Translate

06 April 2013

Modern mysteries.

In the life of every human being there are moments in which it is inevitable ask themselves questions to which there is no answer.
There are the eternal questions (the mystery of suffering, the mystery of faith, the mystery of life after the death, etc.), questions that have their roots in the mists of time.
And there are modern mysteries, related to the contingency of time, but full of perverse fascination and in comparison to which even the solution of the mystery of the creation of the universe becomes a play for children:

1) because the elderly always they stop in the middle in the supermarket aisles and in  the middle of the stairs?
Whether they are choosing from the shelves placed on their right or whether they're choosing from the shelves placed on their left, anyhow, the elderly (above all women...) are not going to be placed to the right or the left, but, always, they occupy the exactly central space and in such a way as to ensure the obstruction of the passage of the other customers.
Not to mention when the elders come down the stairs.
Even when they hold the railing and, therefore, are on the side, they always manage to occupy the center of the stairs and to prevent the passage of third parties,

2) because the manholes are always placed at the middle of the streets?
It would be too logical that they were placed at the edge of the road or on the sidewalks. Instead, their position in the center of the roadway makes them inevitably subject to continuous contact with the tires of vehicles and, therefore, both because it never perfectly leveled with respect to the asphalt road and both because they offer a grip differently than the asphalt road, they are removed from the original site (causing even damage to the surrounding area), produce damages to vehicles and increase the falls to the ground of motorcycles and their drivers,

3) because the sofas and armchairs are always lower than the chairs?
The chairs have the negative characteristic of having a surface uncomfortable, because of the narrowness and hardness of the point of sitting, but have the positive feature of having a height of the seat surface, which makes easy the movement of the sit and, above all, the subsequent movement of getting up.
So, armchairs and sofas, always designed and built with the declared purpose of presenting a greater comfort than chairs, inevitably should have a support surface wider and softer than that of a chair, however, with maintaining a height of the plane of sitting like a chair to allow (like a chair) an ease when sitting and when getting up.
Instead, inexplicably, sofas and armchairs have a level of the seat surface, considerably lower than that of a chair, making very difficult, specially for the elderly, the act of getting up.

4) because older people, often, driving cars with the seat back reclined exaggeratedly?
The elders, with the passing of the age, they lose some physical qualities essential to driving, such as reactivity, the view, the ability to twist sideways of the neck and the mobility of arms.
However, if to overcome the first limitation there is no remedy, and if to overcome the second limitation there are the glasses, to obviate the third limit (the reduced ability of twist sideways the neck) would be natural of retract the base of seat (so you can control a greater range of vision, with one less lateral twisting of the neck), at the same time raising the backrest, in order to offset the negative effects on the grip of the steering of the necessary retract of the base of seat, thereby obviating also the fourth limit (the limitation in the mobility of arms).
Instead, inexplicably, the elderly do exactly the opposite, ie: they advance the base of seat to the steering and recline incredibly the backrest, thereby seriously compromising their chances of side vision and their turning radius.

5) because, on the shirts, the lowest central button is placed above the belt line?
The logic would require that the lowest center button of a shirt is placed below the belt line, so as to prevent the opening of the shirt above the belt line and to show the underlying garment or, even, the belly. This would be an obvious and economically sustainable solution (a button in more would have no significant effect on production costs). Conversely, inexplicably, most of the shirts on the market has an array of buttons that presupposes the pants with a waist line well higher than those on the market.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Your comments will be highly appreciated!
But, I ask you:
1) absence of rudeness,
2) strict connexion at the topic,
3) absence of advertising or links to other websites.
Otherwise, your comment will not be published !!! ;-)
Thanks :-)