There is a kind of bookish dualism at work. The text is the soul, and the book – or scroll, or vellum, or clay tablet or knotted rope in the case ofquipu– is the perishable body. In this way of thinking, the ebook is the book, only unshackled from paper, ink and stitching. If the debate about the ebook is to move on from nostalgic raptures over smell and rampant gadget-fetishism, it’s time to think about the real fundamentals.

There are two aspects to the ebook that seem to me profoundly to alter the relationship between the reader and the text. With the book, the reader’s relationship to the text is private, and the book is continuous over space, time and reader. Neither of these propositions is necessarily the case with the ebook.

The ebook gathers a great deal of information about our reading habits: when we start to read, when we stop, how quickly or slowly we read, when we skip pages, when we re-read, what we choose to highlight, what we choose to read next.

[Stuart Kelly’s second contention:] China Miéville, at last year’s Edinburgh World Writers’ Conference, raised the idea of “guerrilla editors”– readers remaking the text, much in the manner of the fan reaction to The Phantom Menace, The Phantom Edit. As Jaron Lanier argues in his new book Who Owns The Future? the largest digital companies compile huge amounts of information on our likes, dislikes, economic activity, preferences, attention spans and such like. What happens when this information is recycled into the “reader-specific” book? […] What this means is that when I say to a friend “Have you read such-and-such a book?”, even if they answer “yes”, the real answer may be “not exactly”.

Once these features of privacy and continuity are acknowledged, the ebook might well come into its own. Could the e-reader support texts that could be read only if more than one person were reading it – and what issues of trust might that raise? Or that could only be read at specific times and in specific places? Could there be texts that no one reader has access to in their entirety, and if so, what communities of interpretation might grow up around them? (In this case, TV and film are far ahead of publishers; with things like the ARG The Lost Experience – a video game based on the programme Lost – and the Batman-centred “Why So Serious?” campaign.)

Realising the specific nature of the book ought to make us more considerate of what the form does achieve, and could well unsettle the ebook into being more daring. It wouldn’t be a book, but it might be something as yet unthought.

It’s been well established that social isolation is a serious health risk, particularly for seniors. A 2010 study showed that too much alone time can be just as dangerous as smoking 15 cigarettes a day. Many scientists have assumed that loneliness is the culprit, and subsequent research has backed this suspicion. But a new study is overturning this view, showing that even people who don’t mind being alone are still significantly more likely to die when their social networks are diminished.

The results suggest that lack of social contact is a more significant risk factor than loneliness.

“In many ways, social isolation and loneliness are two sides of the same coin,”explained Steptoe. “Social isolation indicates a lack of contact with friends, relatives and organizations, while loneliness is a subjective experience of lack of companionship and social contact.”

But why isolation is such a potent predictor of death isn’t immediately obvious.

According to Julianne Holt-Lunstad, there may be two possible mechanisms by which a thriving social network of friends and family could contribute to good health.

First, the ongoing support of other people may reduce the harmful effects of stress (even if someone is happy in their solitude); it could be that isolation reduces immune function. And second, the influence of others may also encourage behaviour that contributes to good health (such as eating properly, taking medications, and practicing proper hygiene).

Steptoe agrees, saying that, “When you’re socially isolated, you not only lack companionship in many cases, but you may also lack advice and support from people.”

It’s worth noting that the Steptoe study looked at people over the age of 50. But other research has shown that social isolation is a risk factor for all people, regardless of age.

Prince Rupert’s Drop: The Curious Properties of a Molten Glass Blob Dropped in Cold Water

Destin from Smarter Every Day stopped by Orbix Hot Glass in Fort Payne, Alabama to explore a fascinating phenomenon called a Prince Rupert’s Drop. Apparently when molten hot glass is dropped in cold water it forms an object that’s almost completely impervious to brute force, even a sold hammer strike to the center of the teardrop-like shape won’t break the glass. Yet gently cut or even bump the tip of the drop and suddenly the entire thing shatters in an explosive chain reaction traveling at a speed of over 1 mile PER SECOND. Watch the video above to see the effect in 130,000 fps glory. (via the awesomer)

Watch four hours of Aurora Borealis compressed into three stunning minutes

Photographer Göran Strand used 2464 raw images taken with his all-sky camera to create this gorgeous time-lapse video. The swirling crystal ball images show the view from Östersund, Sweden, when a when a Coronal Mass Ejection hit Earth’s magnetic field.

Sunspot AR1692 produced a M1-class solar flare and on March 17th, the resulting CME hit our magnetic field, creating this marvelous light show. Strand captured the aurora between 19:20 and 23:35 UT so that he could share the view with the rest of us.

This might sound a little crazy, but what if it’s the very fact that we assume stress is bad that’s actually making it so bad for us? And what if there were another way to think about stress — a way that might actually make it a force for good in our lives? Well there is, according to new research from Yale’s Alia Crum and Peter Salovey, and Shawn Achor, author of The Happiness Advantage.

Let’s take a step back, and begin with a different question: What is stress?

Generally speaking, it’s the experience — or anticipation — of difficulty or adversity. We humans, along with other animals, have an instinctive physical response to stressors. It includes activation of the sympathetic nervous system (“fight or flight”), inhibition of the parasympathetic nervous system (“rest and digest”), and the release of adrenaline and cortisol. But what does all of that do? In short, it primes the pump — we become more aroused and more focused, more ready to respond physically and mentally to whatever is coming our way.

I’ll bet right now you are saying to yourself, it’s the amount of stress that matters. Low levels may be good, but high levels are still definitely bad. (i.e., What doesn’t kill you might make you stronger….but too much stress is probably going kill you.)

The problem with this theory — which was once the dominant theory among psychologists, too — is that by and large, it doesn’t appear to be true. The amount of stress you encounter is a surprisingly poor predictor of whether it will leave you worse (or better) off.

As it turns out, your mindset about stress may be the most important predictor of how it affects you. As Crum, Salovey, and Achor discovered, people have different beliefs about stress. Some people — arguably most people — believe that stress is a bad thing. They agreed with statements like “The effects of stress are negative and should be avoided,” and the researchers called this the stress-is-debilitating mindset. Those who instead agreed that “Experiencing stress facilitates my learning and growth” had what they called a stress-is-enhancing mindset.

Perhaps stress is to resilience what exercise is to muscle strength? As long as it does not too out of hand, and with an appropriate mindset, stress can actually help us adapt and get stronger. This is also argued by Al Siebert in his book The Resiliency Advantage: Master Change, Thrive Under Pressure, and Bounce Back From Setbacks.

Researchers found that learning the second pair of songs interfered with the birds’ ability to remember the first pair, regardless of the time between the daytime testing periods. Learning the first pair of songs also interfered with the birds’ ability to remember the second pair when they were tested on the second pair before they went to sleep.

When the starlings were allowed to sleep, however, they showed increases in performance on both the first and second pair of songs, suggesting that sleep consolidation enhances their memory, overcoming the effects of interference. When taught a new song pair after awaking, the birds were still able to remember what they had learned on the previous day, despite the new interference.

“The study demonstrates that sleep restores performance and makes learning robust against interference encountered after sleep. This process is critical to the formation and stability of long-term memories,” Nusbaum said.

1. Put the word “meditation” after the activity that’s boring you.

2. Dig in.

As they say, if you can’t get out of it, get into it. Diane Arbus wrote, “The Chinese have a theory that you pass through boredom into fascination and I think it’s true.”

3. Take the perspective of a journalist or scientist

Really study what’s around you. What are people wearing, what do the interiors of buildings look like, what noises do you hear, what do the ads show? If you bring your analytical powers to bear, you can make almost anything interesting.

4. Find an area of refuge.

Have a mental escape route planned. Think about something delightful or uplifting (not your to-do list!).

5. Look for a way to feel grateful.

[look on the bright side - it could be worse]

6. Consider: “Am I the boring one?”

La Rochefoucauld observed, “We always get bored with those whom we bore.” I remind myself of this when I’m having a boring conversation with someone!

7. Always bring a book. (in physical or virtual form).

When we asked you about your biggest cellphone annoyances a while back, one of your biggest complaints was overhearing people’s phone conversations. The New York Times takes a look at why we find that so annoying.

The basic reason we’re so irritated when we overhear a conversation is because the conversation hijacks our cognitive functions—it’s a distraction that we can’t do anything about and we can’t get away from:

If you only hear one person speaking, you’re constantly trying to place that part of the conversation in context,“ Dr. Galván said. “That’s naturally going to draw your attention away from whatever else you’re trying to do.”

It is also a control thing, Dr. Galván and her colleagues said. When people are trapped next to a one-sided conversation - known nowadays as a “halfalogue” - their anger rises in the same way it does in other situations where they are not free to leave, like waiting for a train.

The other big reason we find this so annoying is because we’re drawn to the strangeness of a one-sided conversation. We want to complete that puzzle and figure out what they’re talking about. Everything they say is surprising, and you can’t predict what’s going to happen next. Basically, our brain is drawn to a conversation because it’s too strange to tune out.

Another odd detail about our annoyance with cell phone conversations, and one that many of you echoed is that people tend to talk louder when they’re talking in public. In turns out that’s not entirely the case:

Because it is next to impossible to tune out a nearby cellphone conversation, people subjected to them often believe—incorrectly—that the talker is being abnormally loud… On average, commuters thought the mobile phone talkers were louder, even when they were not… “When you stare at a light, it seems brighter,” said Dr. Emberson. “And when you can’t not pay attention to a noise, it seems louder.”

Unfortunately, you can’t really do much to ease the annoyance of an overheard cellphone conversation. In many cases, you can’t even leave the room. That said, knowing is half the battle, and hopefully people will stop having those inane, drawn out conversations on the bus.

Cellphones as a Modern Irritant The New York Times