Quantum Mechanics, issues with the Trinity, and the Problem of Hell

It's been a while. But I wrote something long that I don't want to lose, so I figured I'd put it here.

Wave–particle duality: a theory of quantum mechanics (not physics) that states that all particles exist as both waves and particles at the same time, and the observation causes them to “appear” as one or the other. Think of Schrodinger’s cat: considered both alive and dead inside of the box until someone comes along to open the box and observe the results of the experiment. Once the observer is present, the cat (or particle) falls out of superposition (all things at once) and takes the characteristics of only one state.

When we look at this theory in light of the “Trinity problem,” we can begin to accept that something could exist as one thing and three things at the same time, even if we don’t fully understand how it’s doing that. Just because it falls out of the realm of our human experience, it doesn’t mean it’s impossible. If we truly believe that we serve a God of the impossible, then to say that it could be both (that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are at once three completely separate beings and one unified entity) would be to put limitations on His ability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

The evangelist pastor who had the revelation about Hell was Carlton Pearson. He was at one point the pastor of Higher Dimensions Family Church (which saw a Sunday morning attendance high of 5,000 people), but was denounced as a heretic by the Joint College of African-American Pentecostal Bishops. He’s since become associated with something called “New Thought,” which is a little more extreme, including in its tenants that sickness originated in the mind, and other pseudo-spiritual doctrines.

However, the doctrine that he first became associated with after his separation from Higher Dimensions is called Christian Universalism, which says that all beings will be reconciled to God (called Universal reconciliation). It doesn’t downplay sin, but says that people will have to face some sort of penance for their sin, possibly in the form of a “period of finite punishment similar to a state of purgatory.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlton_Pearson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Universalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation

The Mrs. and the Mistress

I love tracing words through history. Oftentimes, the meaning of a word (or, in this case, an abbreviation) changes so drastically from one generation to another that the original and modern meanings are completely different. In the case of Mrs. being used as an abbreviation, the original word from which is derives is still very much alive. But there's a reason we don't typically hear it unabbreviated in its true form.

When you see "Mrs." written out, or when you address someone and say the abbreviation, what do you say? If you're like most of us, you say "missus," or "misses," depending on the vernacular. However, if you've ever paid attention, there's no "r" in either of those words. So, where does it come from.

Mistress.

I immediately thought of Anna Karenina, for obvious reasons.

Now, that doesn't mean you've been calling married women whores all this time. Mistress used to stand for "a woman who has authority, control, or power, especially the female head of a household, institution, or other establishment," and in fact still does according to the dictionary. But that's not the meaning most people associate with the word. In our modern American society -- which seems to be obsessed with extramarital affairs -- it means "a woman who has a continuing extramarital sexual relationship with a man." So, with that definition embedded in our culture, it's no wonder we have gotten out of the use of calling women "mistresses." 

The origin of the word mistress comes from mister, and it's a simple jump to take from one to the other. So, it makes sense that a "mistress" is the female version of the title of respect. And when people abbreviated the true words, the abbreviations made sense: Mr. and Mrs. Now, however, with the stigma we've attributed to the word -- ever since it fell out of favor in the 14th century and ultimately gained its unfortunate denotation in the 15th century -- we've turned out backs on the truth in this case.

But you can't quite get away with using "Miss" as a way of circumventing the awkward alternation: "miss" also derives from "mistress." So, no matter how hard you try, you're going to deal with perception and connotation. 

Which is kind of how life works, isn't it?

-JJ

Bananas Create Antimatter

Yep. Every 75 minutes.

As we all know, bananas are rich in potassium. Personally, I learned this fact from the classic movie, "Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves." I'll spare the details, but they give a kid a banana because he's low on potassium. Thus, just like the number of feet in a mile (5,280) and the longest word to every appear in an English dictionary (Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis), this fruit fact lodge itself in my brain, destined to be used only in social situations and in the unlikely occurrence that I might find myself on a game show one day.

Anyway, for the facts. For every 1 million atoms of potassium, there are about 100 atoms of Potassium-40, an unstable, decaying isotope. As it decays, it releases positrons, the antimatter counterpart of an electron. But don't worry, a black hole isn't going to open up in your mouth when you bite down on a banana (as history has proven). Nor will it begin a universe-destroying chain reaction between antimatter and matter that science fiction loves to throw into doomsday scenarios. The antimatter particles quickly react with nearby electrons and annihilate. So, no need to store you bananas in an underground cellar with yard-thick concrete walls.

-JJ

Nature Finds A Way

I'm not sure of the source, but judging from the desolated looking buildings in the background, I can only assume this picture was taken by someone in the post-apocalyptic future we're heading towards and sent it back in time (via Reddit) as a warning. 

I know I often jokingly say the line in the title of this post, a line from the awesome Jurassic Park (the movie), but it's true. No matter what we as humans do to this precious planet we're on, it will find a way to bounce back. God takes care of this place just as much as He takes care of its passengers. Unfortunately, we take the wonder around us for granted, assuming that we can put in the minimal amount of effort to look after it (and often, no effort at all). But how long before it revolts and takes the beauty back? 

Another, less serious, take on the photo: How cool would it be to camp out on a floating island that resides in the hull of a burned out ship? I feel like there's a book there. (Or that there has already been something similar written I just haven't found it yet.)

-JJ

Book Review: A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius by Dave Eggers

Review: A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius by Dave Eggers

I had been told by a friend that I should read "What Is the What," another novel by Dave Eggers. However, while perusing a local used bookstore, I came across this, the only Eggers book that I had seen in a used bookstore. I was intrigued. First, it was an Eggers book, and second, the title: it seems brash, headstrong, and overconfident. 

Much like the main character, Eggers himself.

"A Heartbreaking Work..." is an autobiographical work about Egger's young life, right before and after his mother and father die of unrelated cancers, and Eggers takes over the role of guardian for his younger brother. The relationship that they have -- and that is portrayed in the book -- is complicated, nuanced, and finds itself as the central motivations for almost everything that Eggers does. It essentially defined his life, and it rears its head at the worst moments (during job interviews, while he is with women, when he's just trying to have a normal life with friends in a bar). And yet, the bond between them remains one of the strongest familial relationships that I have encountered in a while. Their dialogue is perfect, their interactions are perfect, and I don't think I could imagine a better representation of brotherly "love" outside of the "real world."

But what really had me hooked with this novel is the writing style. Eggers writes effortlessly. I've said that before about authors, but it has never been more true than for this writer. The words seem like the most perfect portrayal of the conversational style of a well-educated person who knows exactly how to say what he wants to say, even if it's simply rambling frustrations over various situations. Punctuation never halters the reading -- something that I intend to study and steal for my own writing -- and the style is all his own, enviable but unattainable. 

And if there was ever an example to look to for how to write stream of consciousness, then this is it. I can barely stand Faulkner's SoC writing because it's dense, overly complicated, and tends to ramble off topic for far too long before returning to any semblance of a point. And I get that that's kind of the point. It's supposed to be the accurate portrayal of the thoughts in a character's head as they occur. But without some sort of structure, the written thoughts become too convoluted for their own good. But with this work, Eggers strikes a near perfect balance between rabid fire, punctuation-less representations of thoughts, and truly important and interesting plot-centric moments. 

Another aspect of the work that I loved was the post-modern self-awareness that works its way through every aspect of the novel. Chapters break away from the plot to include moment of self-aware introspection (sometimes about the act of writing the book itself), and Eggers messes with the form just enough to break barriers that I have not seen broken in any other work I've read so far. The interview portion near the middle of the work is absolutely brilliant.

To sum: this work certainly deserved to be Time's Best Book of the Year for 2000.

That doesn't mean, though, that I loved everything about it. I understand that he was looking for accuracy in his speech, his thoughts, and the interactions with the other characters, but there is simply too much profanity. I can handle swearing to a point -- and you could call most incidents of this in the novel "natural" or "realistic" -- but it was too much for my tastes. I read past them, of course. It's entirely possible to sweep one's eyes over certain words without reading them in that inner voice that we all have when we read. But sometimes it became a bit of a hassle when certainly there could have been some alternatives.

Profanity aside, this work only made me want to search out Eggers' other works even more. I have a feeling I'll be haunting the "E" portions of the "Fiction" sections of used bookstores for a while until I get something else from this man.

4/5

-JJ 

Small, Sad Update On Oldest Man =(

I had no idea that when I wrote the short piece about the oldest people alive, and then updated that piece with a followup about Jiroemon Kimura, the oldest living man (whose birthday was last month), that I would be coming back so soon with more news about this 116-year old marvel. 

Unfortunately, I am, and for the worst reason: Jiroemon Kimura died Wednesday. 

Fortunately (if there is a fortunately to death), you can't say that he didn't live a long, fruitful life. The size of his family alone is a testament to that fact: seven children, 14 grandchildren, 25 great-grandchildren, and 15 great-great-grandchildren. Sixty one people are alive simply because this man lived, and now many people around the world know his name. His notary may simply be because of his age, but his positive outlook on life is just as worthy of mention. According to the report, Jiroemon attributed his longevity to "always looking up towards the sky," adding, "That is how I am."

Wise words from an old, happy man.

-JJ

Short Post #3: Retronym

Retronym

To sum: A retronym is the act of giving a new name (usually just by adding an adjective) to an old term or item in order to differentiate it from a new version of the old term or item.

Example: Acoustic Guitar. Originally, all guitars were acoustic. But then came the new, louder kid on the block: the electric guitar. So, to differentiate, a new term was coined; or, rather, the adjective "acoustic" was added so that there wouldn't be any confusion.

Read also: Analog watch. Watches were around before the digital watch, but we had to give a new name to the "old" style to keep them separate.

It's interesting to think that a retronym gives an old item a newer name than the new item that physically came into being after the old item! It's confusing and wonderful.

Gotta love English (or any language for that matter).

-JJ

Short Post #2: Syntax VS Semantics

syn·tax  [sin-taks]  - noun
1. Linguisticsa. the study of the rules for the formation of grammatical sentences in a language.
b. the study of the patterns of formation of sentences and phrases from words.
c. the rules or patterns so studied: English syntax.
d. a presentation of these: a syntax of English.
e. an instance of these: the syntax of a sentence.
2. Logica. that branch of modern logic that studies the various kinds of signs that occur in a system and the possible arrangements of those signs, complete abstraction being made of the meaning of the signs.
b. the outcome of such a study when directed upon a specified language.

And

se·man·tics  [si-man-tiks]  - noun (used with a singular verb)
1. Linguisticsa. the study of meaning.
b. the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.
2. Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote.
3. the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.

So, while syntax is the study of the mechanics of a sentence (or language as a whole), semantics is the study of the meaning behind the words, sentences, etc. Syntax is the cogs of the machine, while semantics is the coding in the program that runs the machine.

Or, at least that's how I understand it.

-JJ

Short Post #1: Oxymoron

Apparently, the word Oxymoron is, itself, an oxymoron:

Oxymoron is derived from the 5th century Latin "oxymoron", which is derived from the Ancient Greek: ὀξύς oxus "sharp, keen" + μωρός mōros "dull, stupid."

Also, the plural for oxymoron is oxymora.

-JJ

Fun Fear Facts

List of Phobias

Common fears that actually have diagnoses:

Achluophobia (Also, nyctophobia, scotophobia, or lygophobia) -- Fear of the Dark

Coulrophobia -- Fear of Clowns

Glossophobia -- Fear of Public Speaking

Pediophobia -- Fear of Dolls

Double Whammy! 

Fears of specific numbers:

Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia -- 666
Tetraphobia -- 4
Triskaidekaphobia -- 13

Now for the fun ones:

Gerascophobia -- Fear of Aging

Ipovlopsychophobia -- Fear of Being Photographed

Agyrophobia -- Fear of Crossing Roads

Chaetophobia -- Fear of Hair

Chronophobia -- Fear of Time

Decidophobia -- Fear of Making Decisions

And, finally,
Phobophobia -- Fear of Fear

-JJ

Book Review: The Mist

My review of The Mist by Stephen King (via Goodreads).

I'll be short with this one because it's been a while since I've read it. Anyway, here goes.

I had not encountered Stephen King as novelist before this book. Before now, King has always just been the originator of some of the most frightening movies that have come out of Hollywood to date. I barely made it through my first viewing of IT, and I love rewatching the old TV miniseries that he has penned over time -- particularly The Langoliers. It's just so wonderfully terrible. And don't get me started on The Shining. One of the best, scariest movies that I've ever seen. Obviously, if you consider King the mind behind the fears that I and millions of other people have encountered over the years, his hype is unparalleled. 

So, having not read anything by King, and knowing that I loved The Shining, the film, I probably should have started off with that novel. Instead, I went with a used bookstore find, The Mist, which sat on the shelf just begging me to pick it up and take it home -- as all of my used books have done before it. 

Diving right into the review: It started off very... very... slowly. I waded through nearly fifty pages before getting into anything worth the effort. Too much backstory that ultimately didn't add to the experience. The setting, ironically, seemed undeveloped in my mind, left behind in favor of the psychological development of the narrator and a few "key" characters. However, this development came at a price: I almost let the book go. But it's short book -- novella, actually. So I persisted.

And I'm happy that I did. After trudging through the repetition of internal monologue about pasts and present situations that did little to affect my understanding of the situation, I found the crux of the matter. In a sleepy coastal town in Maine, a mysterious, thick, milky-white mist rolls into town, bringing paranoia, and creatures that no one has seen before. They appear without cause, reason, or any other apparent motive than to kill everyone.

I'll pause here. I was under the impression that King was the king (pun intended) of psychological terror. I didn't know anything about The Mist before diving into it, so I expected the true terror to be internal. Bumps and mysterious sounds that terrorize the psyche of the main characters. Instead, they're aliens, or monsters. Whatever they are, they're too real. I suppose I was expecting more Poe than "Aliens," but it left me unsatisfied.

The narration, however, is quick, easy, and engaging. As I mentioned before, I almost gave up. But it's a testament to King's ability to move the events along naturally that I did not. I kept at it, and was rewarded at times with real moments of terror -- even if it wasn't the kind I was expecting.

So, if you want something like The Shining, or Tell Tale Heart, then look elsewhere. But if you like natural -- but not necessarily literary -- narration that moves quickly and offers a few startling moments, then this will work for its length.

3/5

-JJ 

Rant On the Devolution of Communication

I just read an article that has me worried.

The article is this, and it discusses a picture taken by Paula Deen and deemed the "perfect" Pinterest picture.

Listen: I don't care about Paula Deen, Pinterest, or the "perfect" picture, if such a thing exists. What I care about comes from the second to last paragraph in the article. Read below:

Besides having a popular Pinterest page, why does all this matter? Gupta sees sharing images as the language of the future. "Consumers today communicate using pictures rather than words, and we see that not only on Pinterest, but Instagram and Tumblr."

As an English major -- and, as of this Fall, an English professor -- this statement worries me terribly. 

I have no problem with images used as communication. For some people, this is a necessary and unavoidable form of communication, particularly for those who don't have the ability to talk or understand language construction. Many would probably say that images were the very first form of communications in which humans partook. What's easier, writing out a complicated sentence full of grammatical rules and social nuances in order to communicate a thought, or posting a nifty drawing on a rock to show someone else that you're hungry, or that the lions are on the prowl? 

But what has me concerned is the fact that we're no longer bound by the need to draw pictures or swap photos to communicate. We have words now, beautiful, important words, all of which want to be used and nourished. 

I'm being a little dramatic here, I know. But it's a dramatic situation. What happens to a culture when their primary form of communication becomes degraded to pictures and hieroglyphs? Some might say that it's a more efficient form of communication, and would actually help that particular society. I realize this function of graphical communication, but I also see its limitations. Sure, you can communicate a thought more efficiently with a picture than you can with a string of words. Those words have to have meaning, and that meaning is driven by context. Words can mean a myriad of things, and it's partly the job of the reader as decoder to understand the writer's/speaker's intention. It's a complicated process. 

But it's an important process. Humans aren't just here to communicate processes and monosyllabic thoughts. We don't just say, "We're hungry." We say, "I haven't eaten since breakfast -- just a piece of toast and nothing more -- so I could really use a sandwich right now. A big, overflowing mound of meat and vegetables. Something savory and delicious. And I want it right now." That's a poor example of what the written/spoken language is capable of, but it helps to prove my point: there's poetry in language. There's art, intention, the confusing process of creation that people need to have in order to live a full, colorful life. Even if you don't think you're a writer, a poet, a creator of something larger than yourself, you're wrong. You are all of those things and more. And what better way to express that potential than with language? Sure, art is more than language and writing. It's panting, photography, sculpture, and so much more. But boil it down to the essential parts, and I think that the written word is the most important conveyor or emotion and intention that we have. 

And we don't need to let that devolve into swapping picture for picture. It's rudimentary, and it's sad.

I couldn't find a picture that was suitable for the post, 

so here's a cute little puffin.

That is all.

-JJ

History of High Heels

High heels. They look terribly uncomfortable, and according to my wife, they feel as unnatural as they look. Which, to her credit, is why she doesn't wear them. And I don't blame her. In fact, I would rather her leave them to the world of "fashion" and keep her feet healthy by donning practical, sensible footwear. 

That being said: Who thought that high heels were a good idea in the first place? These days, women tend to prize them as elements of a sort of "achievable" sensual appearance. But, this particularly cruel brand of fashion has a much different origin. In fact, their origins come not from women and fashion, but men and practicality. 

For the origins of high heels, we have to look backwards, to the 16th and 17th centuries. And we have to look away from the runway, and towards the battlefield, specifically that of horse-riding Persian warriors. 

As anyone who has seen high heels can attest, there seems to be something very impractical about the piece of wood or metal that juts out of the heel, lifting the wearer's foot a few inches from the ground. Today, it is impractical. But to Persian soldiers on horse-back, the heels were integral. In order to balance properly while holding a weapon and standing up in the stirrups, these skilled warriors needed something to keep their feet from slipping. Enter elongated heels, ones that even look similar to some worn by women today.

Fast forward to the western obsession with middle eastern culture and fashion that overtook the 17th century, and we see people in the ruling class complementing their appearance with heels reminiscent of those worn by the Persians. Gone was practicality, left behind in favor of looking worldly and important. 

Tracing the history further into the 17th century, women began to implement "male" fashion into their wardrobe, bringing along high heels. Their heels, however, became longer and thinner over time, while men's heels flattened and widened.

Then came the Enlightenment. Men shunned unnecessary ornamentation in favor of practicality, and women stuck with their long, thin heels, which had become synonymous with the "weaker" feminine stature. By 1740, men lost interest in them altogether, and within 50 years, so did the women.

Enter porn. In the 19th century, makers of pornographic images gave their models high heels to accentuate their legs, and the craze returned, now embodying the sexy, erotic revolution of the '60s and '70s. 

So, high heels went from battlefield necessity to porn-powered symbols of eroticism. From powerful men, to powerful women -- and possibly back again, according to the article: 

"If it becomes a signifier of actual power, then men will be as willing to wear it as women."

I'll stick with my TOMs, thanks.

-JJ 

"Blue Lake" Defies Climate Change

"Climate refuge" found in Blue Lake on North Stradbroke Island, in Queensland, Australia.

The lake has been virtually unaffected by climate change for over 7,500 years, according to researchers. By studying fossil pollen and fossil algae (known as diatoms), scientists have discovered that the environment of the lake has remained constant. Helping this consistency is the fact that the lake is fed by an aquifer and drains into a swamp, allowing the water to remain at a constant level of salinity. Assuming that the lake doesn't fill up too quickly or dry up rapidly anytime soon, the lake could remain one of the last places on earth that hasn't been affected in some way by global climate change.

Even in the face of humanity,

Wise words from Ian Malcolm.

-JJ

The Long, Long Life of Jiroemon Kimura

Last Monday, I wrote about the oldest people in the world (some of which still living) and mentioned a man by the name of Jiroemon Kimura. He's from Kyotango, Japan, he's 116 years old, and, as it turns out, his birthday was last Friday.

Happy Birthday, Jiroemon!

He seems pretty happy for someone who's seen almost 

every terrible thing that has ever happened in modern history.

But he also has another record going for him. According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Jiroemon is the only man left alive who was born in the 19th Century. He was born 116 years ago, last Friday, in 1897. 

There are, however, at least 21 women who were born before 1901. And in the referenced article above, it's important to note some interesting statistics. Mainly, that 90 percent of "supercentenarians" (I think they get a cape when they are officially classified as such) are women, due in part to having two X chromosomes, which "offers a certain amount of protection from disease and disability." Also, there are an estimated 200-300 people who can claim that title. And as I mentioned in my previous post, having a healthy lifestyle isn't that important to living past 100. In fact, at least 20 percent of those supercentenarians engage in very unhealthy habits, including eating unhealthily, smoking, and living sedentary lives. 

Just for fun, let's look at some of the notable things in history that took place in 1897:

• William McKinley becomes president of the United States on March 4th
• The first Boston Marathon is held April 19. Only fifteen men race, and John McDermott wins.
• Speaking of Boston: The Boston subway opened on September 1, 1897, becoming the first underground metro in North America.
• Dracula, by Bram Stoker, is first published on May 26. (This one blows my mind.)
• The word "computer", meaning an electronic calculation device, is first used.
• Bayer first produces Aspirin.
• The electron is discovered by scientist J. J. Thomson.

And a couple other famous births in 1897:

• Amelia Earhart - July 24, 1897
• William Faulkner - September 25, 1897

Hummingbirds!

Apparently, hummingbirds birth mentos.

Inspired by the above picture of a hummingbird nest (seriously, SO TINY!), here are some fascinating hummingbird facts:

• They hover in mid-air by flapping their wings between 12 and 100 times a second.
• They have the ability to go into a state of hibernation (torpor) during times of food shortages and while they sleep, at which point their heart beats slow to just 1/15th of the normal rate.
• That's still fast, considering that their heart rate at rest is 250 beats per minute, and can reach rates of up to 1,260 beats per minute.
• They can fly at speeds of up to 34 mph.
• They are the only birds that can fly backwards.
• Some species of hummingbirds weight less than a penny at full maturity.

(Sources: Wiki, and Worldofhummingbirds.com)

-JJ

Venice on Stilts

Just because I never knew for sure, but everyone always looks at me funny when I said it: Venice is a city built on wooden pillars.

Here's a picture of what that looks like when you push away all that pesky water:

The pillars are called "piles," and they're made of alder wood, which has extremely high water resistance (important when your building is resting on top of submerged wood). The piles are driven down through the softer sand and mud at the bottom of the ocean, and rests on the much harder stone and mud deeper down. The wood was harvested from the southerwestern region of Slovenia known as Kras. While the timber was originally harvested in moderation, deforestation for grazing land has rendered it basically barren, with only 1/3 of the region covered in forest.

Reading about Venice has made me miss it a bit. Sarah says that she would go back immediately if given the change, but I sometimes have my reservations. Don't get me wrong: it's a magical place, and she and I had the most fantastic time on our honeymoon there. But I feel like we wore it out. We walked everywhere, saw almost everything, and savored it as much as we possible could. Maybe because of that -- or maybe I just don't like the idea of having to walk EVERYWHERE -- I'm content with leaving it to memory. I still want to travel and see more parts of the world, but I think I can cross Venice off the list for now. Maybe one day I'll change my mind, but right now I'm content with what it gave us.

And because I've been reading about Venice and seeing pictures from the article, here's another picture of one of my favorite places: the Rialto Bridge. (This is not my picture; although, we stood at that exact spot and got pictures at both night and day. Absolutely gorgeous.)

-JJ

Jumping Cars

Skip to 1:42 for the real show.

If you watched the entire video, you saw that BOSE has been holding out on car buyers for a while. The test vehicle makes hairpin turns without rocking an inch, and stays steady enough on rocky back roads to make it look like it's gliding over new pavement. 

To be fair to BOSE, though, I've read that this type of suspension is more expensive than conventional suspension systems, and thus would not be economical for standard use in consumer vehicles. However, they are currently being used in some bus systems, and some higher end cars. I think some high-end cars even have them as an add-on for a couple thousand dollars more. 

We're not talking about my Corolla here, of course.

However, the real fun begins at 1:42. You see a car literally jumping over an obstacle. It's not as dramatic as a spike-strip, or a person lying prostrate in the path of the car, but it's impressive nonetheless. My Corolla certainly couldn't pull of that move, and neither could yours. 

Maybe one day it could, though. Perhaps, in some future time, when people are wearing silver and eating entire meals in pill form (yes, I get all of my future references from Back the the Future II), we will be able to avoid hitting a squirrel, cat or small dog by simply jumping our water-powered vehicles over the creatures and going about our merry way, enjoying the robotic sounds of whatever synthetic pop we're listening to at the time. We should have already had flying cars by now (seriously, I need to expand my references a bit), but I guess we can take a two-ton ollie if it gets us a little closer to The World of Tomorrow type enhancements. 

Honestly, though, I'll settle for a hoverboard.

-JJ

Manhattanhenge

Manhattanhenge

Two days out of the year, the sun aligns perfectly with 34th Street in New York City, creating the gorgeous phenomenon that many have dubbed "Manhattanhenge." This year, it's happening today (May 28th) and again on July 13th.

The author of the article linked above asks a wonderfully evocative question: what will archaeologists of the far future, looking out on the unearthed remains of the metal and concrete jumble that is present day New York City, think when they match the sun's rise to the layout of that particular street on their own Manhattenhenge date? Will they believe that people from our era still worshiped some unnamed sun god, and that this was our way of presenting our land to him/her as a symbolic sacrifice? That's what we gather from Stonehenge and the records that remain from its time of modernity. So, assuming it would be possible for all records of New York and it's true importance and place in the American landscape to disappear from existence, and assuming that 34th Street and the surrounding area could be buried by land or water and eventually unearthed by future mankind, it doesn't take a drastic leap of the imagination to picture those eventual future beings looking out at the grid of roads and the lining-up of the sun and seeing the connection as something more meaningful than a simple coincidence in timing.

Do I believe that those scenarios could come together to lead to that future discovery and extrapolation?

No. But it's fun to imagine.

-JJ

Update On the Printable Gun

A few days ago, I mentioned that there's now such a thing as a printable gun. Buy yourself a $1,700 3D printer, download the instructions to the device, wait 27 hours while the thing prints, and then you have yourself a working gun, capable of firing a .380 caliber bullet with enough velocity to seriously injure or kill.

Now, however, the police force in New South Wales, Australia, have determined that the gun can actually explode once fired, seriously injuring the user. After downloading the instructions, printing the gun, and firing it a test subject (a block of gelatin called "ballistic soap"), the gun exploded into several pieces. Luckily, it was attached to a firing rig and no one was hurt in the demonstration. 

I'm a bit of a skeptic, so I have to wonder if this experiment was all fabricated to deter people away from trying to print their own gun. Even though the instructions for the gun have been downloaded over 100,000 times (and that total was just as of the time that I wrote the last article; it's likely much more at this point), they've only been seen in public a handful of times. This new test and the results that have been reported might just be a ploy to keep more people from attempting to create their own firearm. That's just my own speculation, but I have to think that someone might see that result and determine that it's just not worth putting themselves at risk in order to print off an illegal, possibly defective gun. 

Either way, this thing is dangerous. I still stand behind my initial point that 3D printers are amazing, and they have remarkable potential to help people. In fact, scientists have begun using the device to print food for astronauts, using a powder cartridges containing "sugars, complex carbohydrates, protein or some other basic building block" to print edible wafers. The powdered ingredients can last up to 30 years, illustrating the potential for long-term storage on those extended missions to Mars that everyone's clamoring for. And speaking of printing food: they could even be used to print food in places where food resources are scarce or none-existent. Pack up a printer and a few dozen powder containers, and you could feed a village in the middle of the desert for a week. 

Obviously, this technology has wonderful potential. However, like everything else in this world, there is no black and white with this thing, no way to separate the good potential from the opportunity for it to be used maliciously. So, unless there is some sort of restriction put on the creation of the Liberator, this could cause an unfortunate precedent of unrestricted use that could end in lots of injury and heartache.

It seems like it all boils down to censorship and personal rights. So, it's basically the same argument that people have always had, but with new ammunition (no pun intended).

-JJ

I Vaguely Remember Forgetting It

The Curse of Reading and Forgetting

This article discusses the fact that, in the words of a quote included in the article, it is "humanly certain that most of us remember very little of what we have read." To someone like me, who can forget a name within seconds and an event within minutes, it is of great comfort to read that forgetting the plots, characters, et cetera of books that I have read is not only common, but even normal.
Even while reading, I can drift away. Usually, this occurs when I'm reading a particularly slow portion of the text, perhaps the introspective banter of a character or set of characters, a moment lacking real action. But, in all honesty, I can fade away from the page during an active sequence almost as easily. There are many moments that can truly grasp my attention with claws and manhandle it away from distraction. But more often than not, I have to make an active effort to maintain focus and attention. 

The author of the article discusses how a colleague recommended a book to him that he had already read, a fact that was hidden beyond his memory until he had bought the book online, received it, and made it nearly fifty pages into the text. Likewise, the author mentions being asked about a book on his shelf at a party in his apartment, only to realize how embarrassing it would be to be asked any follow up questions about the book, since he had forgot almost everything about it. 

I'd like to think that this is not a damning bit of evidence against that specific book's effectiveness. Perhaps the fault of the book not to maintain a grasp on the reader's memory does lie in the details written by the author, but I'd like to give that writer the benefit of a doubt: perhaps they were just the unfortunate proof of the rule that I stated at the onset of this post. The reader simply forgot because he is a reader, and that's what readers do. They read, and then they forget.

I have those moments often, even with movies and songs that I've enjoyed at the time but completely forgot when asked about my opinions on them. My least favorite question about most of the entertainment I've ingested is "What was your favorite part?" More often than not, I will spend a good thirty seconds after being asked that question trying to come up with an answer, knowing that I won't be able to describe the part that was my favorite. Instead, I'll give them a part I remembered, and one that I remembered liking, no matter where it falls in the list of favorite parts. At least I'll have an answer. 

I do, however, have to say that I found solidarity in a comment by a reader on the article, who said that they could remember a book just by reading the synopsis on the back. That usually does it for me; if I can get characters and a general sense of the plot, I can start to gather more little bits about the work so that I can actually have a conversation about it. That's how my memory seems to work: very little at first, and then small floods that come like electrical shocks of recall.

So, at least I have that going for me.

-JJ