The Rolling Stones; 50 years and counting

The Rolling Stones — the band’s name was inspired by a Muddy Waters’ song, Rollin’ Stone — consider July 12, 1962 as their first performance, which took place on the stage of the Marquee Club in London. At the time, the group was; Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Brian Jones, Ian Stewart, Dick Taylor, and Tony Chapman.

It was their music of the late 60s and early 70s that has a special place in my heart and memory; and, in particular, the three albums they created back-to-back-to-back that I think was the pinnacle of their artistic output: Beggars Banquet (1968), Let it Bleed (1969), and Sticky Fingers (1971). Their best music was wonderfully multilayered, unlike most rock.

I searched high and low for my absolute favourite Stone’s album, Let it Bleed, but could only find Sticky Fingers, an excellent album, but darker in tone, with songs like Sister Morphine and Dead Flowers.

The music of the Rolling Stones, along with rock bands such as Pink Floyd, Steely Dan, Led Zeppelin, and Little Feat, are inextricably tied to my past.

While my wife and I drove to Cosco and back for groceries, we listened to Sticky Fingers, reminiscing and reveling in the deep cuts that we haven’t heard in years. I had bittersweet flash-memories of High School and College, of some friends that didn’t make it, and others that took different paths. I sent silent prayers to all of them.

It’s odd to see clips of the Stones performing as old men; I’ll always see them in my mind’s eye as the young, revolutionary, bad-boys of rock.

.

 

The Talented Mr. Ripley, a book review

The Talented Mr. Ripley, by Patricia Highsmith, was written in 1955 and is considered to be a classic mystery novel; not a who-done-it, rather, a psychological trip through a murderer’s consciousness.

Many readers have commented that the book’s protagonist, Thomas Ripley, is a sociopath, but that Highsmith writes in a manner that elicits sympathy so that the reader wants Ripley to get away with his crimes. I cannot fathom that sentiment. I did want Tom to succeed to a certain extent, but only for the sake of the story and its continuance; ultimately, I wanted him to be caught because there was nothing likeable about him; he was cold, completely self-absorbed, and matter-of-fact about the violent crimes he committed (he had an occasional twinge of guilt, but was able to displace it far too easily).

When Ripley claims to love a character, he is really in love with the character’s position in life, the comfort that comes with it, and the poise with which the person accepts their station in life. When Ripley meets Dickie (Richard Greenleaf), he is able to live vicariously through the other man; Ripley wants a life like Dickie’s so badly that he would consider anything to obtain it. There are hints of homosexuality in Tom’s character, but I think that Marge Sherwood — Dickie’s girlfriend — may be correct in stating that Tom has no sexuality: his lust is for an exciting life at the expense of others (this is quite clear from the beginning of the novel when Tom has devised a flim-flam tax scheme that tricks people into writing checks and sending them to him: he never cashes the checks; it is the thrill of deception and the excitement of possible capture that drives him).

I enjoyed the first half of the novel; but, for me, the last half fell flat: there were too many plot-points that strained belief and there was not enough morality, or depth, to plug the holes. The novel had an interesting concept, but, sadly, it didn’t work for me.

There is also a movie version, which modified many of the details found in the novel. I don’t recall all the particulars, but I think that Tom’s character may have been less sociopathic (and more obviously gay) and I think that Marge and Freddie Miles (Dickie’s friend) have larger parts in the movie. I also think that the police and other characters were not as easily deceived by Tom in the movie (which, in the novel, stretched credibility).

 

Spinach, iron, Popeye, and my youth

The only reason I ate spinach when I was a kid was because I thought it might build my muscles and make me strong, like it did for Popeye. I asked my Mom, who told me that it was the high iron content in spinach that did the trick. It tasted like contaminated dirt, but I grinned and bore it, checking my biceps attentively after consumption.

But is spinach really such a great source of iron?

In 1870, a certain Dr. Emil von Wolf calculated that spinach has ten-times the iron of any other vegetable; so far, so good. Unfortunately, it wasn’t until 1937 that anybody checked his calculations, and it turns out that spinach has about the same iron content as many other vegetables; apparently, Dr. von Wolf had misplaced a decimal point during his calculations (update 2012-08-20 (see comments): this part of the story appears to be an interesting  myth; it is vitamin A in spinach that was significant to Popeye’s creator; unfortunately, vitamin A is not known as a muscle-mass-increasing substance, so the thrust of my (hopefully) humorous post remains relevant).

Spinach does have a high nutritional value, rich in antioxidants, but Popeye’s choice of canned spinach is a low nutrient source compared to fresh, steamed, or quick-boiled. Spinach is an excellent source of vitamin A, vitamin K, vitamin C, vitamin E, manganese, folate, magnesium, betaine, vitamin B₂, potassium, calcium, vitamin B₆, folic acid, phosphorous, zinc, niacin, copper, selenium, and omega-3 fatty acids. And yes, it is a good source of iron, just not as magnificent as my boyhood self, with toothpick arms, had anticipated.

Popeye’s bulging biceps after consuming a can of spinach must have been due to the placebo effect.

.

 

Higgs boson

[image fron CERN]

I’ve been ill for the past few days (thankfully, nothing serious), and I’m just catching up with the news about the ‘God’ particle; more scientifically referred to as the Higgs particle, or Higgs boson.

Scientists haven’t quite claimed that it is the Higgs boson they’ve been hoping to find since 1964, but they believe it very well might be; or, it may be a Higgs boson, and they might find more if they keep looking.

It’s easy to get bogged down in theory, but from what I can understand, a boson is a subatomic particle that permits multiple particles to exist in the same state. The experimentally observed elementary bosons are: photons, the force carriers of electromagnetic fields; the W and Z bosons, the force carriers of the weak force (responsible for radiation); and gluons, the force carriers of the strong force (the force that holds an atom’s nucleus together).

The Higgs boson (after Peter Higgs) was postulated as the particle that enables other particles to have mass (the graviton, a particle that enables gravity, has also been postulated, but is not within the sphere of particle physics). In the world of particle physics, the Higgs boson is massive; additionally, it decays extremely quickly (and is no longer there to observe), so a very high-energy particle accelerator is required to create and document its existence.

The Higgs boson is the final experimental piece of the puzzle that would confirm the Standard Model of particle physics, which is why physicists are so excited (well, maybe not the ones who have postulated other theories).

The possibility that Particle Physicists have found the Higgs boson is no immediate boon to mankind, although it would push the frontier of knowledge further, and may lead to other long-sought discoveries, like supersymmetry, other dimensions, or other theories that were postulated that reach beyond the Standard Model. It should help scientists to delve further into the big questions, such as, what are we made of? It will certainly help explain how the universe developed.  Perhaps this discovery, like the theory of quantum mechanics, will lead to a cornucopia of future inventions.

It’s all pretty darned exciting, but it’s just one more step on the path of knowledge.

.

 

Rifts in the Stream III; the warehouse murders (the first appearance of Aradny Hornbeam)

The ancient owls' nest must have burned, Hastily, all alone, a glistening armadillo left the scene, rose flecked, head down, tail down…
                  Elizabeth Bishop, from The Armadillo, for Robert Lowell

.

Aradny paid minimal attention to her driving on the way to the scene; as usual, she was concentrating on the case; and, in particular, about the site where the murder had taken place.

She had been in kindergarten when the warehouse project had begun. She remembered her father speaking to the teacher about it; he was a shy man, and it had stuck in her memory as an unusual occurrence. She could even remember his perplexed expression when he’d told Ms. Templeton that it was “…an odd place to build a warehouse facility; an odd place, indeed.” (They were not actually warehouses, but that was how Aradny still thought of the buildings). At the time, the road hadn’t been punched through the side of the mountain, and they’d used a fleet of Sikorski helicopters to transport workers, equipment, and supplies to begin construction; the roadway, and other infrastructural amenities, had come later, when construction was nearly complete. The buildings had looked functional and professional, with a glass and blue-grey, granite exterior; they were built tastefully, and seamlessly, into the side of the mountain.  After the road was finished, the site had become operational quickly and efficiently. And then mostly forgotten.

Aradny had searched the web for available information regarding the project and the company;

 

The Mpemba Effect

The Royal Society of Chemistry is offering £1000 (~ $1550 US) to anybody who comes up with the best explanation for why hot water freezes faster than cold water, a conundrum that has baffled scientists for centuries.

The reward will go “… to the person or team producing the best and most creative explanation of the phenomenon, known today as The Mpemba Effect.” The deadline for submissions is July 30, 2012, and submissions must be made here.

For this contest, it seems to me that a non-scientist may stand a good chance of winning the prize (after all, scientists have been unsuccessful for over two-thousand years!), so I thought I’d throw a few factoids about water into the Webosphere as basic background for any creative geniuses that might like to try their hand at submitting, but would like somewhere to begin their far-flung theories (which, the website notes, must be “…scientifically sound and arresting in presentation and delivery”).

The following factoids are all interconnected characteristics of the substance that is the basis for most life on our planet. If the characteristics of water were different, none of us would be here; or, at the very least, we would be far different beings*…

Water, or H₂o, is a polar molecule

[image found at sguforums.com]

Oxygen is more electronegative than hydrogen and the molecule forms an ‘electrical dipole’, with the oxygen end more negative, and the hydrogen end more positive; therefore, water molecules are attracted to one another and readily form connective bonds, which gives water some of its interesting characteristics, such as its ability as a ‘universal’ solvent, and its high surface tension (this is why there is a meniscus at the surface, and why insects can walk on water). To be more specific, water molecules form a ‘V’ shape (some people call it a ‘U’ shape), with the hydrogen atoms at the two top tips of the ‘V’ pointing away from the oxygen (oxygen has extra valence electrons which ‘push’ the electropositive hydrogen atoms away, and the hydrogen atoms repel each other — they are both electropositive — thereby forming the ‘V’ shape).

The melting point of water decreases as a function of pressure. The triple point is a certain temperature and pressure at which all three phases of a substance — solid, liquid and gas — occur in a stable equilibrium (for water, the triple point is 0.01 °C and 611.73 pascals).  For most substances, the triple point is the minimum temperature at which the liquid phase can occur; however, for water, the melting point decreases as a function of pressure.

[image found at SWE.org]

The volume of water increases from liquid to gas and from liquid to solid. Conventionally, molecules disperse into gaseous form when heated, condense into a liquid phase when cooled, and condense to a greater density when cooled further. These phase changes, or changes in state, correspond to energy changes; from high energy (gas) to medium energy (liquid) to low energy (solid). Water, however, is a bit of an individualist. When water vapor is cooled, it condenses into a liquid, but when water is cooled to 4°C (39 °F), its volume begins to increase slightly; further, when it reaches 0°C (32 °F), it begins to expand radically, becoming less dense (this is why ice cubes float in a glass of water). This odd characteristic of water is related to its shape and how molecules bond together (see above: Water is a polar molecule). As a liquid, water molecules move about quite readily; the individual molecules form bonds, bonds are broken, and bonds are re-formed, thereby giving water its fluidic properties. When water is cooled to 4°C, the energy of the molecules decreases until they become very closely packed, but at 0°C, the molecules begin to align in a hexagonal, crystal lattice that increases the volume of a given sample of water (e.g.: water in an ice-cube tray) because individual molecules are held farther apart, with more empty space between them.      

For your submission, you may want to thow in some  psycho-babble regarding quantum states (in particular, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle), Schrödinger’s cat though-experiment (the observer is part of the experimental system: you don’t know the water is frozen until you actually observe it), chemical kinetics (e.g.: does the higher temperature of water act as a catalyst, creating more collisions or larger spaces between molecules, thereby yielding more bonding potential for ice’s hexagonal, crystal lattice structure?), and maybe even some hand-waving about sublimation (transformation directly from gaseous to solid form).

Best of luck with your submission!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*I found this cartoon in an old  textbook; Biology, IV Ed., by Helena Curtis

 

 

.

 

Dying Inside; a book review

Robert Silverberg began writing pulp fiction in the 1950s, but was apparently given freer rein in the mid-60s and his output from the late-60s through to the early-70s was fertile and literate. Dying Inside (1972) was among the novels he wrote during this time, and it is ostensibly the story of a lonesome telepath whose powers have begun to fade, but can be read as a metaphor for middle age, or a writer’s anxiety as he senses his talents beginning to diminish.

The author did a wonderful job of characterizing the protagonist, David Selig, a telepath.

David’s story is revealed from his own point of view and he doesn’t particularly like himself; his talent is a blessing and a curse, and even in his early forties he has still not come to grips with his ability to read minds. His talent is a wonderful — though wasted — gift, but it is also an obstacle to forming connections with others: he feels like a voyeur, and his ability to know how others truly perceive him can be disheartening. As his ability begins to fade, he wonders what life will be like if and when the talent leaves him completely.

While reading the novel I wondered how much of David Selig was actually Robert Silverberg, who was the same age as Selig when he wrote the book (Mr. Silverberg also shares a Jewish heritage, a predilection for writing, and a degree from Columbia with the novel’s protagonist). Silverberg’s editor/publisher, Betty Ballentine, also wondered and communicated her concern: “…while I admire the book,” she wrote to him, “I am also worried about you” (from the Preface, p. 13). Silverberg assured her that the work was pure fiction, with a sprinkling of real-life experiences for realism; but still, I wonder. Robert Silverberg was nearing the end of an extremely fertile period of writing, and soon afterward he declared himself burned-out (in 1975 he officially retired from writing, though he re-launched his career in 1980 with Lord Valentine’s Castle).

Dying Inside is a mature, literate work, but the protagonist is overly morose and the novel treads a delicate balance between cleverness and monotony. Even the happy periods in David Selig’s life are presented with foreboding, and there is no counterpoint to his sullen mood until the end, when he finally finds some comfort in life.

The novel was not what I expected and didn’t go where I would have liked; however, it was a satisfying reading experience.

Recommended

(I’ve read three other Robert Silverberg novels written during the same time-frame as Dying Inside that I’d also recommend (with caveats I’ll share if anybody is curious): Downward to the Earth (1970: a science fiction version of Heart of Darkness), Son of Man (1971: trippy, experimental science fiction), and A Time of Changes (1971: socio-philosophical science fiction)).

.

 

Harvard or MIT for free

Have you ever dreamed of a Harvard or MIT education, but can’t afford it? (Or, like me, don’t quite meet the enrollment criteria?). Well, both institutes are now offering free on-line courses that begin this fall. This is incredible; as long as you have access to the internet, you can receive a free education from two of the most prestigious schools in the world!

The courses won’t get you a Bachelor’s, Master’s, or Doctorate degree but they are planning to offer a Certificate of Mastery; which, for free, sounds pretty good (and suitable for framing).

 Check it out here

.

 

 

of cow belches, whale poo, and the environment

A colleague of mine enjoys challenging my views with humorous jabs; recently, when I was decrying the fact that our society (myself included) is apathetic in regards to the pollution effects of fossil fuels, he suggested that the world’s one-and-a-half billion cows are to blame for the greenhouse gas problems.

[Image found at Science Hax]

“A cow,” he informed me, “farts out as much pollution as a car.”

I looked it up; he was almost correct, but it is cow burps (scientific types, and other straight-laced characters, prefer the term eructation), not flatulence, that releases the bulk of the methane — a significant greenhouse gas component — from cows into the atmosphere.

In fact, ruminant animals (cows, sheep and water buffalo in particular) account for almost thirty percent of the methane in the environment. It is a big enough problem that there are even plans to add antibiotics to cattle feed to impede the production of methane. Personally, I’d prefer that we decrease our consumption of beef, which would reduce the population of cows required on the planet, thereby lowering the eructation of ruminant-methane. Our planet maintains a natural balance, but humanity has a nasty tendency to push past the level that the environment can correct for.

When I reported my findings back to the colleague who had prompted my research, he nodded; I was thus encouraged, and went on to explain that the real problem was our diet: apparently, in Canada and the United States, animal consumption accounts for about seventy percent of our dietary intake, and we could reverse the methane-eructation problem if we  reduced our livestock herds by modifying our eating habits. The carbon footprint of vegetables, beans and grains is a fraction of that created by animal husbandry. And, if our society reduced its consumption of animals, we would receive the added bonus of a healthier population.

“Okay,” my esteemed colleague said; “but what about the whales?”

“Huh?” I replied.

And then he began to (humorously) malign whales for their colossal contribution to global warming due to their excessive exhalation of carbon dioxide (CO2), a familiar greenhouse gas pollutant. “There have been estimates,” my colleague informed me, “that whales contribute the equivalent of forty-thousand CO2-belching automobiles.”

So I did some more research…

And he was correct, as far as he went; however, he hadn’t looked at the big picture.

Australian researchers, while studying baleen (krill eating) whales, have discovered that although whales exhale huge quantities of CO2, their feces are responsible for the reduction of greenhouse gases.

Whales move their bowels at the surface and, because their feces are rich in iron, this acts as a fertilizer for phytoplankton, the wonderful marine plant that uses CO2 from the atmosphere to drive photosynthesis. In fact, it turns out that the reduction of CO2 by phytoplankton, as powered by the iron from whale feces, is twice the amount exhaled by the whales; therefore, the net contribution of whales is beneficial in the battle against greenhouse gasses and global warming.  This is an example of how nature — if we take humans out of the equation — performs its own checks and balances.

So, when I was back at work again, I reported the findings to my colleague.

He nodded, accepting my research, and said, “Okay, but what about…”

But I didn’t hear the rest because I’d stuck a finger in each ear and walked away, humming loudly…

.

 

Safiye Amajan

I just read an interesting article, which lead me to a Public Statement by Amnesty International  about a brave, altruistic Afghan woman who was killed for doing the right thing. The story is six years old, but bears repeating.

On the 25^th of September 2006, Safiye Amajan, while on her way to work, was shot repeatedly by an armed motorcyclist who was linked to the Taliban. The Taliban claimed that her assassination was “…due to spying on the Mojahedin of the Islamic Emirate on behalf of the United States of America, under the guise of woman’s rights.”

Safiye Amajan was in her mid-fifties, and her ‘crime’ was more likely the fact that for years, despite repeated threats, she secretly ran a school for girls during the Taliban rule. After the Taliban’s repressive regime collapsed, and until she was murdered, Safiye Amajan was the provincial head of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs (MOWA). During her time in MOWA she was instrumental in the establishment of several schools and vocational centers designed to educate women and girls.

Safiye Amajan surely knew her life was in danger, but she defied the oppressive dictates of the Taliban and continued her altruistic cause until her untimely death. It is people like her that boost my faith in humanity.

.

.

.