happen. Terrorhurtz showed some fantastic power but really the axe head should be a pickaxe to cause more damage. </span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Razer out in the first round though (taken down by Kill-e-Crank-e), has that ever happened before???? No real action for Matilda for the first fight. Having Dara and Angela in both roles of pre-and post-fight interviews, that will show if both presenters can really cut and so far they are holding up well.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Oh Dara, Dara, Dara, that isn't how you pronounce Behemoth!! If that's the nadir of the presenting gaffes then I am very happy with that. Next fight- the floor spikes coming into their own there. Behemoth demonstrates how powerful all the robots have become in 10 years. The timer is becoming inconsistent already, unless it's only shown once. Now, the graphics (e.g. the info) could easily add weaknesses, I know I bang on about this but it wouldn't be too difficult, surely? The General's wheels were demonstrated to be their Achilles heel, for example.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Head-to-head: they get HOW LONG to fix their robots?? 2 hours?! What sort of live entertainment is being put on the arena in the meantime for the poor audience? Robo-Babe? Liking the judge's analysis though of not underestimating any of the robots. The only issue about this format means that the robots can potentially face each other 3 times in the same heat. But it is a fairer system and with the pace of the battles, they can fit 9 battles into the hour, which is great for the viewer, although you might suffer from burnout at the end of it. But surely the audience aren't sitting around looking at Robo Babe for 2 hours between battles??? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">I spoke too soon about the promo videos. At least they're keeping them reasonably short before the head to heads. Those graphics though, they really didn't give them enough time to really take in the values of the attack and strength. Wow, Sir Killalot looks like something out of the <i>Fallout </i>series or the Plague from <i>Hobo with a Shotgun)</i>! Carbide looks impressive (Fluffy-esque, who almost, almost beat Pussycat) but can it make it to the final after a loss to Terrorhurtz? Again, the speed of the battles in this round are making them entertaining, there's been no nitty gritty battles between two heavily armoured robots... yet.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Now a point about clusterbots (Nuts being the first clusterbot in this series). I think the rules are that you still have to immobilise only one of them to count the whole robot as out? They didn't really explain that 2 house robots are put in the arena occiasionally. The flipper is really struggling to makean impact, although I like that it gets more action against moving robots than just immobilized robots. I'm finding that Jonathan can keep up with the action when it's just two competitors, which seems to help his style a lot. It's also clear that they felt that the judges could incorporate the old style category into control and aggression, so there's only 3 categories to mark on.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Professor-roboGod Noel Sharkey gets an nice little interview, explaining how the world of robotics has evolved so much in the last few years. The drone bartender though, I think shows how family friendly the show has been made by exploring the world outside of Robot Wars. Previously the judges were treated almost as revered dieties at times, barely being used and their decisions taken as final. Now they seem a lot more friendly!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">The cameras in action in the arena perform about as well as the original series, which didn't really need too much tinkering, although with the clusterbots or multiple comeptitors you often end up missing the action in the old series. The new arena though, seems to have cameras in places where you can see all of the action, probably because the arena looks a bit more square, rather than the camera angle making the old arena seem a bit rectangular. On a side note, some of the laughter from the audience sounded a little canned, particularly in the battle between Carbide and Nuts? Also nice to show how dangerous Robot Wars is by displaying the shrapnel that is going around. Good thing they've got bullet proof glass.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">I always maintained that Behemoth's scoop was nigh-on indestructible for some reason. Not any more...possibly the best battle of the programme overall?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Final: I won't reveal too much but it goes much the same way- the main problems are the timer being inconsistent, the cameras being excellent, the speed being frantic, and another shock result!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Overall, there was less of the dark and comic humour of the old series, but it felt more family-friendly at the same time. The problem with saying that is that I couldn't help but make comparisons to the final scene in <i>Hobo with a Shotgun </i>(see below), with some shocking robotic carnage at times reminiscent of some of the most one-sided conflicts, and that's just what we all came to see! </span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Nostaliga didn't weigh it down as much as I thought it would, which is great to see as I really worried that this would be the thing that would ruin the show. The fleeting references weren't overpowering, in part because the battles take your attention!</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"> Some of the graphics could be improved, the promo videos really need to be done for every robot and they need a bit more music, or at least to up the volume a little bit (but not too much, listening to some of those weapons produces an amazing feeling of awe for me). The frantic pace of the fights is exciting; the new arena and Jonathan Pearce's commentating is much improved now, adding to a fantastic experience. Dara O'Briain and Angela Scanlon do add their own style, the formatting helps and there seems to be a bit of a nod to the old commentators too by putting the competitors on the spot and the occasional wit. I also think I've got a new favourite robot of this generation, and (to quote Craig Charles) they're </span><i style="font-family: "trebuchet ms", sans-serif;">NOT FLUFFY!? </i><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">(but Carbide). I will definitely tune in to the next episode with the old spark that I originally watched the show for, although I might be playing Holst's Mars suite in the background to make up for the lack of music during the fights.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GdYBYqiO5jQ?t=1m30s" width="560"></iframe>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-10049732855379806882016-07-24T07:54:00.003-07:002016-07-24T07:54:44.377-07:00Fun Fact Special: 5 fun facts about Robot Wars<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Robot Wars (the UK version that happened around the turn of the millennium) was a show that involved competitors sending robots against each other, often in a fight to the death. With its dark, post-apocalytic atmosphere, occasional humour and some incredible competitors, here's 5 fun facts to celebrate the reboot tonight (24th July 2016)!</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">1. One of the few people to make an appearance on every show was the voice that said "Cease" or "Stop, and deactivate Robots" was <a href="http://robotwars.wikia.com/wiki/Stuart_McDonald">Stuart Macdonald</a>, the director of Robot Wars, and highly decorated individual in his own right.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">2. Jeremy Clarkson<a href="http://www.blogfromthenorth.com/2008/01/blog-post.html"> supposedly left the show because of a technical malfunction</a>, where one of the house robot's weapons (probably dead metal's circular saw) came off and embedded itself into a concrete wall just inches from Jeremy Clarkson's head! Say what you like about Jeremy Clarkson, but we may never have had a revived Top Gear without him.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">3. Before <a href="http://robotwars.wikia.com/wiki/Philippa_Forrester">Phillipa Forrester </a>worked for Robot Wars, she was on CBBC and <i>Tomorrow's World, </i>as well as being on a few episodes of <i>Techno Games </i>and covered the BBC's coverage of the solar eclipse over the UK in 1999.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">4. The venue for Robot Wars appears to have been a closely guarded secret, with little information known about it. However, it may have been filmed in a warehouse in the midlands.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">5. Many people consider the fight between Razer and Tornado for the 6th Wars championship as the most controversial match in the show's history (for the modifications to both robots, but mostly due to the anti-pit device on Tornado). However, in the 7th Series, there are accusations that the pit raised up with Tornado inside it and cease not being called, with this being cunningly edited out by the cameras! Later on in the same show for the <a href="http://robotwars.wikia.com/wiki/Storm2/Controversy">Grand Final</a>, Typhoon 2 destroyed the arena sidewall, which forced the match to be postponed, perhaps allowing Typhoon 2 to be repaired but perhaps with no time for the other robot to be repaired!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5ToEZXkh948" width="420"></iframe>Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-40654527412226698312016-07-23T08:50:00.005-07:002016-12-18T15:29:44.166-08:00A history of Robot Wars and why the reboot could fail (as much as I want it to succeed)<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">12 years ago, Channel 5 showed the last episode of Robot Wars, which was a cult favourite among a large number of millenials and nerds/geeks. Repeats have occurred sporadically on various free to air tv channels, but no new official series has been on TV since then. With a huge amount of merchandising, it was in the mainstream conscience right through the millenium, it inspired kids to think that the future will be fun and all about large chunks of metal hitting each other really hard (alongside Techno-Games, which tried to be more about the sporting benefits of robots, but it had a couple of robot wars competitors in there too). It even inspired a small number of individual episodes from later TV series such as Phoenix Nights, where they decide to host a Robot Wars themed evening at the Phoenix! Now, the BBC, who originally made the series before 2002, are bringing it back, promising to be bigger and better than before. What made it so successful then? Will it be susccessful now?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">To start with, the feel of Robot Wars has always been one of a dystopian, <i>Mad-Max</i> style future, where only the fittest robots survive. It doesn't matter if it's appropriate for kids or adults, they just want blood (or in this case, Diotoir on fire?). Just look at the first series and some of the challenges they had: a gauntlet that wouldn't look out of place in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QMYnK_va44">Smash TV</a> from Total Recall, including a somewhat obsolete Sentinel (an unofficial house robot?), a tug of war against the house robots and finally a fight to the death between the competitor's robots. These are not dissimilar to some scenes in various post-apocalyptic films. Ok, not all the events were dark in their concept, there was a football themed and a bowling alley challenge, which were more harmless compared to the tug of war, although one couldn't help but think of the underlying overtones of the atmosphere while the robots were trying to do their thing. The atmosphere was enhanced by the intro sequence and music - all metallic and dark colours, music that is given a retro refit from the <i>Mars-Bringer of War</i> out Holst's Planets suite, in itself made during World War One. Very fitting, in one sense! Speaking of House Robots, they had a life of their own, from the almighty Sir Killalot to the wacky Cassius Chrome, who arguably made the show distinct from the USA counterpart, where there are no real comparisons to the house robots.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">The presenters themselves contributed a lot to the show, with their wit and insight into the battle. How they came up with all those phrases at the start of the show before settling on "master of mayhem" I will never figure it out! Each presenter bought their own opinion to the show, although of course Craig Charles as a happy-go-lucky and enthusiastic presenter, along with Phillipa Forrester are the most memorable for being the longest serving hosts (and Jonathan Pearce as commentator, although the judges are harder to remember). In terms of technical knowledge I actually prefer Jayne Middlemiss over the other 2 presenters, since she was a bit more competitive than Julia or Phillipa, but that's personal preference. Their clothing was sometimes a little outlandish (Craig Charles's overcoat was a classic over-the-top look) but what got me thinking most about the comparison to <i>Mad Max</i> was Phillipa Forrester's slightly revealing corset in the Fifth Wars. Whether that was an inspired choice by herself or by the costume department to add to the atmosphere we may never know, but I think it added a deliciously dark (if slightly sexy) undercurrent that you only find in <i>Mad-Max</i>, where the only thing you are doing is surviving, and if you're not being killed, you are killing<i>. </i>If you think Phillipa was tame in her outfits though, look no further than the mighty Robo-Babe, who made live appearances and the official magazine but never actually made it into the TV series (possibly for the best, given that you can see some non-PG bits in that armour)! I'm not sure Robot Wars would have been shown on the 6:45 Friday evening slot if she was on it. She even had a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOJ12b7iNmw">single with Sir Killalot</a>, you be the judge of how good/bad it is...it didn't make the top 50 when it was released back in the day. I have reservations about Jonathan Pearce, but he put the cherry on this very dystopian cake by having some memorable moments, such as Hypno-Disc's first filmed fight in the arena, his infectious cackling laughter as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w04BgclPmY8">Hypno Disc made its name by eating the poor Robogeddon</a> (but just listen to that spinning disc, how terrifying, how much it adds to the incredible atmosphere of the match!). However, there were a number of times when he would say something that didn't make sense, like a weapon that wasn't working when in fact it was, or if he failed to notice when a robot wasn't working. Nonetheless, all these factors together made for an excellent spectacle, even if the live performances and the televised stuff were not always in sync.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">In terms of weaponry, I've always seen Robot Wars a bit like football- a tactical evolution between defence and attack, or in this case, destructive weaponry (spinning discs) versus flippers, with ram-bots pretty much all but outlawed now (you have needed at least one active weapon since the 6th series). As flippers got better (starting with Cassius,<i> the Hades/Lucifer of all robots for beating Roadblock... </i>carrying on with Chaos 2, Gravity, Thermidor etc.), other robots had to counter flippers with schrimechs or innovative designs. Alternatively, robots have had to counter the incredible destructive power of robots like Typhoon 2, 13 Black, Pussycat, Razer, etc. This battle looks set to continue into the new series, with some returning robots and new designs, but it looks like there may be more emphasis on complete destruction.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Was it/is it dangerous for the participants? The first series of Robot Wars was hosted by a bullish Jeremy Clarkson, who had a witty retort for every robot that came into the arena. However it turns out that the theme of the post-apocalypse memo was taken a bit too literally by at least one house robot, whose weapon detached itself and <a href="http://www.blogfromthenorth.com/2008/01/blog-post.html">nearly embedded itself in Jeremy Clarkson's head</a>, despite him standing on the gantry!! This theme of <a href="http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/21/dara-obriain-admits-he-cheated-death-while-filming-robot-wars-reboot-6019990/">near death experiences</a> seems to have carried on into the new series too. Start as you mean to go on... However the new arena has considerably more bullet proof glass, and given the power of these new robots that's probably for the best!</span><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPOmJ5XNL4JH0INPzxe4KFwusVWcRqfzMXy36Y2tWd678XE6gTt2l7d0waTJlV5UpIL02OuxUnWMot4XWfGeCCfnMBnqo-0mVt6fSqF5DHkrEniRLW-IkpdFPMqqjPsrcA_PirE-hbzXA/s1600/robot+wars+arenas.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPOmJ5XNL4JH0INPzxe4KFwusVWcRqfzMXy36Y2tWd678XE6gTt2l7d0waTJlV5UpIL02OuxUnWMot4XWfGeCCfnMBnqo-0mVt6fSqF5DHkrEniRLW-IkpdFPMqqjPsrcA_PirE-hbzXA/s640/robot+wars+arenas.jpg" width="640" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">To my left, the old arena in gauntlet form. To the right, the new one (credit to the robot wars website for the latter image).</span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">So why do I worry for the new series? Until we see the new show in its entirety then it's hard to judge. However it might be trying too hard to be too many things. Let me explain. Does the new series want to be an exact copy of the original series? If so, they've done well to bring back a number of old competitors, keep the arena largely similar to the old one, with the spikes from the 1st series added to the flame pit, flipper and pit from the later series (with some much needed changes like a wall that stops opponents winning by flipping the robots out of most of the arena and a floor made of steel, not wood), keeping at least one of the original judges and having Jonathan Pearce as commentator. However, we live in a time where nothing can be forgotten, and any fault in the new series will be compared to the old series, particularly any controversies (can they top Tornado's anti-pit device?). If I'm going to be pendantic, I was surprised that they've decided to put Robot Wars on a sunday night 8pm slot, rather than the friday evening-prime-time-so-you-have-to-scoff-your-dinner-down-really-quickly-so-you-can-watch-robot-wars time of 6:30pm. To be original is actually one of the hardest things to do, so any new ideas that give the show a boost should be seen as a good thing if they work. But, with the new advancements in technology, a few considerations come to mind. For one, the technological differences from even just a decade ago are so great and the rules have changed so much (a new weight limit, limitations on weapons etc.) make it difficult at best to compare old with new. Even the returning competitiors have made significant alterations to their robots, and that's not even mentioning the house robots, who are all now a lot heavier, meaner and more dangerous! Further, we probably won't have any relatively weak robots like Granny's Revenge or Robogeddon, so will we see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e4cHWS2758">any one-sided carnage on that scale again</a>? Will this make it less exiting for not having such memorable moments as the competition could be so tight that it will only appeal to those people who actually enjoy the tactical battle that was determined by the criteria of style, control, damage and aggression? Can the presenters bring their own unique style to the arena like the previous presenters did? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">That said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Maybe the old ways have to be emulated because nothing is better than the original. However, Robot Wars was far from perfect, particularly some of those camera shots missing some of the action.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">The new presenters, Dara O'Briain and Angela Scanlon, could be an excellent partnership, especially since Dara has a similar career path to Craig Charles before his run (comedy, with a bit of extra documentaries on the side), and judging by Angela's relative anonymity, she could well be an up and coming star. She has already made an appearance or two to talk about the new Robot Wars on talk shows. She seems to have the charisma needed to put people at ease before going into the arena, which is something that Phillipa and Julia arguably had (on screen anyway). It looks like it could work, but it's always hard to predict. With Jeremy Clarkson leaving after Series 1, history shows that nothing is set in stone in Robot Wars.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Ultimately the pros currently outweigh the cons- the build up has been largely focused on nostalgia but with such large technological developments, a lot of the newer competitors look like they could put on quite a show, so long as there aren't too many technical issues! The new arena should give us more action (and less flips out of the arena), and the presenters seem promising. Nostalgia could be the biggest weight around the neck of Robot Wars (see the revamped Top Gear, with falling ratings and presenters leaving).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Watch this space for a review on the new series after it has aired!</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-66037536343653092002016-05-11T12:51:00.002-07:002016-05-11T12:51:15.374-07:00The EU: should British Archaeologists Vote to Stay In or Leave?<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">In June 2016, the UK public will get to vote whether we stay in or leave the EU. In my last topic on voting and archaeologists, I concluded that there are too few of us to have an impact on policy. However, what we stand for as a profession is something that affects everyone, namely the preservation of archaeology, informing and educating the public about its importance and how archaeology and heritage can contribute to wider society as a whole. Some of these topics look ike they're irrelevant for arhcaeology but I'll try to justify their inclusion.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Before I start I want to make a distinction between archaeology and heritage, as they overlap but are not the same. Archaeology is the study of past human activity while heritage is a</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; letter-spacing: 0.5px; line-height: 27px;">ll inherited resources which people value for reasons beyond mere utility (or usefulness). Often these are used interchangably, particularly in the modern contexts. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Immigration:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"> How does archaeology and heritage come into this debate? This should be a moot point as archaeology has demonstrated time and time again that migrations are part of our human existence. Modern migrants are seemingly demonised to deflect away from a country's problems, particularly illegal migrants, who themselves may have a entirely moral and ethical justification for emigrating e.g. Syrians from ISIS, various African nationals from civil war in their own countries, Afghanistani migrants from Taliban etc. and yet have no way of proving that they are fleeing from a genuine threat e.g. no passport or id, no family in other countries etc.. The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/apr/22/digital-triumphal-arch-cant-replace-the-real-thing">Palmyra arch erected in London</a> in April 2016 should be evidence enough, as it demonstrates how globalised we have become. It is not only a symbol of defiance against a truly barbaric, Mad Max-style regime (ISIS, not Syria, although one could argue the case for both sides) but also (indirectly) that migrants affected by ISIS have been permanently uprooted from their homes. Although many would like to return to the Middle East (as I would expect many westerners would if a radical terrorist group associating itself with an atheist ideology started taking over capital cities across the world with a fancy social media campaign and armed guards, killing anyone who doesn't fit into their ideals of the "ubermensch" and forcing you out of your home by cutting off your power and water supplies. Yes, I just compared ISIS to the Nazis. So sue me), I could spill a lot more ink on the reactionary policies of the EU and the UK (i.e. waiting for the event to happen and then respond to it) but I would tangent from the main topic quite badly. Anyway, back to archaeology and heritage in migration. The law in the UK defines those who are stateless (very unlikely in the modern day), those are claiming asylum (can be both), amongst others (there are a lot of categories). We do have a<a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-part-6a-the-points-based-system"> points-based system</a> but it is used for those who wish to live permanently. European law has the Schengen area, which allows free movement between various member states (including some countries outside the EU), which the UK hasn't been a part of since 2000.</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">International treaties, on the other hand, get a bit more fun. Anything to do with UNESCO, such as <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/">World Heritage Sites</a>, The<a href="http://www.unesco.org/eri/la/convention.asp?KO=13637&language=E&order=alpha"> Hague Convention (1954)</a>, that makes signatories give a moral obligation to protecting cultural property in the event of armed conflict (Libya and Russia are signed up, just saying...); these wouldn't be affected. Interestingly we weren't part of the Hague Convention until recently, so no wonder the British Government doesn't share the same sympathy that the public does for the war with ISIS, it didn't have a moral obligation to protecting threatened heritage!! The Valetta Treaty (</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #161616; font-size: 15px; line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">makes the conservation and enhancement of the archaeological heritage one of the goals of urban and regional planning policies)</span></span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"> is part of the Council of Europe, not the EU, so this wouldn't be affected either. So we'd still be weighed down by moral responsibilities to World Heritage sites and to responsible planning which includes appropriate setting and character of a place, not destroying old buildings if you can help it (enshrined partly by the </span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif; line-height: 1.2em;">Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which covers listed buildings</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"> in the UK). However what might change is the opportunities provided for archaeologists and students in particular to participate in funded or volunteer schemes across Europe. The Erasmus + fund (previously the Leonardo da Vinci fund) supports students in 2 month placements </span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">through the EASE program at </span><a href="http://www.grampusheritage.co.uk/archaeology/ease/" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Grampus Heritage</a><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">, excavating sites they would otherwise have to fund themselves, no easy thing when students and amateurs are often paying upwards of £1000 for 2 week's work in a soggy trench! This is also an amazing experience, meeting new friends, learning new techniques for excavation and site recording, which allow students to return to the UK with a broader knowledge of European archaeology as a whole. whether this funding would continue if we left the EU is unclear.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Economy:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Far too many rules to go through here, but I'll quickly go over my case. Again, it is somewhat moot as the economy is so globally linked and complex that it is difficult to generalise. Saying how archaeological sites have improved their profitability since joining the EU is partiularly pointless as we have so many tourists from around the world.Here's an interesting argument</span><span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"> from <a href="http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/features/after-the-cuts-scorched-earth-or-clean-slate.htm">Current Archaeology</a>: "</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 21px;">Every £1 spent in local government archaeology nets about £50.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 21px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 21px;">Compare that multiplier of 50 with the mere 1.6 or 1.7 brought in by investing in heritage visitor attractions. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 21px;">The latter is valuable and necessary; but at times like these, do we want public funds to support the teashop trade around the heritage honey-pots, or to protect and understand the locally-valued history of ordinary streets and villages? If bodies like English Heritage consider questions like that, then — cruelly cut though they are — they might prioritise support for the local over preserving expertise in the centre". This statement focuses attention away from Brexit into the more fundamental issue of archaeology's existence itself. While larger sites like Stonehenge and the British Museum will always have a fair amount of money going to them from tourism and central government, all archaeology requires some level of investment and there simply isn't enough being allocated (or more worryingly, there isn't enough). Nonetheless there is little way of verifying these figures and could include other factors , but I'm fairly confident that archaeology can be profitable without compromising on the social and environmental benefits.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 21px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">The percieved loss of community/democracy:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">This debate overlaps a lot with community, in particular with identity in rural and urban area, the housing crisis, preservation of listed and scheduled buildings, so I'l keep it short.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">One of the most worrying things about staying in the EU is that we don't vote for the people who run the EU. Therefore, if we want to stay in, we have to fight against this bureaucracy. If you truly believe in your democratic rights then you could argue that either the EU is not going to change and it is better to leave. However, you could also say that, much like the soldiers of World War 1, you voted in this referendum so that others could have the choice of using their vote later on. Delaying the inevitable? Or waiting for the right time to establish a more democratic EU? Either way the EU looks like it is facing increasing pressure to change. Archaeology shows that cultures and empires ebb and flow, wax and wane, all the time, but the reasons and causes for these rises and collapses, instabilities and stabilities are things that sometimes so complicated that we may never understand why things happened. But in the here and now we have a choice, and no matter how complex the situation is with the EU, we at least have a clear choice, yes or no.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Again, this could be all moot, as a lot of laws are made by the English. There has been a lot of emphasis on communities in the last few years. Currently there is a worrying amount of legal changes that are being discussed, including potentially altering what can and can't be built on green belt land. However, there are some positives for preserving heritage. While the archaeological legislation of PPG16 has been replaced with guidance (not statutory), there are things like the Assets of Community Value (ACV). This means that the owner of a pub must apply for planning permission in order to change the the use of the building, which buys time for a community to campaign against it if it is not in the interest of the community. According to CAMRA (Campaign for Real Ale), only 600 pubs had been nominated as an ACV in April 2015, while there are about 18,000 pubs in the UK! This rule was introduced in 2015, although more work can be done in making archaeology and heritage sustainable for communities to benefit from. I don't know enough to say if pubs have to pay any taxes etc. due to EU legislation but I daresay this is not an exhaustive list.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">All of our listed buildings and scheduled monuments are also designated in English law, and overseen by Historic England (formerly English Heritage). No EU interference here, although one could argue that it became more of a responsibility to maintain these lists under the Valetta Treaty. </span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; line-height: 20px;">As an aside, there is no right to a view under English law! This means that you can't argue that you can have your neighbour trim a hedgerow because it's blocking your view. One wonders what Capability Brown would make of this law! Again this highlights that some arguably silly laws are made by the British government, not the EU. Also d</span></span><span style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', sans-serif;">ont worry too much about the disruption caused by leaving the EU, if we do leave we get about 2 years before the change becomes permanent.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">To conclude: most of our laws relating to heritage and commercial working hours are actually created and upheld by the UK government, not the EU. Many of the arguments I hold to be mute, but why would I be talking about EU and the Brexit debate if I don't think it matters? Ultimately a lot of these debates have an international impact and at this time of insecurity I would say that it is better for our heritage and archaeology that we stay in the EU but reform it from the inside to better preserve our identity, especially where the democratic element is concerned. Leaving it might help us find our identity but archaeology shows that we are in a constant state of flux and culture is a malleable element, so what we percieve to be a constant (e.g. being British by drinking a certain way, being very reserved and queueing) is actually the result of hundreds of years of minor modifications of our consciousness.</span>Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-11828150852563282962016-03-18T05:10:00.004-07:002016-03-18T05:13:04.365-07:00AutoCAD lt workaround: 3D orbit<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">I've been playing around with my old CAD model and wondered how you could get AutoCAD LT, which has less capability than the full AutoCAD, to do 3D orbits. Turns out this is why AutoCAD LT is much cheaper: it's only really designed for 2D applications (drawing plans etc.)!! However you can upload 3D models into LT, but you are left with a model you can do very little with. However, I have found a workaround in AutoCAD 3D that allows you to look around your model. It's not perfect but it's a start... N.B. this has all been done through AutoCAD LT 2013.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQPykFoJXM9JMfzE-c18AGR7zJU7t7NFSvzD7CZs5eXXwW3TUtx3jR_O6FgkGSyuln2IIbAhXHbHBOmA_OIqNkIQPIR8M2D0-GY3rq9j_hRxQXZwmwz0orjD8hQN7eg2uEWbSFUZxrLu8/s1600/blog+post1.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="207" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQPykFoJXM9JMfzE-c18AGR7zJU7t7NFSvzD7CZs5eXXwW3TUtx3jR_O6FgkGSyuln2IIbAhXHbHBOmA_OIqNkIQPIR8M2D0-GY3rq9j_hRxQXZwmwz0orjD8hQN7eg2uEWbSFUZxrLu8/s400/blog+post1.PNG" width="400" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">The original view of my model.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">So all you have do is click on view in the top of the screen and you come across the Views tab directly to the left. From here you can quickly access the main views of your model (front, back, left, right, top, bottom, southwest, southeast, northwest, northeast). </span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOsqVMrwK2piOnooBKyO3MEEML7NeqcCq7bxih08515wZEydkCsHfEyA9xP_s11d9YAcIDaInWinAm81WO8LoG8ZIR7Fr-Uvrdbhe6EAiR-swl45q0tD_sAMSizpVxcGNZpKo4MDI1dtM/s1600/blog+post2.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="208" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOsqVMrwK2piOnooBKyO3MEEML7NeqcCq7bxih08515wZEydkCsHfEyA9xP_s11d9YAcIDaInWinAm81WO8LoG8ZIR7Fr-Uvrdbhe6EAiR-swl45q0tD_sAMSizpVxcGNZpKo4MDI1dtM/s400/blog+post2.PNG" width="400" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">The "back view" of my model.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Furthermore, there is also the "view manager" where you can create new viewing angles too, although it's a bit unwieldly.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwhrWTDviYJKWPUAfso9Tw4anY5R7kqERbMnU1K4Ti88Y-6bsvqMcS5BavkREYVjiMG2PTsqsT7G3Vi8ikou-Z91wIxg6LSm_kPvpZDnyGSUD9gZ0NxPWSGU4uGfO84QPZ_P_M35y36PI/s1600/blog+post3.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwhrWTDviYJKWPUAfso9Tw4anY5R7kqERbMnU1K4Ti88Y-6bsvqMcS5BavkREYVjiMG2PTsqsT7G3Vi8ikou-Z91wIxg6LSm_kPvpZDnyGSUD9gZ0NxPWSGU4uGfO84QPZ_P_M35y36PI/s320/blog+post3.PNG" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">I admit it's nowhere near as flexible as your standard 3D orbit, but it saves having to download a piece of software for your CAD package. If you only need to view your model from some different angles and only have access to LT, this is a lifesaver! If you need to be more precise then it could take you a while to create those new angles...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">If you are interested in the model itself then you can find the report it is based on via <a href="https://www.academia.edu/4865796/Conservation_Management_Plan_South_Street_Mill_Durham">this link</a>!</span></div>
</div>
Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-24116983418400635552016-03-13T01:34:00.003-08:002016-03-13T12:06:12.480-07:00The problem with Strava<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The other day I was racing in the final race of a certain cross-country league competition in northern England. At the post-race lunch/presentation ceremony, a team mate suggested to me that he would get me into using Strava. The reason? I assume something to do with comparing training sessions and personal bests up the several good training hills we have up here. However, Strava and related GPS or health devices (such a FitBit, Ithlete, etc.) aren't my cup of tea... (no company has endorsed me to write this article, it's just something that's been on my mind recently).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">A lot of my reasoning follows with Richard Askwith's book, "Running Free", where he feels that "Big Running" (the commercialisation of the running industry) is forcing people to buy into a way of running that is not only financially unsustainable, but apparently can also lead to more injuries! Combined with the amount of money spent on treatments for running related injuries, this looks like something of a vicious downward fiscal cycle. However, he does tangent slightly when it comes to Strava, and other personal health and GPS devices, where his writing becomes a full on rant about the gamification of running, where the reward comes not from the act of running but the use of concepts of video games to incentivise real life. So for example, uploading the data into Strava gives you a target to then beat your old time. While this is essentially the "Parkrun" model (your time is posted online for free and the idea is that you beat it the next time on either the same 5Km course or on a new 5Km course elsewhere), it can be done anywhere, as long as you have satellite coverage. For something like Ithlete, it becomes a little different, since the health monitoring systems aren't deliberately gamifying your run, but the principle is similar; if you follow the various charts and rules imposed by the health monitor, you will be rewarded with (in theory) lower blood pressure, more fitness etc.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">I'm not stopping anyone else from using these devices, especially if it is for health reasons, like some of my running partners, or even for the acquisition of PBs in local challenges. But in my position? I don't need to gamify my running regime (in spite of having written a paper on the gamification of archaeology for schoolkids!). I don't need other people following my routes on a virtual dashboard so they can beat my time on exactly the same course. Instead, I prefer to choose routes that offer sights, sounds and smells that you don't get on a road (when possible). Sometimes I'll go out to beat my raging hangover, so I need a nice route to avoid having to concentrate too much on distractions (cars, other people). It does help when you live less than a mile away from open moorland, and of course very few people get that opportunity. However, if you are using these devices as a way of motivating yourself to run then fine, that's your way of doing exercise and that's fair enough. However, if you enjoy running already, but don't want to be setting PB's for whatever reason (usually age), then it creates an artificial layer whereby you aren't necessarily engaging with your immeadiate environment, which I believe is a darned shame. For an analogy, I despair when I see people running with headphones on, especially in rural areas. There's a world of beautiful sound outdoors (even in urban spaces), you're not putting 100% into finding your proper running gait (which may help reduce injury) and you are acoustically blind to potential dangers e.g. passing cars!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">My other point against using Strava personally is that in this modern age, all of our data is being used to analyse what we do, where we go and how we do things. This feeds back directly into our online lives- adverts, for example, are now so smart that they will be able to use your data about what websites you've been to, or even what you've talked about on social media, and then be able to target products at you related to those activities. You may not even like these products! But I've noticed a lot of adverts recently that have been rather too close for comfort. For example, I've been looking at applying for the new series of Robot Wars, and having done some research (and nostalgia) by looking at various robot wars related websites and articles, I'm now getting related Wikipedia pages about other things that were part of my 10 year old's life (war gaming, video games, etc.)! This is a part of me that I have, for the most part, left behind but not forgotten. And I'd like to keep it that way. What I'm getting at here is that your Strava (or Ithlete) data could feasibly be used by not just adverts to give you enticing offers on new running shoes and clothing, <strike>but also large companies who could be given that data by Strava without you even knowing!!</strike> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">... OK, hands up, sometimes I get it wrong. As of the 13th March, 2016, I found this little <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35640743?intc_type=singletheme&intc_location=newsmagazine&intc_campaign=newsmagazine&intc_linkname=article_hotspots_contentcard4">article on the BBC</a> to do with <a href="http://insights.strava.com/en-us/?unit=imperial&activity=run">Strava Insights</a>, which looks like they're giving out their data for free. However, it still proves my point, in that it is still possible. It would just make no business sense to do so anymore! Nonetheless, I don't want to surrender all of my life over to the great panopticon of the internet, just as little as possible so that I can live my real life to the full (this blog post excepted).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">To summarise: if you think that you need to use Strava, think hard about whether you are doing it for the right reasons. If it's to motivate you, then I don't have a problem with that, nor with health conditions that require monitoring. But if you enjoyed running in the first place, then I personally wouldn't recommend it. Most of us aren't going to become Olympians, and most of this gear is deliberately designed to get you into that mind-set, which requires a training regime that most people can't afford for time or money. Just go out there and run, enjoy the sights, sounds and smells of your local environment and enjoy yourself!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">P.S. If you've been convinced to buy Richard Askwith's book, follow this <a href="https://www.waterstones.com/book/running-free/richard-askwith/9780224091978">link</a>!</span>Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6544794733641830361.post-17104902933270844872015-12-22T13:06:00.002-08:002016-02-14T09:31:56.234-08:00Best and Worst B+B's and hotels in the UK<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">This year, I have spent most of
my time in bed and breakfasts and hotels across the country, plus a number of Travelodge’s
and the like. Some are fairly forgettable, others are memorable for all the
wrong reasons. Then there are some places which are heaven on earth
(metaphorically speaking). Most places fall somewhere in between but generally
I would happily stay in most of the hotels/B+B's I've been to.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">This list shouldn't be taken as
gospel for a number of reasons, mostly because of the nature of my work I don't
really stay in towns and cities very often and it's mostly rural settings where
I do my day job. I haven't worked in Scotland or Northern Ireland this year,
just England and Wales (and it is balanced, one good and one bad for Wales). I
often work in more southern parts of the UK (despite being based in Yorkshire),
plus I don't often get to choose where I stay! However, all of these places
were affordable at under £100/room/night, sometimes under half that price. I've
stayed at each of these places for at least one night often for 3 nights or
more (with the exception of one place on this list), and hopefully you'll have
an even better (or at least passable) experience than I had at these
destinations!</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">So the top 5 places I've stayed
in this year are:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">1. <a href="http://www.treloughhouse.com/">Trelough House, Herefordshire.</a> Is
this possibly the best thing in Herefordshire (maybe aside from the cathedral)?
Everything was brilliant except for trying to find the house (it's tucked away
on a parallel side road behind some trees)! There was even a full cookie jar on
arrival to my room. A FULL COOKIE JAR. With actual cookies. Very welcoming and
conversant host who even allowed us to use their downstairs TV to watch
Bake-Off! Ideal for a mini break.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">2. <a href="http://www.gablelodgelynton.co.uk/">Gable Lodge, Lynton, Devon.</a> A
close run thing between this and Twitchen Farm, this is situated just outside
the heart of the village, but it doesn't feel like it as all facilities are
seconds away! The bedroom was excellent and in spite of the lack of a cookie
jar, everything else was there that you need for a great stay.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">3.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.twitchen.co.uk/">Twitchen
Farm, Challacombe, Devon</a>. While it doesn't look far from Lynton, the long winding
roads means that it will feel like forever! However once you are here this is a
fantastic little working farm, with (naturally) welcoming hosts and a lot of
walks and things to do nearby. Don't forget the Black Sheep pub down the road!
This only comes third because you really do need a car to get here and its
location appeals mainly to those who want an active weekend away.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">4. <a href="http://www.thebellatframpton.co.uk/"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The Bell Inn, Frampton on Severn,
Gloucestershire.</span></a></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"> If Carlsberg did pubs... this is
probably the best pub, but between Gloucester and Stroud you are spoilt for
choice for great pubs, each with their own distinct character. This one I
recommend because it's based in a quiet village with the distinction of having
the longest green in England and it's not far from the Severn, so if you want
to go surfing this place is quite good for staying over then heading our early
for the bore! The food and variety of ales is pleasant without being
overbearing. Great as a base for the Cotswolds or for business (if you don't
mind travelling for about 1/2 hour for Gloucester or Bristol).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">5.<a href="https://www.expedia.co.uk/Brandon-Hotels-Brandon-House-Hotel.h2958935.Hotel-Information?gclid=CNS34cuk7ckCFagewwodVr4P8A&HotelID=2958935&semcid=expe.uk.001.003.03.02&k_user_id=_kenshoo_clickid_&kword=brandon_house_hotel_suffolk!e.ZzZz.3110000289819.0.32092117625.brandon%20house%20hotel%20suffolk.brandon_house_hotel_suffolk&"><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> </span></span>Brandon House hotel, Brandon, Suffolk.</a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>This hotel stands out for being very
accessible to both Brandon and Thetford Forest. The dinner is delightful, the
breakfast was great and the staff were very helpful. However some of the rooms
were at a bit of an angle (nothing serious) and strangely enough no bath towel
was provided, although everything else was there, including some very nice
shower cream! Ample parking too. Great for business/work trips. </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Special mentions go to:</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><a href="http://waverley-hotel.com/">Waverley Hotel, Workington.</a> Although
the rooms are sometimes small and the town itself is not great, the staff are
brilliant, bath robes were provided (none of top 5 on this list did that!) and
I enjoyed the rooms and the food (both breakfast and dinner). If you ever find
yourself in this part of the world (i.e. west of Cockermouth), this is the
place to stay on a budget.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">And...</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><a href="http://www.hand-hotel-llangollen.com/"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The
Hand Hotel, Llangollen, Denbighshire.</span></a></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"> What a location!!!
While the rooms are somewhat cramped and the room extras were a bit limited.
The breakfast was memorably delicious, but I remember this place more because
of </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><a href="http://www.fouzis.com/"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Fouzi's
cafe and bar and pizzeria.</span></a></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"> This is the best Italian
restaurant I have ever visited in the UK. Their pizzas are amazing! Afterwards
I discovered Castel Dinas Bran by foot and some other brilliant walking routes
around this very quaint little town. Come for the food, stay for the scenery
and history. Recommended during the summer months.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9ZTfyKxjztwDNbb18xvSUDgKFX_dGdrTyjIjAYhc57cvoVKBkwwDhmYRlRl1BEpsT23E8gzX4Xb7Jj_y0Hv-6_ShOE4-sRp5_3obOWIaEneJ7W67XRckZbMGb4JZ1_e5Oc1vRg4tZIeU/s1600/IMAG0037.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9ZTfyKxjztwDNbb18xvSUDgKFX_dGdrTyjIjAYhc57cvoVKBkwwDhmYRlRl1BEpsT23E8gzX4Xb7Jj_y0Hv-6_ShOE4-sRp5_3obOWIaEneJ7W67XRckZbMGb4JZ1_e5Oc1vRg4tZIeU/s640/IMAG0037.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The pretty little town of Llangollen from one of the many hills surrounding it.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">And the bottom 5 (although it's
only the bottom 3 that are REALLY bad):</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">5.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://renewalcentre.co.uk/">Rowe's
Farmhouse B+B, Berkshire.</a> Actually not that bad, it had everything you
would expect from a B+B. Breakfast was BYO (some frozen toast and conserves for
the brave are available free of charge), and there are some nice places to eat
nearby. However, I'm fairly sure the host had a vendetta against men (or might
even be a misandrist)! They inspected everything when you left for the day, even
what you put in the rubbish!! However this could be explained by the health
centre being next door. Don't go on a Monday if you are of a nervous
disposition because that's when the centre is open. However, they keep the
noise down (but parking becomes a premium). I'd recommend it only for a
business trip and even then I'd send your cleanest, nicest employees who can
withstand the rigours of the half an hour long health and safety talk after
work.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">4.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="https://www.yell.com/biz/the-buck-inn-northallerton-945370/">The Buck
Inn, Northallerton, North Yorkshire.</a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>OK,
hands up, I didn't actually stay here but I nearly did. Didn't look great on
the inside, standard pub affair on the outside. But based on this extract of
the conversation I had with the bartender, I think I dodged a bullet...maybe
would have scored worse if I had stayed?...</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Me: “Hi, we've got some rooms
booked for X ltd."</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Bartender: "Ok, let me check
the book... no, I don't have you under here"</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Me: "But I booked the rooms
for today last Friday! I'm sure I spoke to one of your colleagues over the
phone about this"</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Bartender:(after consulting with
manager)"Right, what's happened is that one of my colleagues put your
booking that was meant to be for today in the entry for last week."</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Me: “So we don't have any
reservations then?"</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Bartender: "Yeah. Sorry!
But we can still give you a room"</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">My colleague: "But we need 2
rooms."</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Bartender: "Oh. Well let me
check if we have some other rooms free"</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">[After this my colleague rang the
office and discovered our other colleagues had found somewhere much better and
we decided to leave as soon as politely possible]. </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">What could have been...</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">3.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.heritage-hotel.biz/">Heritage Hotel, Narborough,
Leicestershire.</a> Simple hotel, according to Google. If by simple you
mean basic! The rooms look like the builders had just been round and forgotten
to apply the undercoats to the walls. The showers were not good. The TV was
perhaps the only plus. The receptionist was not up to scratch if I recall
correctly. We decided not to go the Indian restaurant next door in the end (I
think it was too expensive for our budget, but it looked quite nice beyond the
reception area).</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">2.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.daysinn.co.uk/hotels/united-kingdom/magor/days-inn-magor/maps-directions?partner_id=&hotel_id=46032&campaign_code=&propId=DI46032&checkout_date&brand_id=DI&children=0&corporate_id=&ratePlan=&teens=0&affiliate_id=&iata=00093096&rate_code=&adults=1&checkin_date&rooms=1">Days
Inn, Magor, Junction 23A, Monmouthshire.</a> Only gets a stay of execution
because it was a) near some pubs and b) at least the bedsheets were clean! Also
not as near as you would think to a supermarket or major cities.</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">1.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.daysinn.co.uk/hotels/united-kingdom/northampton/days-inn-watford-gap/hotel-overview?iata=00093096&cid=whg_di_uk_gglsem_br&wid=ps:br_whg&002=2206176&004=1871717096&005=34711234616&006=71632447736&007=Search&008=&025=c&026=">Days
Inn, Watford Gap, Junction 17 of the M1, Northamptonshire.</a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Hands down, this was one of the worst
places you could imagine staying, even for one night. I'm not entirely sure the
sheets had been changed and there was the smell of the motorway services coming
through my window, and I wasn't even facing the motorway!! Very little on offer
at the food court downstairs. Don't get me started on the outside lighting or
the noise from the motorway! I recommend staying at the Travelodge on the A45
near Dunchurch if you can help it (at least there are pubs nearby and its only
10 miles away!).
<br />
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">
</span></div>
Alistair Galthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929773840982251895noreply@blogger.com0