ROM rant

Well it's been a while since I ranted about anything, so this goes out to the anatomists or physiotherapists or anyone else that follows the nonsensical pattern of rotational axis naming.

First off, there are a few planes that the body can get divided by:
Frontal plane or coronal plane, which is like cutting you down from top to bottom so your face falls off, or rather divides you into a front and a back.
Next up is a transverse or horizontal plane, which, for example, could cut horizontally so you have a top and a bottom half. Incidentally, guillotines do this.
And finally there is a sagittal plane, which cuts to divide left from right, like if you straddled and then fell and sat on a running chainsaw (that's never almost happened to anybody I know *cough*).

If you're still unclear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human_anatomy_planes.svg

So that's all fine, I buy that, it's helpful and reasonable.

Now, someone got it into their head that since some body joints allow motion, we need to describe the motion of the bones and joints in terms of the axes that they rotate around. That's fine too, a shaking head indicating "no" is one example. A straight leg kicking a ball rotates around another axis, and bringing your arm straight out from your side to the left is the third axis. And these axes need names apparently and THIS is where all mathematical reason is discarded.

I'll just say what they are named and then I'll explain why it is just wrong. The frontal axis passes through the body from left to right (like a pencil passed through your ear holes - apologies for the graphic examples, but it's hard to describe planes and axes without describing things passing through the body). The sagittal axis passes through the body from front to back (like when someone pokes you in the chest with their index finger - there, nice and harmless). The final axis comes up with a new word and calls it the longitudinal axis, which when you shake your head "no" is what the head is rotating around (an axis passing from top to bottom). And movement examples of the frontal axis and the sagittal axis would be kicking a ball and lifting your arm out from your side, respectively. Confused? Yeah, and it's totally not my fault. What were they thinking?

Okay, I'll start with the most basic and logical argument against this nonsense naming. An axis exists in ONE dimension. A plane exists in TWO dimensions. ERGO, there are TWO axes that run parallel to a plane, and ONE axis that runs perpendicular to a plane. So, it is NOT possible to unambiguously name an axis after a plane UNLESS that axis runs perpendicular to the plane and NOT parallel to it, which is the case here. According to these preposterous naming conventions, the sagittal axis actually runs parallel to BOTH the sagittal plane AND the transverse plane. The frontal axis runs parallel to the frontal plane AND the transverse plane. The longitudinal axis runs parallel to both the sagittal and frontal planes. Okay, so there's no transverse axis, so theoretically you can't get confused, IF you remember which one the longitudinal axis is, but it still doesn't make sense and it does my head in.

I am forced to think in this manner: Abduction of the arm is rotating around an axis. It is not the longitudinal axis, so it must be either the sagittal or frontal axis. The axis runs parallel to both the coronal and transverse planes. There is neither a coronal nor transverse plane, but the coronal is also known as the frontal, so it must be rotating around the frontal axis. Was I right? Not 100% sure. No, I looked at it again and I'm wrong. Abduction of the arm is rotating around an axis parallel to the transverse and sagittal planes. Ergo sagittal.

I will defer to a mathematical example. If you have a cube that sits in XYZ space, you can take that cube and move it in the XY plane. You can move it in the YZ plane, and also the XZ plane. You can also rotate the cube around each of the X, Y, and Z axes. NOTICE that if you are rotating.... ah never mind. I'm too tired for this.


/rant


"/rant" is an internet typing to signify the end of a rant. It's derived from XML as far as I can work out, where any element is terminated by a forward slash followed by the name of the element (in this case the rant) and enclosed in , but I guess were deemed unnecessary for the /rant version.


Have a good week!

Stuart

P.S. ROM stands for Range of Movement, which is apparently what this stuff is used for.

Why I Buy Compact Discs

Since I'm writing on a blog, I'm allowed to occasionally spew forth a diatribe, yes? Okay, "here goes" -Moshi
Diatribe in a good way.

1) Paying for music is generally a good way to go, since unless you're friends with all artists, you probably can't get it all legally and free. So with that decisively cleared up, let's go to point 2.

2) Predicated on the assumption that I'm willing and wanting to have some of my money go to artists. In that sense, CDs aren't a bad way to go, based on this cool infographic (Artist_earnings). In fact, you could argue this a lot, but given a good contract or a self-published album, CDs are the best way to ensure a good proportion of your dollar is getting to the artist. This is particularly true of services like spotify, which I'm not against. In fact I like to discover new artists using things like Slacker Radio and Grooveshark, so if I feel like I want to hear more than a couple of an artist's songs, I'll be much more likely to shell out and get the whole album.

3) So, getting to the more tightly contested debate between buying a digital and a physical album, I'll start with the "eco" argument. "People" say that it's less eco-friendly to buy physical discs... all that plastic and garbage. Maybe so, but if you look at what it is, mostly cardboard and paper with a disc (albeit made of who knows what) it's a lot less material than a box of cereal, for goodness sake. If you recycle your yoghurt containers, I think you can feel guilt-free about having a few ounces of paper fibre weighing down your shelf. I mean, it's not like it will end up in the landfill immediately. I'll walk home from the mall with my CDs and feel good about my carbon footprint thanks (with respect to music and vehicle use, at least).

4) Okay, well digital albums are cheaper. Maybe. So I paid $15 instead of $10 for a couple CDs, but most reasonably new albums go to 2 for $20, so unless you're looking for something more obscure, it's almost comparable.

5) Speaking of obscure, the internet is pretty good, but sometimes you can't find your favorite local band anywhere except at your local music store. Which is cool too.


6) Now we get to some of the stronger points, in my opinion. I bought a few albums a couple years ago on iTunes. Since then I've reinstalled OSes at least three times and bought a new computer. Where's my music? Not sure. I backed up my purchases a while back, so I'm sure they're on a CD (!!) or DVD somewhere, but I haven't got around to trying to get them back. And if I did, what happens to my current iTunes library. Not sure. Anyway, I'm sure that's just laziness on my part. If I really wanted those albums, I'd be able to reclaim them(?). Well, one thing's for sure. Those CDs won't go anywhere. I'll be able to access them with ease for the next fifty years. **cough** What if you have a fire or get robbed **cough** Ha, I've got them all ripped lossless, backed up locally and off-site. I'm not stupid.

7) Speaking of lossless, I don't know of anywhere you can get the same quality for a digital download. I happen to like good quality sound, and mp3's and AAC just won't cut it. Snob.

8) Oh yeah, and the inserts and album art... I just flipped through a new album insert that was covered in scribbled bandnames and random artwork (Sweet Thing). It's great. No, I don't look at them that often, but there's something nice about pulling out an old CD and looking fondly at the glossy cover. Sentimental fool.

9) When's the last time you loaned out your iPod or computer? Or burned a friend a full album to borrow (let's remember copyright here). Whereas with... you guessed it.... CDs, a friend or sibling can grab a half-dozen CDs off your shelf for a few weeks no problem. Share the love.

10) And, look at what's happening to vinyl these days. A revival is what. Your kids are going to be much more interested going through your CD collection than browsing your Personal Computer that's still running a Microsoft Operating System (yes, they both sound old). They might even be worth something someday, if you don't let them get too scratched.

11) I've been in a few cars recently, and I don't think there's been wireless digital music transfer or iPod connectivity in practically any that I've been in. So that limits you to what, CDs and FM radio? Cool.

So there you go. Quality, longetivy, aesthetics, versatility, money_towards_artists_you_choose_which_lets_them_make_more_music_ativity... and, okay I'm done.

Hope you have a good week. I'm still working through my Africa photos, doing edits in Lightroom, so I might post up a couple more photos in the near future.

Later,
Stuart