Feedback is our weekly column of bizarre stories, implausible advertising claims, confusing instructions and more
Amazing interplanetary future
SUCCUMBING, as we expected, to temptation and seeking entertaining mis-predictions in New Scientist's 1964 vision of The World in 1984 (25 January), Feedback starts with the low-hanging fruit.
In 1964, Wernher von Braun was Director of the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. He was self-assured about the glorious future of this post. "Man may have landed on the surface of Mars by 1984," he began. "Manned 'fly-bys' of Venus will have been made... Astronauts will be shuttling back and forth on regular schedules from the Earth to a small base of permanent operations on the moon."
Then he went more sci-fi, proposing nuclear-powered upper stages of rockets. He naturally presumed that, as a result, "the existence of a low order of life on Mars will probably have been proven" by 1984 and, quite remarkably, "the significance of the seasonal changes of the Martian canals established."
And then he announced the Grand Mission: "Gradually, space exploration has become a kind of standard behind which dynamic men with their courage, fighting instincts and talents have begun to rely for their advancement. Wars, which had somewhat similar 'rallying' effects, are no longer feasible..." For historical depth, he offered the view that "the Crusades saved Europe much bloodshed by diverting the energies of its fighting men to a far-away objective".
One of the products offered by John West in Australia is "naturally smoked oysters": David Prichard would like to know where in the world you find them – volcanic vents, perhaps?
The rockets' red glow
IT WAS Wernher von Braun, of course, who enthusiastically co-opted the work of the pre-war rocket research club the Verein für Raumschiffahrt – portrayed as naive amateurs in Thomas Pynchon's novel Gravity's Rainbow – into the development of the V2 rocket for the Nazis. Von Braun guided its production by concentration-camp labour, though he denied visiting the Mittelbau-Dora camp. In the US, he enthusiastically shifted to developing the V2 into intercontinental ballistic missiles. Thus 17 of the 98 other contributors to The World in 1984 wondered whether there would be a civilisation in 1984, given the threat of those nuclear-tipped missiles (11 January).
Stay in the kitchen!
A SIGN on the inside of the door leading into the kitchen area at the research institution where geneticist Jon White works says:
Jon says he is currently unable to check whether there is a similar sign on the outside of the door: "I'm in here now and my family are beginning to worry."
What's wrong with this title?
SEQUENCING the DNA of a 3-year-old who died 12,600 years ago in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains created much excitement last month (15 February, p 8). This may explain the title of a report in Science on 14 February: "Ancient Infant Was Ancestor of Today's Native Americans". Will Howard asks: "What's wrong with this headline?" Feedback confesses it took us several deep thinks to get it. Hint: he was 3...
Prosaic justice
PROSAIC justice – that was the name we suggested for the risk we run by pointing out other publications' errors, as above. Elizabeth Spiegel and Ian Boehm point us to a lovely note from the Canberra Society of Editors in 2003, suggesting that we, in fact, risk falling foul of "Muphry's Law" – named by John Bangsund of the Victorian Society of Editors as "the editorial application of the better-known Murphy's Law," which holds that if it can go wrong, it will. Read the piece in full at bit.ly/muphry-law.
...and Muphry is at work
MUPHRY was indeed at work: while this page was in production, we spotted that New Scientist itself said that the 3-year-old boy "turns out to be a direct ancestor of most tribes in Central and South America" (15 February, p 8). Whoops...
The significance of signs
FEEDBACK's request for help checking a translation of a sign on Arriva Trains Wales elicited a generous response. In English, it reads "Failure to adhere to this notice may result in prosecution" (1 February).
The company declares in Welsh: "Gallwch gael eich erlyn am beidio ag ufuddhau'r hysbysiad hwn." A famous web search engine rendered this as: "You can be sued for failing to obey this notice." Five readers wrote in: three pointed out that if it knew the difference between criminal and civil legal action, it would have given "prosecuted", not "sued".
Regarding Arriva's Welsh, John Rowlands suggested that "ufuddhau'r arwydd hwn" strictly means "make the sign obey", which could be time-consuming enough to make you miss your station as effectively as if you had adhered yourself to it. Daphne Watkins admonished herself for missing that, but agreed with John that only a purist could object. As if Feedback would ever entertain the notion of purism.
Legitimate meanings, forsooth
FINALLY, John Gee in Aberystwyth writes that "a legitimate meaning of 'adhere to' is 'to behave according to' [and that] 'notice' as a noun refers to intelligence, warning or instruction to do (or not do) something". We can only respond: if thou wilt, John.
- Subscribe to New Scientist and you'll get:
- New Scientist magazine delivered every week
- Unlimited access to all New Scientist online content -
a benefit only available to subscribers - Great savings from the normal price
- Subscribe now!
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
