A major feature of the analysis of the Apollo missions, is the constant lament that we’ve never gone back to The Moon, or (and this is Buzz Aldrin’s formulation) that we haven’t reached Mars.
However, I wonder if this is fair? If we consider other great exploratory feats, such as Columbus crossing the Atlantic, or Magellan circumnavigating the globe, or Hillary/Tenzing climbing Everest… how long before the extraordinary was repeated? How long before it became commonplace?
Month: July 2009 (Page 2 of 3)
Its the anniversary if the first moon landing tomorrow. Here’s yrstruly on Twitter:
I really can’t get enough Apollo XI anniversary coverage. An extraordinary boundary in human achievement.
Two minor thoughts on why I find the Apollo missions so fascinating. First, the technology seems so basic by today’s standards. I’ve read widely on the engineering behind the Apollo programme, so I know the machines were cutting edge in the 1960s. But I also know that the speed at which inventions were taken from theory to prototype and then to implementation, was much quicker than comparable projects, such as airliners and military hardware, are developed today. The images of the Apollo space craft modules make me think of the word ‘contraption’.
In addition, they were supported by such meagre computer power. Famously, there is more computer capability in a modern mobile phone than there was on the Apollo missions. Worse, the lunar model computer actually crashed during the descent stages of Apollo XI and Apollo XIV. What a contrast to all the back-ups, fail-safes and diagnostics that go into modern aviation technology.
To go so far in such vehicles was brave to the point of insanity. It is almost as if they went before their time. Most people speak of the Apollo programme as being a feature of the Cold War, part of the Arms Race, quintessentially 1960s. But I see it as being rather incongruous with the earthbound history around it. A tangent to the timeline that no-one was ready for, that no-one can parse. An alien act.
Two variations on a theme. First, a bizarre missing poster from the streets of Islington
Balboa Jones went missing from Lewisham
This seems so brazen, I have a suspicion its actually some kind of sneaky viral advertising campaign for something. Or Balboa Jones might indeed be missing. Either way, I have no qualms about allowing the telephone number to remain visible.
Continue reading
Last weekend, I had an interesting and surprising discussion with some medical students, on the legalisation of cannabis.
Since they were students, I sort of assumed that they would be in favour of legalisation; and that the hypocrisy in the differing laws on alcohol and cannabis would be self-evident. Not so! Instead, they were almost unanimously in favour of prohibition.
Their objections to legalisation were based on their clinical experience of patients with cannabis-induced psychosis. De-criminalising cannabis would endorse and encourage cannabis use, increasing such mental illness. When I responded with a standard liberal argument on personal responsibility, they made the point that most people were not responsible. Amusingly, they pointed to the vast array of empty bottles on the table, explaining that even they were knowingly binge drinking, despite being probably the most educated group of people in the perils of substance abuse. What hope for everyone else?
All I could do was remind them that all of the psychotic episodes they will have witnessed would have been as a result of illegal cannabis use. They would not have seen comparative data for legalised, regulated inhalation. Could it be that perhaps regulated drugs were safer?
The debate was a timely reminder that political discourse amongst the general population is very different to the extremely liberal bubble in which I work. Out there in the real world, people are much less libertarian, more authoritarian, and for good honest reasons too. Amongst that group of med-school friends, the perception persists that criminalising something is the natural and appropriate response when confronted with something bad. The liberal case is often woolly, idealistic and missing crucial pieces.
So, what I should have asserted: Prohibition is only appropriate for those activities that harm others, and not for self-harming acts. We could then have had a discussion about whether smoking and drinking harms others or not, where a much more fruitful and divergent discussion is to be had (in this respect, I guess this post serves to shut the barn door, two days after the horse bolted).
What is so often missing from the liberal argument, is the acceptance, even the embracing, of the bad things that happen in an extremely liberal society. I have twice before made that point here, when discussing ID cards and other civil liberties. At the Convention on Modern Liberty, Dominic Grieve spoke of the “mythological state of absolute security.” Perhaps we need to speak of a mythological state of absolute health too, and admit that the consequence of decriminalisation will be an uptick in cannabis use, and an associated increase in the risk of health issues… but that we should do it anyway. The benefits to society would be greater, and we can work out regulatory ways to reduce that risk.
Drugs can help you see the world differently.
Photo by Ace. No drugs were used in the production of this picture.
Cryptographic by dmók on Flickr.
I enjoyed Cory Doctorow’s column in the Guardian this week: When I’m dead, how will my loved ones break my password? All his computer files are protected with such powerful encryption that, without the appropriate passphrase, all his data would be lost forever if he suffered a tragic accident.
I confess that the solution he came up with – splitting the passphrase between two lawyers in different jurisdictions – left me slightly deflated. Surely there is a more ingenious solution.
I was reminded of the story of Robert H. Thouless, a Cambridge Don, who attempted to send passwords from beyond the grave. In the late 1940s, he encrypted a message that could be deciphered via a passphrase. His idea being that, once he died, he would attempt to communicate the passphrase back into the land of the living. Success would offer proof for the existence of an afterlife.
Unfortunately, his experiment was tripped up by Moore’s Law and some pesky Computer Scientists cracked the code by means of trial and error. The pass phrase was “Black Beauty”.
As well as lacking any sense of the fantastical, Cory’s lawyer-based solution also lacks romance too! Whatever happened to the time honoured tradition of leaving enigmatic riddles and poems on treasure maps? Leaving a trail of clues, just like in The Da Vinci Code, or Indiana Jones, or Red Rackham’s Treasure has a great advantage: Although it might be relatively easy for your designated heirs to discover whatever message you have left for them, it is usually quite difficult for them to do it while you are alive. All that rumaging through your personal files, or examining that self-portrait from an acute angle, attracts attention. You would therefore be able to see them off at the pass, should they attempt to get their paws on your legacy (be it electronic keys, or real ones) before you’ve croaked.