11 July, 2014

Terminological Hypocrisy: Why "choice" is a misnomer in the abortion context

It's sad, really: Most liberals seem to only live in the now. They only think about their right to act certain ways today as if they'll suddenly leave the world tomorrow, with absolutely no regard for what happens 10, 20, 30, or even 40 years down the road. Therefore, I can kind of see their logic behind the fights for the right to smoke marijuana, the right to fornicate, the right to have same-sex, and the right to abort pregnancies to cover up their own sinful acts... ah, but suddenly, 10 years later, they get lung cancer/emphysema, then after 20 years, they are forced to adopt children due to the biological incapability of having their own, and, finally, after soul leaves body, they find out that the illegimitate child from the poor choices of their teenage years that they aborted would have become the next great thinker, the next great trendsetter, the next President... and they think, "OK, maybe I shouldn't have made that decision".

I sit back at all this activism, and laugh. I scoff at them as if their entire lives are living, breathing episodes of Ridiculousness, manifested in ideas that appear to give them sudden rushes and fade quickly that they're so passionate about as to take them all the way to the Supreme Court, and one issue that tends to be VERY problematic is obviously abortion. The church certainly equates it with infanticide, which in the case of fetuses, well, yes, that's definitely true, and yes, from the moment that sperm enters that egg, well, the result is a child with a soul and a spirit. The people in support of abortion, however, see it as a mere choice: the mother should choose, the mother has the right to carry a child that she willingly had sexual intercourse to beget in the first place, or the mother has the right not to.

Notice how I stressed "mother" three times here, in boldfaced letters. That's the whole point: What's the unborn child's say in the matter? Hmmm? None. The mother is making all the choices. The mother is who's dictating, in a totalitarian fashion, whether the unborn child should live or die. The unborn child, meanwhile, is absolutely powerless. Abortion "choice" is far from democratic, that's for sure. It's totalitarian. It gives the mother free reign to be a tyrant. It gives the parents free reign to say, "OK, I can have extramarital sex, and if I get pregnant, just abort the pregnancy", why? Because they can. Hitler committed the atrocities in the Holocaust because he could. So did Saddam Hussein use toxic gas on Kurds because, well, he could. Bashar al-Assad? Yup, same thing: he had absolute authority, unlimited power over his people, including, oh, yeah, the power to authorize a chemical attack on a civilian population. So, really, that makes the "choice" to have an abortion, where the unborn child has absolutely no say in the matter, no different than the "choice" to poison 6 million Jews with toxic hydrogen cyanide gas: one of absolute tyranny.

That brings us straight to the point: calling pro-abortion activism "pro-choice" is a misnomer. Why? Because of the above: only the mother has a choice. Only the parents can choose, and the child, thanks to the parents' choices, has absolutely no say in the matter, a powerless victim of the Abortion Holocaust, which has so far claimed over 50 million unborn lives. Unborn lives that, should I say it again, had absolutely no way of escaping their prenatal deaths, all because of who? The "choice" to value one's own life at the expense of the lives of others. It's a profound example of greed at work, and oh, yeah, the word "choice" to describe it is indeed an outright selfish, self-centered, and hypocritical term. Perhaps the biggest example of terminological hypocrisy this nation has ever dealt with: choice for the parents, but absolutely no choice for the unborn child.

Now to be fair: I do agree that women should have at least many, if not all, of the same basic rights that men do. For starters, it's the very nature of the early church, and thus a nature that we should get back to: In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus mentions that "divorcing [one's] wife for any reason except sexual immorality [commits] adultery". In those days, a "certificate of divorce" didn't have to be legally binding, it could really just be a note from the husband to the wife telling her to leave. In a later Gospel account, Jesus and His disciples actually sit and eat with women among them as if the women are meant to be treated equally with men. In another account, in John 8, we find what is arguably the most profound example of pro-female activism anywhere in the Bible: an adulteress is brought before judges and threatened with stoning. The people ask Jesus if she should be stoned, and His response was straight to the point: the people who wielded the stones were also all sinners, and they slowly walked away until Jesus, the only one who actually had authority to condemn her, instead sets her free. Later, in the 1st century church, women, like Mary, Thecla, and others, were indeed just as involved in ministry and worship as men were. Given that back then women were seen not as people but merely as property of their fathers and husbands, I'm not too surprised Jesus and His disciples took that stance against the mistreatment of them, to say the least.

2000 years later, women indeed have a lot more rights that they often take for granted. They can vote. They can testify in court. They can protest without risking getting trampled over by Roman soldiers. They can file for divorce instead of needing their husbands to do it for them. They can wear clothes that would often seam like an embarrassment to men of 2000 years ago. They can get involved in politics, and even, as Hillary Clinton and Michele Bachmann attempted to, run for President. Yet instead of being grateful, instead of being appreciative of all the rights they ― and we, since, well, the "right" to be gay is indeed the equivalent of this issue on the male side ― already have, abortion and gay activists still want more. Well, when it comes to legal rights, there's absolutely no doubt we're now pretty much equal, and under both the biblical AND land laws, we males certainly don't have any more rights than women have, and likewise, neither do women have any more rights than men do.

So, since we're equal, let's keep it that way and not push for more. Doing that is crossing a line from merely exercising freedom of speech to being greedy. Greedy not for money, but for power. Power that leads to amassing great fortunes in industries whose only job is pushing the Earth's climate into another Jurassic one. Power that leads to self-harm in the form of drug-induced chronic diseases and STDs. Even power that leads to the death of unborn children whose parents tyranically chose to kill them, with absolutely no regard for how they would feel if they could express their emotions. Choice is mutual. The unborn child's choice, obviously to not die, is therefore every bit as important as the mother's.

09 July, 2014

Project Ozone: Google's Mir?

It's July 9, 2014. Here I am, doing my usual decipherment of open source Chromium code in an attempt to find out how many new features the Chrome team has up its Athena sleeve. The journey started ― naturally ― with the Athena source tree. From there, after seeing a chrome.shell API that Athena appears to be implementing, it moved on to the shell tree, where I then found out about some Aura code serving as a kind of back-end for some of those features. When I got there ― to the UI code ― another project, being indicated in code comments as something VERY significant, really caught my eye: Ozone.



Why is Project Ozone so significant? Let's start with the context it was referred to in: as some kind of separate platform. To be even more precise, X11 and Ozone were being referred to in the same context. Snooping through its code revealed some more details. Most notably, there's mention of cursor factories, event factories, native pixmaps (!), display mode proxies, display snapshot proxies, display management, GPU management, oh, yeah, and input device management. These are ALL features typical of not just window managers (like Athena, Ash, Mutter, and Compiz), or widget toolkits (like Aura, Qt, and GTK+). No, these are features of full-fledged display servers like X11, Wayland, and Mir.

Could this mean Google is actually taking something from Canonical's playbook here when it comes to mobile/desktop convergence? Well, let's start with I/O: there was definitely some tight Android/Chrome OS integration demoed there, starting with notifications and making it all the way to, oh, yeah, Android apps running natively on a Chromebook. For now, it's mere integration/continuity between the platforms... but yeah, it's also the start of a long road to complete convergence. As the Ubuntu team noted, X11 is a kind of roadblock to that. Why? Because, well, it is way too bloated with legacy code (due to its age) to run on mobile devices easily, which is clearly why it's stuck on the desktop. So, with that in mind, to get something on both the desktop and mobile devices simultaneously, sleeker, slimmer, less bloated, oh, yeah, and more modern, natively-accelerated display servers are needed.

That's why Canonical started working on Mir in the first place: X was clearly too old. It had 30 years worth of code piled up, which IMHO is way too much to work well on mobile. At the same time, Wayland was too ahead of its time. It depended on the GPU so much that a lot of older computing devices without powerful GPUs are often left in the dust by it. Thus, Mir was born. It's compatible with both accelerated and non-accelerated hardware, and at the same time, is far less bloated than X is. It appears Project Ozone serves a very similar purpose for Google that Mir serves for Canonical: one display server across all mobile and desktop devices, Chrome and Android alike.

If the ability to run Android apps natively on a Chromebook is actually truly seamless and not just some clever Google Cast mirroring, well, then Athena, Ares, and finally Ozone could all be catalysts for complete Ubuntu-style convergence between the two platforms. That probably won't happen until 2015 at the least... ah, but given all that's been revealed now, not to mention all that we'll be seeing this fall, only time will tell.

01 July, 2014

2014-15 El Niño: Dying? You're looking in the wrong place!

On the weekend of June 26-29, I was on a retreat in Big Bear with a bunch of fellow young adults, oh, yeah, and my youth pastor. Yeah, we were having the time of our lives, to say the least... ah, but at the same time, the lake was indeed 25 feet below normal. So, while I was on that trip, I decided to Google "El Niño" "2014-15" again, only to find claims that the SST anomalies in the Kelvin zone off Peru, where the majority of El Niño research is conducted, appear to have begun shrinking back to normal... and yes, scientific research of the SSTs appear to have backed it. However, the problem? While the SSTs off Peru are indeed far from abnormal, those off Panama, Colombia, and Mexico, are, wait for it... still VERY high! To put this into perspective: We're talking about the waters about 15 degrees north being warmer than the equatorial waters. Here, see for yourself:


How do we account for this rare anomaly further north of the equator than normal? There's at least three factors that I'm aware of, and I'm ready to go over them right now.

1. Equatorial Solar Output


Contrary to popular belief, the equator isn't always the warmest/hottest area on Earth. That's based on the notion that, oh, yeah, it is indeed 0 degrees latitude... but the Earth's axis has a 23.5-degree tilt to it. So, with that in mind, we come across two 23.5-degree north and south latitude lines: the Tropic of Cancer to the north, and the Tropic of Capricorn to the south. Only during the Vernal and Autumnal Equinoxes does the Sun's energy reach the strongest at the equatorial region, and that's because, well, those are the transition zones between spring and fall. At the solstices, however, the Sun's peak energy is furthest away from the Equator. Which puts it, naturally, at either the Tropic of Cancer during the Northern Hemisphere Summer/Southern Hemisphere Winter, or the Tropic of Capricorn during the Southern Hemisphere Summer/Northern Hemisphere Winter. So, technically, the equator has not just one seasonal transition, but rather two summers and two winters that serve as very, very, very subtle transition periods.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere: The Northern Hemisphere summer solstice was, literally, on June 21. It's now July 2, which puts it... only 11 days ago! That means the Sun's peak energy is, at this time, farthest away from the Equator than normal. The result of this ― naturally ― is only a slight decrease in equatorial water temperatures but an increase in water temperatures north of the Equator, whose resulting low atmospheric pressure, due to tropical cyclogenesis, serves to drive runaway migration of warm El Niño waters northward. Ah, but that's not the only factor here.

2. The warm Gulf of California


Many people who talk about a "warm Gulf" often talk about the Gulf of Mexico... ah, but even if fewer people encounter it, the Gulf of California is just as warm. It's where all the American Monsoon's energy comes from, and because it's landlocked, it's often incredibly warm. Being surrounded by deserts, it's also impacted greatly by solar energy, to the point of evaporating faster than its surroundings and, thus, being more saline than the ocean to the south. The resulting evaporative density current, just like the Mediterranean's, has only one way to flow: out into the ocean, which in the case of the G. Cal., means southward.

So, what happens when these extremely warm Gulf waters meet equally warm El Niño waters? They intermingle, doubling the effect that they have north of the Equator, oh, yeah, and adding to the already abnormally low atmospheric pressure that El Niño contributes to this side of the Pacific (that's what's responsible for the El Niño trade winds weakening, mind you: abnormally high pressure over the West Pacific + abnormally low pressure over the East Pacific = weakened Trade Wind pressure gradient = weakened trade winds), which, again, is going to want to manifest itself, especially during the summer months, not on the equator but rather slightly north of it.


3. Disappearing Gulf of Alaska Ice


Back in February, I collected evidence that painted a rather grim picture when it comes to climate change and how it's poised to cause a boatload of problems. However, I'm going to describe that post in a nutshell: There wasn't enough rain last winter because the winter storms were bringing all the rain (surprisingly not all snow either; some of it was indeed actually rain) to Alaska. The reason why the storms were being forced north was because the Jet Stream was always to the north. The Jet Stream was always to the north because the waters off Alaska were abnormally warm. Ah, so why were the waters off Alaska (and particularly in the eastern Gulf of Alaska) abnormally warm? Because of all the disappearing glaciers in that region, glaciers that are crucial to the California Current's overall health.

See, the California Current is a density current. Melting glacial ice chills seawater. By chilling the seawater, the melting Alaskan ice also makes it denser. Being denser, it has this tendency to want to flow toward the less dense, and warmer, waters in the Mexican and Central American tropics. The Labrador Current in the Atlantic, in relation to the Gulf Stream, is driven by the same mechanism, only in the LC's case, it's melting Greenlandic ice, which has a much longer way to go to melt completely. So, what happens when all that glacial ice, crucial to keeping the ocean cold, starts disappearing too fast to sustain itself? The California Current weakens. In fact, if there ends up being absolutely no ice left, it can ultimately weaken to the point of shutting down ― which, of course, would give solar output free reign to superheat the waters directly off our coast. That can then go on to A, give the Mojave Desert thermal low more free reign to drag in an Indian Monsoon-style atmospheric river from directly off the Southern California coast (which can then go on to rapidly deepen it ― even this year, we're already feeling much higher humidity than normal due to the unusually high El Niño water temperatures, oh, yeah, and also seeing more powerful thermal low rotation over the Mojave Desert, and that certainly wouldn't go away with this worst-case scenario either), and B, give Mexican tropical cyclones more free reign to intensify and move northward ― perhaps the exact opposite of what the "mega-drought" alarmists once thought.

Conclusion


This isn't the first time an El Niño manifested itself in this fashion either. In 2009, scientists were just as skeptical during the summer months, due to, yeah, similar circumstances. The warm El Niño waters were centered just as far north of the equator as these... but it still ended up being a particularly powerful one. In modern times, the 2009-10 El Niño only came in second to the 1997-98 one in terms of its sheer power, and it was indeed a surprise to scientists. Why? Because again, the scientists were looking in the wrong place with that one as well. It's the case of, if it ain't right, look harder. There was indeed a similar California drought in 2009 as well... one that the El Niño of 2009-10 clearly erased.

I also must admit: seeing the lake that far below normal was indeed inspiration for me to start pulling out my Bible, and, for about an hour, praying that divine strength be given to the El Niño. Guess what? I get back from the trip, and, a day later, lo and behold, another Kelvin wave appeared, and within hours, made it all the way across the Pacific... Goes to show just how much of an ill effect atheism has had on these scientists, doesn't it? Anyhow, that's another topic for another post...

21 June, 2014

Maximum wage: The answer to Fiorinaism

Since becoming old enough to vote in 2011, clearly I've been trying to match the spiritual guidence of countless prayer, Bible study, and note-taking with political positions of candidates during election years. What are the results? Certainly nothing compared to the stigma involved with Christianity in politics and how most people who promote our values are the same ones who often corrupt government with private gain, that's for sure... and let's face it, under no circumstances is any political party going to be perfect, but in terms of my Christian values, neither the Democratic OR Republican parties is in any way even close.

On one hand are the Dems. I find it VERY surprising that Obama would claim to be Christian and yet continue to pass up issues like abortion, homosexuality, and radical Islam as if they're either A, okay, or B, something to ignore. That's definitely hypocrisy to say the least... then again, given how many Democrats are atheists to begin with, I'm even surprised there are people like Obama in there at all. Still, however, at least they do also believe in promoting other sane Christian values, like, oh, I don't know, caring for the poor and raising the minimum wage, which are indeed something we Christians should be trying to outdo them with.

On the other hand, what about the GOP? They're the ones who are often pushing for laws banning things like abortion and homosexuality ― which, both biblically AND scientifically, is a good thing ― but wait a minute, aren't they also the same bigots who are continuing to push for financial inequality? The ones who would rather triple their own salaries than keep Americans where they should be ― at work and getting paid ― only to go on to run for public office? Who would rather let our country go into default than give away (at least) their tithe in taxes to help the economy rebound itself? I can easily cite 1 Timothy 6:10, Matthew 6:24, Luke 6:24-26, Matthew 19:21-24, and John 2:15-16 as examples of why that's not only socially but also biblically wrong... and let's not forget all the legalistic judging (Matthew 7:1-5) that they often conduct on top of that, not to mention racism and (!) anti-Semitism in the most extreme of cases. Yeah, good job, you're literally TRYING to be neo-Pharisees!

The ideal Christian political party, from the most fundamental of levels, is one that ends up being both socially conservative AND fiscally liberal ― in fact, I'd go so far as to say democratically socialistic, as C.S. Lewis points out, while still retaining the stance against issues like abortion and homosexuality that make neither scientific nor biblical sense. On that end, however, let's get to the point of this blog post shall we?

Income taxes are often assessed not on flat levels, but on either progressive or proportional ones. The minimum wage, on the other hand, is always flat... ah, but wait, why isn't there a maximum wage? Hmmm? The way proportional income taxes are assessed should be a good clue on calculating it: it should be illegal for a CEO's wage to exceed 10 percent of the sum of payroll of ALL the labor force under the supervision of the CEO in question (in other words, if the company has 30,000 employees, for instance, then the maximum wage would be 0.1*(30,000*w), where w is the wage each employee earns). Which means, of course, that a CEO would have only two options if he or she were to outsource jobs and lay off workers: either reduce his or her own salary or face jail time.

Let's hope people get the message that BOTH parties are in the wrong here... and oh, yeah, let's hope people listen to what's going on. The crooked tactics here are obviously NEVER okay... ah, but it's up to us voters to make a difference, to petition the government, to run for office, and to really make sure we as a country are being the force for freedom that we intend to be.

18 June, 2014

Nexus 6: With LG out, could Samsung be in?

June 18, 2014. Amid all the rumors about another Nexus phone being unveiled at I/O this year (instead of the usual October/November launch seen in years past), which included a possible leak via the official "@Android" Twitter account, LG execs were asked whether or not they were constructing another Nexus phone. Naturally, of course, they responded with an emphatic 'NO'. Then again, we've got to take one thing into account here: LG doesn't design Nexus devices. Google does, and Google has free reign to choose whichever manufacturer they want to make the phones in question. That list of manufacturers can indeed include Samsung ― oh, yeah, and has in the past, let's not forget.

One strange detail that has been rather puzzling to many, of course, is that the supposed leak looks absolutely nothing like the GNex, Nexus 4, Nexus 5... or any other Nexus phone thus far. Instead, it looks very Galaxy S5-like ― and let's not forget, the G3 looks absolutely nothing like it. In fact, the LG G3 looks far more like the Nexus 5 than even the leak seemed to suggest ― which again, seems to point to someone else, most likely Samsung, being responsible for putting the design to use here. Not to mention, of course, that Samsung's hardware ― especially the camera and Exynos CPUs ― would make far more sense in a phone meant to show off a new version of Android than the G3's, which puts far more power into the display, bar none, than into the camera or internal components. Heck, if the rumors of some future version of stock Android offering the ability to shoot 4K UHD video are any indication, a 16-megapixel camera like the GS5's would appear to be the only way to go. Here, see the (possibly) leaked design, and how much more closely it resembles the Galaxy S5 than it does ANY older Nexae, for yourself:


Now I do indeed admit, when it comes to display technology, LG kills it here with a display that is itself beyond the resolution of HD... but let's be honest, when you start getting into beyond retina-quality pixel densities, the human eye can't tell the difference. No matter how close I get to my iPhone 4S, I can't see any pixels, even at 326ppi. The GS5's density, even at 1080p, is a whopping 432ppi, and the G3's is 534ppi. If the high density of Apple's Retina displays is alone higher than the human retina can process, than so would any density beyond that point also be. And, while 13 megapixels is indeed more than enough for 4K video (which is the equivalent of an 8.3-megapixel still), the frame rate (oh, yeah, and video quality) starts to drop dramatically when you start pushing a camera to its limits. Thus, a 16MP camera makes a little more sense for 4K video, which won't put as much strain on a 16MP camera as it will on a 13MP camera. As for the CPU, well, unfortunately, only the HSPA+ versions of the GS5 contain Exynos 5422 ("Infinity") CPUs. The LTE (VERY important when it comes to network speed) versions, however, contain Snapdragon 801's ― identical to what's in the G3.

It's certainly been a long time coming with skimpy cameras on Nexus devices, let's not forget. Remember how the Galaxy Nexus only had a 5-megapixel camera, despite introducing a boatload of changes to Android with ICS? How the Nexus 4's camera finally brought 8MP pics to Nexus devices, yet still had that same ugly purple lens flare that the iPhone 5 had? It wasn't until the release of the Nexus 5 that we finally had a decent camera in a Nexus device... ah, but let's face it, it's STILL only on par with what's in the iPhone 5/5C. Even then, however, I have to put this to the ultimate test here: it takes a photography critic ― this, let's not forget, is without HDR+ (which is Google's new way of making true HDR, and not just a half-baked approximation: using four cores and four CPU threads, the ability to compute multiple exposures in a parallel fashion when taking a pic and combine them together in real time just got that much easier), which really kind of nails it when it comes to taking awesome stills ― to actually tell the difference between the different pics side-by side: no ordinary, casual user is going to notice much of a difference at all. Camera differences aside, however, we're long overdue for the kind of camera overhaul that we've seen in third-party Android devices coming to the Nexus line, which only puts Samsung, with the highest-resolution camera on the market (and currently the only one that can shoot in 4K), at the top of the Nexus list once again. Bottom line: I would much rather sacrifice the display than sacrifice the camera when it comes to making devices affordable.

The awesome OIS+ technology offered in both the GS5 and G3 cameras is also something to think about, because yeah, multi-threaded noise reduction in low-light areas is something that's definitely needed in a Nexus device. For photographers and concert-videographers (a real torture test for my 4S, to say the least: dark room + loud music = recipe for disaster), this could come as an especially real benefit... Combine that with 4K video, and well, we could be looking at something that could give even the 5S a run for its money.

So, seems like a go to me. If LG is out, it would make all the sense in the world for Samsung to be in... ah, and as per the story on the 4S, well, again, I seriously hope AT&T is in as well (LONG overdue; the last Nexus phone AT&T offered as an upgrade option was the Nexus S), but given I/O is next week, we'll know soon enough, won't we? Feel free to use the comments and voice your opinions on whether Samsung is a good idea for another Nexus or not...

17 June, 2014

Surfers, Do Not Attempt: 5 common tsunami myths debunked

As a SoCal resident, I have indeed met some surfers who get rather overjoyed when the see the "entering tsunami hazard zone" signs, thinking, "Oh, good, I just have to wait for a quake and I've got a wave to ride". Well, that's precisely the problem. Below are some common myths people believe that are often exaggerated compared to reality, and as per the thoughts they stir in these people, just might get them killed.

Myth 1: Tsunamis are just like ordinary waves, but bigger.


Here's precisely what makes surfers in Hawaii often fail to heed tsunami warnings only to end up in a 10-minute-long rush of white water: A normal North Shore wave is a 30-by-300-foot wave, which just crashes and dies. A tsunami, on the other hand, is a 30-by-633,600-foot (120-mile) wave. That long wavelength is key: instead of just crashing and dying, a tsunami will keep coming in as a 5-to-15-minute-long torrent of seawater. So, you may be fine riding it out in the ocean... ah, but once you reach land, the tsunami won't stop. It'll keep coming, and before you know it your surfboard is suddenly a life preserver that you end up holding onto for dear life as the water keeps rushing in.

Myth 2: All waves — including tsunamis — look the same


Don't let this myth fool you either. The tsunami that left Japan in 2011 reached Hawaii in about 5 hours, but it subsided into a series of 10-foot swells. Yet despite their low height, they still had enough energy to, just like a flood and/or storm surge, devastate coastal towns and damage many buildings beyond repair. An episode of "Weather Caught On Camera" on the Weather Channel includes a piece of supposedly viral video documenting the rush of seawater that turned out to be the tsunami, which looked nothing like a wave at all, but rather a sort of flash flood of seawater that just kept coming.

Myth 3: All undersea earthquakes trigger tsunamis


It's not the shaking that triggers a tsunami, despite how strong it may feel. The seismic waves are too short and low to displace water. In order for a quake to generate a tsunami, a quake needs to cause permanent vertical deformation of the ocean floor. Meaning, of course, that a strike-slip fault like the San Andreas, where the tectonic plates slip past each other, would only cause horizontal displacement of the ocean floor, and thus, no tsunami. Subduction zones and thrust faults, on the other hand, do indeed cause permanent deformation of the ocean floor, and thus, a tsunami can indeed be triggered.

Myth 4: Earthquakes are the only tsunami triggers that exist


Many people assume that because earthquakes are the most common triggers, they must be the only triggers. Not so. In 1958, a strike-slip Fairweather Fault quake, registering 8.3 on the MMS, caused 40 cubic yards of rock to detach itself from a mountain lining Lituya Bay. Alaska. The slab slid into the bay at over 100 miles per hour, displacing enough water to cause a 1,720-foot wave in the bay.

In geologic and Neolithic history, however, there were some tsunamigenic landslide events far bigger than that one. Landslide debris carbon-dated to roughly 6000 BC, for example, detached itself from Mount Etna in Sicily — roughly 8 cubic miles, or approximately 43.6 billion cubic yards, of it, that is. The resulting wave, when plugged into computer models, that is, would have had initial heights of 165 feet in the open ocean (Lituya Bay was far shallower, which is why the wave was so much higher), enough to swamp countless Neolithic villages. The modern threat posed by the Cumbre Vieja volcano in the Canary Islands, as another example, consists of a 120-cubic-mile, or 654.2-billion-cubic-yard, block of debris just waiting to slide into the Atlantic. The tsunami generated by that could have initial heights of 2000 feet and, remote from its generation location, it could break up into a series of about 20 165-foot waves, enough to devastate the entire Eastern United States.

As if landslide triggers don't sound scary enough, there's also impact events. The asteroids that created the Chicxulub and Burckle Craters, for example, were big enough, and their impact plumes wide enough, to displace hundreds of cubic miles of pure ocean, generating tsunamis with initial heights of close to 10,000 feet (especially in the case of Burckle Crater, which, if my calculations are correct in my other post on it, displaced, at the very least, about 600 cubic miles of pure seawater; in the case of Chicxulub, the impact was in a shallow [less than 200-foot-deep] sea, not a 12,500-foot-deep ocean), and still 1000+ feet as they approached landmasses — enough to wipe entire countries off the map should repeats of these impacts happen today.

Myth 5: Earthquakes can impact California, but tsunamis can't


While the San Andreas Fault is indeed a strike-slip (which, let's face it, is indeed incapable of triggering a tsunami), other California faults sure aren't. Take the Puente Hills Fault, which was responsible for April's 5.1 in La Habra and could trigger a 7.5 directly under downtown Los Angeles if it rips entirely, for example: it's a blind thrust fault. That means, yeah, it's thrusting the Puente Hills, east of Los Angeles, upwards... and oh, yeah, it would take a very long time to rupture due to the large, long, shallow underground rupture area. In the event of a similar fault off the coast, underwater instead of on land, rupturing, that could cause a tsunami in proportions far out of range for its magnitude, which for the SoCal coast could be devastating.

As for remote tsunami sources, while the tsunami of Japanese origin in 2011 obviously didn't do much damage to American shores despite traversing the entire Pacific ocean, there are indeed sources much closer to home that can still trigger far distant tsunami damage effects. In 1964, for example, a 9.2 quake on the eastern edge of the Aleutian Trench triggered a tsunami which devastated Northern California, and Crescent City in particular... but even that isn't the most significant megathrust tsunami threat to SoCal. In that case, we could be looking at a 50-foot-plus tsunami that could reach SoCal in as little as 2 hours from its source: the Cascadia subduction zone.

The last time Cascadia ripped, triggering a quake that could have easily been about as big as Alaska's monster, was on January 26, 1700. The tsunami from that one was big enough that, oh, yeah, even Japan got swamped... and when a tsunami is generated, it doesn't just propagate in one direction, it propagates in all directions. According to computer models, a repeat of that one could cause a tsunami to reach San Francisco in 1 hour, Los Angeles in 2 hours... oh, yeah, and could easily cause in excess of $70 billion in damage to the entire West Coast of the United States, including the portion in California not affected by the quake itself. Yeah, I certainly wouldn't want to be on the beach when that happens...

Geologic Evidence Supporting Biblical Events, Part 3: Ringwoodite

Literally less than a week ago, scientists made a VERY important discovery: large quantities of hydrous ringwoodite, a mineral that, when water contacts it, undergoes a redox reaction: hydrogen dissociates from the water, which then goes on to protonate the mineral, and the resulting hydroxyl radicals get locked up in ionic bonds within it, locked between 400 and 700 miles within Earth's mantle. The volume of ringwoodite that these scientists were able to find turned out to be enormous: enough ringwoodite, according to estimates, to hold 3 world oceans' worth of water. That's enough ― naturally ― to easily cover all the continents up to the height of Mount Everest and STILL have a good 5,000 feet to spare, at least. And, when ringwoodite melts, the water dissolved in it is no longer soluble and escapes ― mostly, of course, as water vapor.

So, what happens when a large burst of heat and/or seismic energy is blasted into Earth's mantle through 2-mile-thin oceanic crust by an object like the Burckle impactor and directed straight towards the ringwoodite layer? Ringwoodite's chemical formula contains very large amounts of magnesium (very brittle), iron (not brittle by itself, but is compounds are indeed brittle), and silicon oxyanions (also, indeed, as brittle as, well, glass), making it, naturally, a VERY brittle material. Even if the impacting object's heat burst didn't flash-melt large amounts of it (which it probably would have), the seismic shockwave blasted through Earth's upper mantle by the impactor could easily, by the time it reached the ringwoodite layer, have separated out into a series of smaller seismic waves ― literally the equivalent of a magnitude-10 earthquake, possibly larger.

This shaking could easily, easily have resulted in fractures in the ringwoodite layer. Guess what happens when those fractures reach the layer of magma below the ringwoodite? The magma is going to want to find an outlet, and that's just what happens: it pushes its way through the ringwoodite cracks, releasing the water from it, oh, yeah, and causing it to buckle and fracture in even more locations due to the steam pressure, allowing more magma to then enter those cracks... Yeah, the end result, of course, is phreatomagmatic runaway ringwoodite breakdown, ultimately forcing all that water that was once locked up in the ringwoodite to gush right onto Earth's surface as either A, steam, or B, superheated water, which then goes on to fall as what could be as much as 1000 feet of rain per hour, all over the planet.

Add the tsunami, the hypercanes, and, well, everything else associated with the Burckle impact on top of this runaway process, and suddenly the story of Noah's flood doesn't sound so far-fetched after all, does it? Yeah, the amount of water locked up in the ringwoodite deposits is indeed cause for concern to say the least... ah, but then again, once that water was able to seep back into the ocean via Earth's subduction zones, the ringwoodite would have been able to re-form, slowly but surely sucking all that water back up again, where it got rediscovered almost 5000 years later, right now, in 2014.

So, ready to keep arguing with me? Call me an ignorant fool for being a Christian? We all know how that's already turning out, using ad hominem personal attacks, not to mention sock puppetry. Yeah, that's about all you're able to use (and thus how immature you're able to be) based on this kind of scientific evidence I'm providing, which, yeah, is the same kind of scientific evidence that others have been using in an attempt to attack and undermine my faith. I'm really not that stupid, and the very wording of this post is indeed proof of that, so bug off!

14 June, 2014

'Project Athena': Hera's Desktop Sister Project

UPDATE 7/18/2014: Google leaker-turned-employee Francois Beaufort managed to post a screenshot on Google+ of an early Athena build, and oh, yeah, it looks an awful lot like Android L:


Original post continues below.

June 14, 2014. Two months ago today, I turned 21... ah, and just yesterday, something else in the Chrome OS pipeline having been worked on, apparently, behind closed doors, for the past month or two, started leaching into bug reports and ultimately to the press: a clandestine Aura plugin being developed as a replacement for Ash, and code-named, to my ultimate surprise, "Project Athena". Right off the bat, that code name is suggestive of even more similarity between Chrome OS and Android in the near future than any of us could have imagined, as "Project Hera", Android's counterpart, is also a code name taken straight out of Greek mythology, and, as per the details that the press was able to receive, it's an effort to Chrome-ify Android by replacing Java with Dart and/or HTML5+JS as the programming languages of choice. The details in the bug reports and source code (which, BTW, is indeed already open), let's face it, only point to one thing: if Hera is the Chromification of Android, Athena is the Androidification of Chrome OS.

One detail in particular that suggests Athena would certainly be more Android-like than anything we've seen in the past are some classes defined in the C++ source code: athena::Activity and athena::ActivityManager, among others. What makes these classes so familiar to me, a registered Android developer, let's not forget, are the counterparts in Android's Java source code ― namely, android.app.Activity and android.app.ActivityManager ― which are, let's face it, completely identical to what we're seeing in the Athena source code. If the Hera rumors about Android completely relinquishing Java for HTML5, JavaScript, and Dart are to be believed, well, then we're talking about complete convergence on this most fundamental of levels here... at least from a developer's standpoint.

Ah, but that's not the only Android-like change. Enter Overview Mode. Currently, Overview Mode is far from Android-like ― I would seriously compare it more to Apple's old Exposé (before it became Mission Control, that is) than to anything even remotely close to Android ― ah, but let's review the changes suggested in the bug reports and source code, shall we? The changes listed and/or hinted to in the comments include A, drop shadows behind windows (like the drop shadows in Android's app switcher), and B, a scrollable window list (which literally screams Android to me; ever since ICS, the recent app list has always been, depending on whether the device is in portrait or landscape orientation, either a horizontal or vertical list that you have to scroll back and forth through to switch apps). Now even the user interfaces are starting to look similar, aren't they?

But wait! There's more! Mentioned in the bug reports is a home screen interface code-named Ares. The developers' wording certainly doesn't refer to it as a desktop like most of them do for the current Ash interface, to say the least. The developers actually refer to it as a (!) launcher, which in Chrome OS, has so far only been used to refer to the little menu pulled up when you click that button with the 9-square icon in the bottom-left corner... ah, but for someone used to using launchers in Android back in the 2010-2012 years (before unfortunately settling for an iPhone 4S due to AT&T's lack of Nexus carriage ― oh, well), this strange detail should raise eyebrows in excitement. Why? Because only in the context of Android has anyone, I repeat ANYONE, ever in the history of Google, used the terms "home screen" and "launcher" interchangeably the way they do in that bug report... until now. Heck, the publicity of Android launchers in particular was pushed to new heights in the fall of 2013 / first half of 2014, let's not forget, by the release of the Nexus 5, which Google debuted their own launcher on, only to subsequently release it into the Play Store for all Nexus and GPE devices. Launchers, in that specific context, have always been used to refer to Android home screens. But, it seems, thanks to Athena, we could have a plethora of launchers for Chrome OS as well in the near-future, in part due to the very context that the developers use the word "launcher" in ― even more suggestive of convergence, to say the least.

Even the window manager, according to this now-implemented feature request, is getting a face-lift. Right now, Chrome OS window decorations are certainly minimalistic, to say the least. There's the basic window controls on the top right, but then, in terms of the entire rest of the window frame, nope, nothing. Tabs are where not just some but all of the identification of a Web page currently lies ― that is, the labels and icons that identify the windows in question. Thus far, only pop-ups actually have the icon and name identifying the page in their window frames... ah, but the mock they're describing in this bug report, along with the changes committed, seems to change all that (and extend that functionality to normal windows as well, not just pop-ups) by placing both the icons and the labels identifying each window and/or Web page not in the tab, but in the window frame ― literally, just like OS X and Windows.

On top of all of the above, there also seems to be evidence suggesting an app launcher that allows access to not only apps, but also emails, music, videos, Google Contacts, and Calendar events at a glance, without having to go into the apps in question, in a vaguely Ubuntu-like manner. Back in the ICS and JB days (ah, but not in KitKat), Android too had, in addition to its Apps tab, a Widgets tab... and now it definitely looks like Google may be replacing, in both Hera AND Athena, the Widgets tab, having been removed from KitKat, with Mail, Music, Videos, Contacts, and Calendar tabs that behave the same way, not to mention possibly opening it up to third parties to add their own at-a-glance info. How do I know it's not just voice search? Because the class being extended/inherited by the "DummyItem" class being defined in the referenced file ― "public app_list::AppListItem", which is defined here ― is the very class that actually defines just that: the front-ends that allow apps to display themselves in the launcher to begin with, making it the app launcher's core feature. Let's be clear: voice search is defined somewhere else. It would extend that class, NOT this one, if only voice search alone were affected by this change.

So, based on these strange details, we may be looking at a potential OS X/Android mash-up hitting our Chromebooks in the next couple of months... ah, but given that I'm running a Canary build, the code commits in question suggest that a hands-on for my Chromebook (especially if Athena is made the default in 38, which seems likely at this rate ― right now, I'm on 37) could be imminent. Stay tuned for a hands-on, and yup, I'll be Chromecasting I/O as well, to see if there'll be any demos on it.

12 June, 2014

Nexus or Nothing: 2012's AT&T upgrade catch-22 that made me get an (old) iPhone

Alright, let's be clear: As much as I love Google, there are some things about carriers, and AT&T in particular, in regards to lack of timely mobile OS updates, that really, really, REALLY piss me off. That was totally true from 2010-2012, i.e. the Moto Flipside years. My phone was stuck on FROYO, of all operating systems, despite Jelly Bean already being out in 2012. So, when I was finally eligible for an upgrade, I was, temporarily, ecstatic about a mobile device upgrade when I learned that a phone AT&T was already carrying ― the LG Optimus G ― was going to serve as the basis for what would turn out to be the Nexus 4, so I thought, 'Maybe AT&T will offer the Nexus 4 as well'. Man, was I wrong!

There were indeed a few options, including the Atrix HD, that first looked like they might work... ah, but wait, despite the Atrix HD being on ICS at the time of the upgrade in 2012, it wasn't scheduled to even get Jelly Bean MR0 (let alone MR1, which is what the Nexus 4 had) until 2013, and, if the searches are to be believed, I literally just Googled it a few days ago, and, to my utter dismay, it STILL doesn't have KitKat. And here I thought Motorola (especially as it was under Google's management) was the one vendor who got an A+ on ComputerWorld's Android report card. Yeah, this proves that wrong in a heartbeat... Either AT&T gets an F for timely Android OS updates, or Motorola, when it comes to their AT&T lineup in particular, only gets a B. Not the least bit cool.

The release date came and went. Only T-Mobile was offering the Nexus 4 on contract. Ugh! I was literally, before my parents started seriously bugging me out of it (especially with my mother's retiree discount; she literally worked for AT&T for 31 years prior to 2003 and so is able to get a discounted upgrade price and/or phone bill), on the verge of switching carriers. Then, I thought, 'Wait a minute, even though Google lets carriers and OEMs get in the way of Android upgrades, Apple sure doesn't when it comes to iOS upgrades'. Reluctantly, I gave an iPhone 4S (a year old at the time, thus only being $99 on contract, versus the $299 PLUS a contract I would have had to pay if I got a Nexus 4 since it wasn't an upgrade option) a shot. Ah, at least it's got iOS 7.1 (and will be getting iOS 8 this fall) despite being 3 years old (the same age, believe it or not, as the Flipside was in 2012).

The transition was far from smooth, however. Aside from the iPhone, everything else of mine is Google gear. A Chromebook. A Chromecast. Google apps galore that literally double the space used on this poor little 4S, which performance wise is buckling under the performance stress and losing battery life tremendously. Meanwhile, this Chromebook I'm typing on (an Acer C720-2802) is screaming through an up-to-date version of Chrome OS, and, to the phone's dismay, even the old AC700 prior to last Christmas had outstanding up-to-date Chrome OS performance. Oh, and yeah, despite the plethora of Google content ― including Play Music, which all the major record labels still support ― now available for iOS, there's still some private music vendors ― notably Jesus Culture (and their Reconstructed album ― which, of all things, is precisely what I personally believe normal worship music should be today: Christian dubstep) ― that unfortunately still haven't gotten on the Google Play train, despite how easy it is to get a Play Artist Hub running (as easy as it is for the Dev Portal). And even then, most of these apps (notably Google Now and Google Play Music) only came to iOS in 2013; in 2012, nope, there was absolutely nothing.

Now, of course, it's 2014... which means, in addition to being 3000 miles away from home (SoCal), in Florida, for Christmas this year (thanks to an awesomely generous paternal uncle of mine), it'll also be time for yet another upgrade. According to rumors, it appears the Nexus 6 will be released earlier than most of the others have (at I/O), not to mention Google's official Android Twitter account seems to have leaked it... ah, but given the overhaul that Project Hera appears to be bringing to Android's most fundamental structure (easily enough API breakage to make it a 5.0 release), nope, not too surprising. According to rumors, it'll be functionally identical to the G3 ― a 13MP camera with 4K recording, along with the same ultra-high-res screen that the G3 has ― yet fundamentally different from a design standpoint. As for carriage, well, let's make some noise in support of AT&T finally being announced as an official (NOT unofficial) carrier at I/O, shall we? Everyone, I'm using this blog to petition AT&T to carry the Nexus 6 for a change. The last Nexus device AT&T carried was the S, so in all honesty, they're LONG overdue for carriage of another one... So, let the blog traffic, the comments, the cries, and the screams begin!

11 June, 2014

Mobile app development: Apple locks you in; Google locks you out

If this sounds like a rant, I apologize, but seriously: My iOS developer friends get all the perks of desktop and mobile operating systems playing very well with each other... which, I suppose, is precisely why Apple's app store got off to such a head start despite the Play Store surpassing and ultimately superseding it, and also probably why developers almost always release iOS apps first, then Android apps later, despite Android being cheaper and having less barriers to entry to develop for. So why am I, as a registered Android developer, being kept from doing the same with my Chromebook?!

To put this into perspective: those who do develop iOS apps NEED a Mac to do it. Apple (unfortunately) won't give any Windows, Linux OR Chrome OS users an Xcode version to use, which is indeed a shame given that A, Windows users definitely have access to both iTunes and Safari, and B, Macs (unfortunately for 80% of Americans) cost an absolute fortune compared to all the other offerings out there, which is precisely why Mac sales appear to be on the decline compared to Chromebook sales (which makes sense given how dirt-cheap most Chromebooks are). Regardless, however, it only makes sense given how Mac users almost always would choose iPhones for their mobile devices, so likewise, it only makes sense for them to get the first (but not only) pick on the developer tools.

On the other hand, Google appears to support every OS EXCEPT their own for Android development. Windows is supported. OS X (!) is supported. Linux distributions like Ubuntu are supported, but to every Chromebook user's dismay, Chrome OS, the one and only desktop OS that Google maintains and updates many orders of magnitude more frequently (every 6 weeks) than Android, is at the same time the only one that isn't supported by Android's developer tools, despite Android also being developed by Google. It's as if Google just wants to in every way, shape, and form make their OSes, by far, very easy for the end user, all the while making developers scream by forcing them to chroot-in Crouton (and thus worry about the nasty system overhead and performance problems involved with running one entire OS on op of another entire OS ― it's a HUGE performance drag, not to mention HUGE drain on precious battery life) just to get coding.

Don't get me wrong, Google's products definitely have potential for playing well with each other, to say the least. The biggest change offering at least some hope for Chromebook-owning Android developers came with their Mobile Chrome apps initiative in December of 2013 (and hopefully "Project Hera" is actually taking that and using it to rewrite Android ― then again, we'll know at Google I/O, won't we?), where they released a series of PhoneGap plugins to allow easy conversion of HTML5, JavaScript, CSS3, Google's Chrome-specific JavaScript APIs, and Dart bytecode to native code for execution on mobile devices and publication to app stores... ah, but all hope was lost when Google decided, instead of porting the Android developer tools/JDK to Native Client and getting it over with, to make the Android SDK a mere dependency of the Cordova plugins and, thus, continue to lock Chromebook users out. Heck, even if Google's Android team rewrote Android using Dart, well, they STILL would be leaving Chromebook users in the dust, since the Dart SDK also locks Chromebook users out of its list of supported platforms besides.

So, anyone with me on this? Let's make sure Google hears the developers' voices on this matter, because, bottom line, if iOS developers are locked INTO Macs, we Chromebook users, at the very least, should NOT be locked OUT OF Chromebooks.

Geologic Evidence Supporting Biblical Events, Part 2: Underwater Eden

People have sought out the so-called "earthly paradise" for millennia, let's be honest. From the medieval crusaders, to Christopher Columbus, to Juan Ponce De Leon, they've all circled the globe in search of one of the most puzzling biblical mysteries: the Garden of Eden. Little did they know, they were ALL looking in the wrong places. The Bible mentions four rivers flowing into the garden to water it: Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel, and Euphrates. The mention of the Euphrates, of course, suggests somewhere in the Middle East... ah, but wait, don't the Euphrates and Tigris (which the Bible calls Hiddekel) flow not into a garden but into the Persian Gulf? And where are the other two rivers?

Well, according to LANDSAT satellite data, there is indeed a "fossil river" (now known as the Wadi Batin) that flows out of what we now know to be Saudi Arabia, and a dammed river ― the Karun ― which used to flow into the Persian Gulf from the Zagros Mountains in Iran. Ah, could these be the missing Pison and Gihon rivers? If the Wadi Batin is the Pison ("gold" definitely seems to be suggestive of the color of Saudi sands), then where's the Gihon at? The Hebrew word that for centuries has been mistranslated as "Ethopia" is really "Cush" or "Gush" in romanized form, and, wait, it appears to be a loanword from Sumerian, where "Kashshu" is the correct spelling. This leads us to a people known as the Kassites, who are hypothesized to have conquered Sumer/Babylon during the 15th century BC out of the east ― possibly right out of Iran's Zagros Mountains. Ah, now that would make the Karun River the biblical Gihon, wouldn't it? Now we're getting somewhere.

We have to take into account, however, that there was a time ― about 7000 BC ― when the Younger Dryas period went into effect (possibly caused by the air burst of a large object such as an asteroid or comet), literally reinstating the ice age for another millennium or two. The result? The sea level was a good 400 feet lower than it is today, and glaciers would have been able to form at much lower altitudes, such as in the Zagros Mountains and in the highlands of northern Saudi Arabia, the melting of which would have fed the rivers in question. So, with the low sea level in mind, we come to our next question: just how shallow is the Persian Gulf?

The answer: VERY shallow, according to some data I was able to find... if the data is correct, the entire Persian Gulf is on one giant continental shelf, which would make it only about 200 feet deep at the most. That means... Yup, the Persian Gulf was at one point a fertile valley fed by glacial melt. Then again, oh, yeah, its floor is a VERY flat floodplain. When the sea level rose rapidly as the glaciers began to quickly recede when the last remnants of the Ice Age ended (about 6000 BC), it reached a critical point where it could just push its way across the entire plain in the same kind of free reign that tides can freely cross the Bay of Fundy today. The result, of course, is just that ― a flood, taking the form of what would appear to be a massive tidal bore as the fast-flowing melt-river is shoving itself against the seawater that it's contributing to the rise of, which would have quickly overwhelmed what was once the earthly paradise:


So, yup, there you have it. What was once the garden of Eden is now the bottom of the Persian Gulf... ah, and it's definitely not a garden anymore, now is it? The water would have been flooding the area about as quickly as it flooded the Black Sea (only not across a natural dam like the Bosporus but rather through a narrow strait ― the Strait of Hormuz ― that would have channeled the rising seawater to an unusually high amplitude as it pushed against the outgoing glacial melt), forcing the inhabitants to flee to higher ground and/or inland. Alright, that's two events down; you thirsty for more?!

06 June, 2014

Geologic Evidence Supporting Biblical Events, Part 1: Burckle Crater

The flood story in the Bible, I must admit, is indeed a very eyebrow-raisingly implausible one from a scientific standpoint. Rain for 40 days and 40 nights is nowhere near enough to cause a worldwide flood capable of wiping out entire continents catastrophically, to say the least. Not to mention, of course, that there indeed are no "fountains of the deep" or "windows/floodgates of heaven" that scientists know about anywhere on Earth that they're aware of. The "windows/floodgates [both equally valid Hebrew translations] of heaven", at least, don't seem to appear anywhere, unless, of course, you're using the claim to talk about the Black Sea flood... ah, but a scientific discovery made some years ago, 12,500 feet beneath the South Indian Ocean, does indeed give new meaning to the "fountains of the deep" claim.

May 10, 2807 BC (according to a Sumerian planisphere object similar to another one that documented the Kofels air burst, when plugged into computer models). An asteroid the size of Mount Rainier, according to scientific estimates, slams into the South Indian Ocean, approximately 1000 miles east-southeast of Madagascar, at more than 50,000 miles per hour. It flies into the ocean at such a high rate of speed that even after displacing the ocean above, it goes on to kick up an impact plume to sub-orbital trajectories, and this impact plume then picks up the displacing of water right where the asteroid itself left off. Ultimately, the resulting crater (known to geologists as Burckle Crater) grows to a staggering 18 miles across, at the bottom of a 12,500-foot-deep section of ocean, the water-displacing impact plume (and by extension the very section of ocean having been displaced by the impact) thus bearing the same radius.

So, I'm using this opportunity to put my hard-earned geometry skills to use. The formula, according to math books, for the volume of a cylinder is A=πr2h, so with that in mind, let's do the math here. To get the radius, we must divide the 18 miles of crater width by 2, giving us 9. Ah, but then, to convert miles to feet, we must multiply 5,280 by 9, which gives us a 47,520-foot radius. Using the formula on it, we get: π*(47,520)2*12,500 = approximately 88.6 trillion cubic feet, or 602.4 cubic miles, of displaced water. Compare that with the volume of rock currently detaching itself from Spain's Cumbre Vieja volcano, which is only estimated to be 120 cubic miles, and yup, you get the picture. The volume of water displaced by the Burckle impact can amount to many orders of magnitude more than that which will be displaced by the Cumbre Vieja landslide when it finally gives way, and that much water displacement is enough to generate a tsunami about half as tall as the ocean is deep, especially when you factor the speed and depth of the volume of water that is displaced.

Remember, however: This volume calculation doesn't even begin to take into account the lateral displacement, only that which is vertical. Lateral displacement can easily add a good 100 extra cubic miles of water on top of that which is already factored in by this vertical displacement calculation. Remember, even though all tsunamis involve whole-water-column movement, those generated by earthquakes, landslides, and pyroclastic flows don't have nearly enough energy to completely part the abyss dry. Only impact events have this special character, one of parting a large circle of the entire water column in a vaguely Red Sea-like manner, forcing all that water that used to be in that circle to expand skyward. That's obviously poised to result in displacement far more massive than anything we've ever seen.

That amount of water that is forced to expand vertically is absolutely enormous... and let's remember, even the wave that was generated in the same ocean some 5000 years later, by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, had enough energy to be detected in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans by tsunami buoys. A wave on the Burckle impact scale, by comparison, would have absolutely no contest given these calculations. You'd be looking at something capable of wiping out large swaths of entire continents tens to twenties of thousands of miles away, knocking over mountains with tremendous force... oh, yeah, and killing tens of millions of Earth's inhabitants of that time, billions if it happened today. What many of the models that doubt the tsunami obviously fail to take into account, let's not forget, is the effect the impact plume has on exacerbating the volume of water already displaced by the asteroid itself.

Even if the chevrons found in Madagascar aren't tsunami deposits, if they're impact debris deposits as the scientists often suggest, we have to take into account the effect a tsunami that followed the debris (likely traveling far slower) would have on shaping them in the fashion they have been shaped in. Tsunamis push everything up in front of them. If there were no tsunami, according to the models, the deposits would have very gradual slopes, and if they were eroded by something else, say, gradually over time, we would see steep cliffs similar to those edging Arizona's awesome geologic features. Neither of these appear to be the case. The deposits in Madagascar are large plateaus 600 feet high, and they're uniquely shaped ― gradually sloped on the ocean side, and on the land side, they slope at perfect 45-degree angles. Slow erosion doesn't do that. It takes a tsunami, it takes a MEGA-tsunami, to shape the deposits in that unique fashion by pushing up one side of the already laid-down debris like a bulldozer, all the while flattening the side closer to the coast.

On top of that, impact events and debris plumes also contribute something else to the ocean that can be very catastrophic: heat. This heat can result in another phenomenon that scientists use all too often to talk about what may have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, especially in this catastrophic form: a hypercane. Or several, for that matter. Remember, it's not just the impact site itself that can be easily superheated. It's also the ejecta fallout radius, which can be a good thousand or two miles across. Which, of course, means we'd be looking at debris falling on both sides of the Equator, heating large swaths of ocean and catalyzing the formation of incredibly destructive storms that go on to ravage the region long after the tsunami subsides.

So, like how this series is starting off? This is only the start of what I've got going as a series of demonstrations of the kind of evidence often underplayed by skeptics. Ready for more? This is not the end, it's only the beginning of what I have in store for the dissemination of evidence that, when put together, is enough to flick the legs that even the most atheist of atheists have to stand on right out from under them.

03 June, 2014

Five OS X Yosemite features Chrome OS already has

Alright, now that we're between the WWDC and Google I/O keynotes, we sure have seen quite a bit. Apple unveiled two new operating systems, iOS 8 and OS X Yosemite... ah, and this time, with iOS having gotten the redesign treatment last year, this year, it was the Mac's turn to face the Iverhaul. Definitely cool to say the least... but then again, while there were some unique features in tow for the Mac, others sounded very familiar to us Chromebook users. I know of a few of them in particular that seem to really stand out.

1. Front-and-center Spotlight


Let's face it: The awesome desktop search behemoth known as Spotlight has indeed been a feature that Mac users have enjoyed for a solid 9 years and 2 months, and all the while hasn't changed a bit... until now. Then again, ever since its initial release, the competition ― led by Google and Microsoft ― have slowly one-upped it, and Chrome OS's implementation, thanks to a few flags, has led the pack. It therefore only makes sense for it to receive an overhaul... ah, but the overhaul revealed by Apple seems all too familiar for us Chrome OS users:


How is this familiar to us, exactly, you may ask? Well, a flag that just entered the Stable Channel with the release of Chrome OS 35 (and thus has been accessible to me, a Canary user, for a couple of months) has indeed offered the ability to reposition the app launcher in the center of the screen:


And did I mention this search box has Google Now-style voice search along with the "OK, Google" hotword (so far, "Hey, Siri" is only in iOS, and only in a beta release... ah, the irony) as well, making it even more powerful than OS X's Spotlight? You bet:


Then again, 2 months isn't nearly enough time for Apple to see that as something to intentionally copy, especially if it's still an experimental feature that not too many people use, leaving a window out there for mere coincidence, so I digress.

2. Notification Center cards widgets


Ah, the Notification Center. Right from the start, it was a clear ripoff of Android's implementation... and then iOS 7 came along, where all of a sudden, we had what looked to be a clear copycat of Google Now. By that time, however, Google Now had been available for Android AND iOS! Ah, and then Chrome's implementation came along with the stable release of Chrome 33, way back in March of 2013. Now that it's June, it appears Apple is copying Chrome's implementation of Google Now in OS X too:


Now, of course, it's time to demo Google's counterpart, which in Chrome OS, except for its trigger location (at the bottom of the screen), is nearly identical:


Yeah, thought you might enjoy that. I've been enjoying it since January, a full 6 months before OS X Yosemite was unveiled.

3. Google iCloud Drive


This new feature indeed seemed VERY familiar to me, a Chromebook user, to say the least. I almost laughed my head off through the whole presentation of iCloud integration in Apple's Finder:


So why was I laughing? Because I've had the ability to do that with Google Drive (which clearly is Google's alternative to iCloud) since Chrome OS 20, way back in 2012:


Not to mention, of course, that Google has indeed been working on a chrome.fileSystemProvider JavaScript API since June of 2013. What's that supposed to do? Allow third parties to offer their own online storage services via Chrome extensions to the file manager... Yeah, seeing a full year of work suddenly get ripped off by Apple? Please. You know better than that.

4. Large Attachments: Enter Google Drive's Gmail integration


This really isn't something entirely unique to Chrome OS that Apple decided to rip off; after all, it's through Gmail's web interface that this is possible, but let's see, what do we have here? Well...



... Yeah, Apple demonstrating how to easily and securely send large files via iCloud sounded like déjà vu to me, given how long I as a Chromebook user have been able to do this... and let's be honest, all you need to do is pull up Gmail in ANY browser, and you can do the same thing: Just hover over that "+" in the bottom left corner next to the paper clip, and the first option you'll see for attaching files is one to do it via Google Drive, where they can be as large as you want them, as long as they're not too big for your quota, which for me ― thanks to the free storage that came with my Chromebook ― is a whopping 115GB. Yeah, and Mac users only get 5... So, lucky me, I can send files 23 times bigger than Mac users can, even when Yosemite goes public.

5: Dedicated private-browsing windows: Uh, yeah, just press Ctrl+Shift+N

What does that do? Well...


... Yeah, exactly what it says: opens a dedicated window comprised entirely of Incognito (Google's equivalent to Apple's Private Browsing feature) tabs. It's been that way ever since Chrome's inception: Incognito tabs, by default, are always kept in windows separate from their non-incognito counterparts; the two are never allowed to intermingle. This obviously makes it incredibly easy to distinguish which tabs are being tracked by third parties (and by Google) and which ones aren't, because rather than having incognito and normal tabs in the same window, where the margin for the error of copy/paste from an incognito to a non-incognito tab (and vice versa) is very high, no matter how many URLs you copy and paste into a Chrome incognito window, as long as you paste them into the same window they'll remain incognito. Yeah, much better model indeed.

That's it for now; 5 is good enough, but it's clearly amazing what features we take for granted, because you never know what kind of awesomeness even Mac users are just now beginning to discover, far behind us.

29 May, 2014

Miracles: I'm sorry, we Christians aren't the only ones who believe in them...

Aside from the claims of the problem of evil in the world (which I indeed ace in arguments), probably the number 2 stumbling block to the faith, bar none, has to be the problem of the often far-fetched beliefs we Christians have. "Really? The dead can come to life?" they often ask. And they do indeed have some good points... but let's face it? Who's asking the question? People who often believe things that, if true, would be hundreds, thousands, even millions of times more miraculous than things like the resurrection of Jesus and/or Exodus, bar none.

Take Darwinism, for example. Christianity and Darwinism do indeed have a lot in common, do they not? Both cases involve belief that somehow, in one way or another, dead matter ― that is, mere chemicals ― can somehow come together to become complex and eventually come to life. Likewise, the order (but NOT the duration) of Darwinian events ― the Big Bang (Genesis 1:3), the formation of the skies and oceans (Genesis 1:6), the formation of continents (Genesis 1:9), the formation of plant life to remove CO2 from the atmosphere (Genesis 1:11), the Cambrian Explosion (Genesis 1:20a), the formation of life on land (Genesis 1:24), and, finally, the rise of mankind (Genesis 1:26) ― is indeed echoed to a good 99.9% accuracy in the Bible. Really, the only, I repeat ONLY, difference between Christianity and Darwinism is that we Christians believe in a catalyst FOR these events, and that's God. Darwinists don't.

Right there, we hit a snag: Belief that dead matter (and, by extension, the dead) can come to life on its own, without a catalyst, without a creator, is belief in something millions of times more miraculous than belief that there is a God who CAN make that happen, and who CAN make the conditions favorable for it to happen. We Christians know that blind Darwinism ― without any catalyst (like a God) to somehow keep it in check ― is statistically, logically, and mathematically impossible. The odds of all that dead matter ― all those mere chemicals ― becoming life, if there is no God, are odds that are not only mind-boggling but computer-boggling, supercomputer-boggling, data-center-boggling, GPGPU-boggling, and boggling to just about any intelligence ― natural and artificial ― that we human beings can possibly conjure up. Odds that only make sense at all ― really ― if there's a God to manipulate those odds and spin them to our benefit. Without a God, there's obviously a near-perfect chance Earth would still have that same dead matter today as it did billions of years ago.

Yeah, it is indeed a miracle that this Earth is in such a perfect Goldilocks environment for life to form, there's no doubt... Scientists have indeed been looking for other Earth-like planets, and they've indeed found ones thought to have Earth-like Goldilocks orbits around other stars... ah, only to find them to move out of their Goldilocks orbits and either toward or away from their suns in elliptical fashions. Which, right there, puts Earth in a category of its own: Earth's orbit, compared to these others, is so close to being circular, there's almost no contest... Whether at aphelion or at perihelion, Earth is still within that perfect habitable zone, which it has to be for life to form. This, of course, just made the odds of finding extrasolar life that much slimmer, because all the exoplanets they've ever found that orbit in Goldilocks zones have orbits far more elliptical than Earth's, making the temperatures fluctuate too dangerously to be stable enough for life to form. Without a God, there's a good chance Earth's orbit would be just as elliptical ― and, thus, too climatically unstable for life to exist ― as theirs.

The proton-proton chain odds prove a similarly perfect-balance type scenario: The Sun's matter-to-energy conversion rate (thanks to the proton-proton chain) is at a perfect 0.7%, and with good reason: Decrease that figure by a tenth of a percent, to 0.6%, and plug it into computer models, and you get a grim picture: even if the atoms fused at first, the energy needed to sustain the reaction wouldn't exist, and thus, the fusion reaction would be very short-lived and, thus, unable to sustain itself. On the contrary, increase it to 0.8%, and the fusion reaction gives off enough of the matter as energy to render stellar and/or supernova nucleosynthesis impossible, and, by extension, render hydrogen the only matter that could exist in such a scenario. Without a God, this degree of perfection needed to make the universe fit for our existence ― let alone survival ― would indeed be statistically impossible.

All across the board, scientists are finding these statistically impossible scenarios, yet they continue to ignore them. It's as if they're saying "Oh, I know the odds of us not existing without a God are nearly 100%, but I don't believe in God anyway". Ah, and that's precisely why I can be a geek and yet a believer at the same time: because as a Christian, I actually have a logical, philosophical explanation for these odds, and of one who's able to spin those odds to our benefit. If only the world would just see that...

26 May, 2014

More Evidence For The Impending 2014-15 El Niño: Hurricane Amanda

Alright, it's now Memorial Day, 2014. Yesterday, I had some fun with fellow worshippers at Strands Beach in Dana Point, CA, when I noticed the waves were quite large. Certainly was fun riding them... ah, but then again, wipeouts were indeed common in that high surf. I had more fun after that, headed home, and went to bed. I woke up the next morning to check the trending social media topics, only to hear that there's already the unthinkable lurking about 200 miles south-southwest of Cabo San Lucas: a major East Pacific hurricane, whose name is Amanda, AKA the first storm of the entire season. What was really shocking, however, was that today wasn't Amanda's strongest day.

Just how major is Hurricane Amanda, exactly? Today, her sustained winds are howling at 134mph, making Amanda a Category 4 storm. Yesterday at 8AM, however, the winds whipping around Amanda's eye were beyond belief: sustained at 155mph, gusts to 170mph. That puts Amanda 2mph away from an unthinkable Category 5 (apparently the Saffir-Simpson scale has been adjusted to push Cat. 5 up to 157mph... Oh, well) in May.

Looking at Amanda's track, we find something unbelievably striking: absolutely explosive tropical cyclogenesis, about twice as fast as Katrina's:


Notice how short Amanda's track is. Amanda's storm track length is almost identical to her feeder band radius! Also, those triangles indicate mere tropical storm strength. According to the sources that the Wikipedia article that image was pulled from cites, Amanda intensified from tropical storm to near-Category 5 hurricane in an unthinkably small amount of time: exactly 24 hours. Meaning, of course, that Amanda intensified almost as fast as Wilma! To see that happen THIS early in the hurricane season is almost unheard of. I'm surprised Amanda hasn't hit the record books as the most rapidly growing pre-season East Pacific storm on record.

There's a clear reason for these unusually favorable conditions that support this unbelievably explosive intensification, however: Back in April, an unusually large amount of warm West Pacific water from the area around the Phillipines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and/or Thailand began to spill over onto this side of the Pacific. Translation: An El Niño is brewing. In fact, it's not only brewing, but it's the fastest-growing, and, by the time it matures, potentially strongest, El Niño on record, according to forecast models by meteorologists. In terms of this kind of explosive tropical cyclogenesis, this may be grounds for a repeat of either 1939 or potentially even 1858, should the exceptionally warm El Niño waters rapidly deepen more storms near this season's peak, in July, August, or (especially) September.

In fact, a repeat of 1939 almost happened the last time an El Niño reached destructive levels: in 1997. What storm was the culprit then? Hurricane Linda. At their peak, Linda's winds were only 30mph faster than her younger sister Amanda's, at 185mph... ah, and at one certain point, Linda was actually briefly forecast to make landfall right near Long Beach as a potentially 50mph tropical storm:


What's remarkable about Linda's track is how much it resembles Amanda's, to a degree: she started out small, then, while moving very slowly over exceptionally warm East Pacific waters, explosively intensified... ah, but right after that forecast, the trough that was expected to pull Linda toward California failed to reach as far south as anticipated, allowing Linda to move further out to sea than expected, thus saving SoCal from potential disaster.

Given how much of a drought we Californians are in, however, a tropical storm or minimal hurricane would actually do our agricultural industry some good... by bringing back some of the water our previous winter storm season failed to deliver enough of. Then again, there's a double-edged sword in that regard due to the damage winds and, especially, rain and storm surge flooding, not to mention mudslides in burn areas, can do to buildings, so we'll see what happens.

12 May, 2014

Shroud of Turin: Why the 8.1-8.2 quake described in Matthew 28:2 could have easily created the image

The claims that earthquakes can fission iron into aluminum and create neutrons in the process is a truly outlandish one, I agree. Especially when you consider that most quakes don't do that, and we haven't really seen evidence from modern quakes that suggest that kind of piezonuclear fissioning occurring... but remember, not all major quakes are created equal, either. There's several factors here that all come together to play a part, and most modern quakes are really set apart from this one due to their location and frequency. Some of those factors — availability of iron to fission, potential for supershear, proximity to the fault in question, and underground encavement — are all factors that can determine how much pressure a quake exerts on rocks.

Let's start with the obvious:

Iron: Abundant in deserts, scarce in oceans


The majority of earthquakes over magnitude 8 — including the ones capable of sending tsunamis across entire oceans — are what are called megathrust quakes, which occur on subduction zones, where one tectonic place subducts, or slides under, another. Right there, we have a stumbling block to the stresses sufficient to cause piezonuclear neutron generation: subduction zones are incapable of forming on land. When a continent slams into another continent, you don't get a subduction zone, you get a Himalayan-style super-high fold mountain chain, and that's because continental crust is far thicker than oceanic crust. Iron, as we all know, is easily oxidized to water-soluble iron oxide — which is used to make paints and pigments, among other things — and when that iron oxide then gets dissolved into the ocean (which is salt water, and salt water, as we've seen when steel-bodied cars get rusted very quickly on salted roads, oxidizes iron far more quickly than fresh water does), it ends up being in the ocean, not in the megathrust anymore. Moreover, the only other dry place in the world that's quake-prone — the Mojave Desert — is rich in aluminum, not iron, and of course, given the explanation as to why that can happen given by the Italian scientists who made the rock-crushing piezonuclear discovery, that's exactly what you'd expect from a quake-prone area: aluminum-rich, NOT iron-rich, land. In the ancient Near East, the land was (and still is) far richer in iron, which is exactly why it became a hotbed for the development of Iron Age civilization.

Boom! Supershear shockwaves through the ancient Israeli crust


Caltech professor Ares Rosakis made quite an alarming discovery about strike-slip quakes along the lines of San Andreas and Dead Sea Transform ones that is also something to consider here: they are capable of rupturing faster than shear waves can travel, resulting in a seismic Mach cone effect — a literal sonic boom analog in solid rock. The San Andreas Fault near San Francisco is of course believed to have the real capability of performing such a feat, but further south, uh, not so much. Some of the first signs of damage that suggested supershear quakes were real — buildings literally falling on each other like dominoes — occurred in the event in Turkey in 1999, and subsequent discoveries suggested that strike-slip faults, as Mode II cracks, are more likely to cause tremendous stresses needed for supershear propagation than Mode III faults like thrust faults and subduction zones. Also, while the San Andreas Fault slips very frequently in small sections, the Dead Sea Transform normally only has small quakes... ah, but M8+ quakes do happen on it, just very infrequently — I'm talking once every 2000-2500 years — and by building up all that stress only to let it go all at once in such long intervals like that (very much like Cascadia — go figure), the distance it slips can easily, easily result in rupture of supershear fashion. That supershear Mach cone can therefore easily, easily exert enough pressure to fission large amounts of iron into aluminum very quickly as it passes through the area. It's also powerful enough to cause the damage mentioned in scripture... damage like, oh, I don't know, jerking a 2-ton sealed stone out of position! Oh, yeah, and there's also damage in Petra, Jordan — such as rock columns knocked over like dominoes, analogous to the 1999 Izmit damage to buildings — that serves as even more evidence suggesting a supershear event.

The closer to the fault you are, the more you feel it


If the Dead Sea, which the DST lay right under, is any guide, Jerusalem lay within 10 miles of ground zero in terms of a supershear quake like this. The shaking, as a result, would have been terrifyingly violent to say the least... and where the most stress — and, thus, piezonuclear action — occurs, is where you're closest to the unzipping fault. Moreover, if authentic (which this explanation surely would make it so), the Shroud of Turin would be the the closest piece of organic — and, by extension, carbon-datable — material to the fault at that time. What that results in, naturally, is a discrepancy between organic and inorganic materials, not to mention proximity to the fault, that could easily account for the discrepancy between the 14C readings of organic materials far away from the fault and ones close to it.

The one place you do NOT want to be during a supershear quake: underground


Here's probably the most significant factor, which can easily explain why some objects could have gotten hit with more neutrons than others: Almost all the people who weren't dead (and alive again) would have been in buildings, above the ground. Where, of course, the neutrons, being slow ones, would have penetrated carpet, concrete foundation slabs, and maybe low wooden structures... but certainly not entire structures, and moreover, these buildings, being mostly Roman, would have been made of concrete (remember, that's what the Pantheon and Colosseum are made of). Roman concrete, being made of mostly volcanic ash, is notoriously iron-poor, and for that reason, it too would have had a hard time fissioning and producing neutrons. In contrast, Roman tombs — including the ones Jesus was, according to Scriptures, buried in — were literally artificial caves, carved into the ground, into the very iron-rich rock that would have fissioned. For that reason, the neutrons inside a tomb would have been bombarding anything inside it from not just the floor, not just the sepulcher, not just the ceiling, but from all directions. Easily, easily could have introduced a deluge of foreign carbon-14, of course, and most importantly, high levels of radioactive isotopes would have been created by the neutrons in not just the cloth, but also the body. Given that all the products of neutron capture in the body as a result of the bombardment ― mostly carbon-14, carbon-15, and (especially) phosphorus-32 ― are all beta-minus emitters, this, of course, brings the whole topic right to this 2-year-old particle decay physics hypothesis of mine (note the annotated portion):


If those neutrons, on their way to the body, suddenly get bombarded by outgoing beta-minus particles (electrons, let's not forget) and get converted to antiprotons on their way to the body as this hypothesis based on the current pattern of decay in the quantum world seems to suggest, their annihilation with the body's protons could easily result in the release of enough energy to cause a literal "Big Bang 2" as physicist Isabel Piczek's determination seems to suggest, which, depending on how it's confined and/or shaped by the topography and/or divine intervention, could then go on to re-coalesce as the resurrected body ― or, in other words, the resurrection itself. I've been searching for an opportunity to test this theory in a particle accelerator for a long time, but given that this event could have actually been real-world manifestation of it, I may not have to.