johnwvincent

Earthrise

24^th December 1968 did change everything. What was achieved in that year hasn’t been matched. An unexpected event took place on an adventure to orbit our Moon. Now, 55-years have gone by. Enormous strides have changed lives. Technology has raced ahead. We reside on a beautiful and bountifully planet. Yet, we have continued to pump massive amounts of carbon into the Earth’s atmosphere. I wonder, does this tell us anything about human nature? If there is such a thing.

The photograph called “Earthrise” was taken while the Apollo 8 spacecraft was skimming over the surface of our Moon[1]. I don’t suppose there has ever been a more significant colour photograph in human history. As one of the astronaut’s said, he could hold his thumb up at a window and mask everything and everybody alive except for the three of them in the capsule.

The Earth appeared as a swirly blue marble set in the dark emptiness of space. The image is stark. Eyes are drawn to the lush colour and liveliness of the globe. Contrasted with the darkness and vastness of space. Clouds, oceans, and landmasses all scattered across this lonely planet. At the time of the Apolo mission there was about three and a half billion inhabitants. Today, there’s eight billion people spread across the surface of the Earth.

This image has become pivotal in our thinking. So much of our debates and discussions about the future are dominated by conflict and competition for resources. When there’s the opportunity to stand back and realise that our small homeland is shared, those tensions fade, at least a little.

Fragility and, almost irrelevance, when set against the vastness of space, is our daily reality. Illuminated by the Sun, a minor star, and in just the right place for life, so we fight and war as if humanity was at the centre of the universe. That animalistic behaviour could be the route of our downfall. Only, we are doing something else to top that persistent stupidity.

What sets Earth apart? That cultivated atmosphere. Such are the interactions going on in the first 100 kilometres above the surface of the planet that a sustained healthy atmosphere exists. It takes a quick look at the images coming back from the exploratory rovers on Mars to see how alive and miraculous Earth’s atmosphere has become.

The question is, are we the generations of humans who will permanently degrade it? Presently we are struggling with the needs and desires of the eight billons of us and the realising that a balance must be struck. For one pumping massive amounts of carbon into the Earth’s atmosphere is pure idiocy. It’s even greater idiocy when we have advanced and invented technologies that mean we don’t need to do it.

COP28 may be another step on the road to sanity but we continue to struggle with the realities of our situation. A human-made climate crisis and a dramatic increase in climate related catastrophes may wake us up. Perhaps every screen saver on the planet ought to be the Earthrise image.

POST: The first such image of the Earth seen from the Moon was taken by Lunar Orbiter 1 in 1966. It was in black and white and of poor quality.

[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/who-took-legendary-earthrise-photo-apollo-8-180967505/

Dr Who at 60

Now, I can be nerdy par excellence. It makes me nervous to the extent that there are far more knowledgeable scribblers on Doctor Who. It’s not like the internet is without a massive amount of coverage of every aspect of the time lord’s life. Although, I’m not sure I’ve seen the details of David Tennant’s shoe size – yet.

Last night, way out on the edge of the know universe was a spaceship. Somehow it got there through a random worm hole. The drama doesn’t expand as to what the enormous ship does, or why it only had one crew member or the anarchic mix of technologies.

Almost like a sketch from the Twilight Zone, the mystery mounts as we are asked to go beyond our normal understanding. That’s a good plot line, in that anything then becomes possible. So, at the edge of what exists there’s nothing but blackness ahead. Behind is everything that was ever known in space and time. The good, the bad and the indifferent. And where most of us would rather be.

The end of everything, as far back in time as it’s possible to travel in this story is not empty. A malevolent force or mystical entity hides there hoping to one day make its way forward in time to annihilate everything it finds. Malevolence is so often associated with emptiness. It’s a primal thing.

That’s what The Doctor and annoying companion Donna encounter when the Tardis goes awry. Given that it was spilt coffee that threw them to this point in space and time maybe the transport ship they encounter was an intergalactic coffee carrier or a shoe carrier. With respect to Douglas Adams.

Titled “Wild Blue Yonder” the tale told wasn’t so much blue as void of natural light. Way yonder lurked a clever and evil shape shifter. So, evil that the Tardis runs away, as it rebuilds itself. Our two protagonists were then marooned on a giant ghost ship with no idea what’s happening. Now, that’s a fine plot. Adrift in the deep darkness.

Over a series of frantic moments, the story pieces together. The original pilot of the ship turns out to be a hero, prepared to sacrifice themselves to destroy the nameless baddies on the ship. The pilot’s cunning plan was ticking away at ultra slow speed to evade the speedy thinking malevolent thingies. Distracted but feeling imprisoned the shape shifting villains put all their energies into attempting to copy The Doctor and Donna.

The copies strategy then appears to have been to hop on board the Tardis when it returned. That’s a bit of a plot flaw. Since the Tardis would presumably only return when the air of evilness had been destroyed. That’s what did happen in a wonderful just-in-time moment. Concluding the story with the destruction of the spaceship and the physical forms of the lurking baddies. Thus, again we are all saved from extinction. Open is the question of whether the lurking baddies still lurk.

This 60th anniversary special was for fans. To those uninitiated into The Doctors world, it must have been confusing. Difficult to follow. In fact, rather slow in parts. David Tennant as the 14th Doctor is the best modern incarnation. Long may the Tardis take us to the limits of imagination. It’s possible that the 120^th anniversary will include a virtual world that we will be able to step into and be immersed in a vast spectacle. Good luck to those who last that long.

Two upfront

One of the fundamentals that remains a part of civil aviation is having two pilots in the cockpit. It’s an indication of the safety related activities of the crew of a civil aircraft. Today, we have a mixture of human control and management. Pilots still fly hands-on when the need arises. The expectation is that throughout their working lives pilots have the competence to do so, at any stage in a flight.

Progressively, since the establishment of aviation’s international order in the 1940s the required crewing of aircraft has changed. Back in September, I visited the de Havilland Aircraft Museum in Hertfordshire. There I walked through the fuselage of a de Havilland DH106 Comet[1]. This was the first turbojet-powered airliner to go into service and it changed the experience of flying forever and a day.

That passenger aircraft, like aircraft of the time, had four crew stations in the cockpit. Two pilots, a navigator and flight engineer. It was the era when electronics consisted of valves in large radio sets and such long since forgotten devices as magnetic amplifiers. The story from the 1940s of IBM saying, “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers” is often repeated.

For modern airliners the navigator and flight engineer have gone. Their functions have not gone. It’s that having a crew member dedicated to the tasks they performed is no longer required. As the world of vacuum-tube electronics gave way to transistors and then to integrated circuits so computing got more powerful, cheaper, and abundant.

With a few significant failures along the way, commercial flying got safer and safer. The wave of change in a human lifetime has affected every mode of transport. More people travel to more places, more safely than ever could have been imagined 80-years ago. Does that mean the path ahead will take a similar shape? Excitable futurologists may paint a colourful picture based on this history.

Let’s get away from the attractive notion of straight lines on graph paper. That idea that progress is assumed to be linear. Tomorrow will be progressively “better” by an incremental advance. That’s not happening now. What we have is differential advances. Some big and some small.

The aviation safety curve is almost flat. The air traffic curve, with a big hole made by COVID, is climbing again. The technology curve is rapidly accelerating. The environmental impact curve is troubling. The air passenger experience curve may even be at a turning point.

Touchscreen tablets already help flight preparation and management[2]. Flight plan changes can be uploaded and changed with a button press[3]. The squeezing of massive computing power into small spaces is being taken for granted. What does this leave a crew to do?

Back to the start. Two pilots in the cockpit, with executive responsibilities, remains the model that maintains public confidence in civil aviation. The golden rules still apply. Fly, navigate and communicate in that order. Crews, however much technology surrounds them, still need to act when things do not go as expected. Does this mean two cockpit crew forever? I don’t know.

[1] https://www.dehavillandmuseum.co.uk/aircraft/de-havilland-dh106-comet-1a/

[2] https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/newsroom/news/2021-02-electronic-flight-bag-the-new-standard

[3] https://simpleflying.com/datalink-communications-aviation-guide/

Flight Ahead

Although, I’m an advocate of having people in control of machines it isn’t people that are opening new opportunities in transport. Technology is racing ahead and making the past illustrations of popular science magazines become a reality. I can do without the hype in the headlines of flying cars. Building expectations of one in every garage remains a 1950s dream or nightmare, dependent upon your point of view. Aside from that hot air viable new electric vehicles are in the works.

Heavier-than-air machine that do more than buzz around our heads are going to proliferate. The inevitability of this is open to question but if I was to assign a probability to it, the number would be close to one. If we stretch our minds back to an unobserved small corner of the planet in late 1903, a couple of diligent brothers flew a machine that hopped a short distance into the air under its own power. Many newspapers of the time didn’t bother to print this breakthrough story because wise and eminent scientists had told them that it was impossible for people to fly.

It’s clear, getting into the prediction business should be done with humility.

We have a dilemma. It’s so rare of us to turn away from advancing technology when we know it can be made. It’s even more irresistible when the economics scream out buy me. So, a ticket to ride in the realm of Urban Air Mobility (UAM) will need to be no more than a typical taxi ride. Given that a taxi ride from my home to Gatwick Airport is about £20 then that’s the mark to hit. True that short journey may not be commonplace by air at that price until around 2033, a decade away, but it will be irresistible when it comes.

This chapter in air transport, that is being written is as significant as that in late 1903. I know that’s a mega statement, but the signs do point that way.

Eventually, UAM will become a network of piloted and autonomous electric air vehicles operating between cities and major destinations like airports.

Now, a couple of solvable challenges stand in the way. One is the endurance and portability of the energy storage devices. The other is complexity and mastering the science and art of functional safety. There’s plenty of confident hyperbole to suggest that these two are short-term barriers to progress. I say they are not.

Weight is one of aviation’s biggest enemies particularly on small vehicles. Batteries are expensive, heavy and require tailored control. Autonomy or the semi autonomy, needed to make the economics click is challenging systems engineering orthodoxy. Both tasks require the meticulous diligence of the Wright brothers to get past. No fanfare or flashy investor can push them aside.

Making the absolute most of energy storage technology is essential. Finding the optimal configuration of batteries, transmission and control electrics means iteration and the tolerance of a good handful of failures. The engineering of what’s becoming a system of systems, with the complexity of vehicles and the complexity of traffic management, interacting at great speed demands extensive analysis and testing.

These tasks can be accomplished. Rushing them would be foolish. That’s difficult to resist when everyone wants to be first.

Future

The road to fixing climate change is not an endless road. Today, our whole approach to climate change goes somewhat like this:

I’m not sure I’m convinced. Yeah, maybe we have a problem. We should do something. Definitely, but send me the plans, I’ll get to it, I’m busy. Time passes. What was it we should be doing? Oh yes, but that plan is for (insert a name) not me. I’m not contributing much to the problem. Anyway, there’s time between now and (insert a date).

So, we go on. There’s no doubt that there are changes needed to tackle climate change that are immensely difficult to do. Trouble is that by fixating on those difficult problems we talk ourselves out of doing the easier things. Let’s put simple actions like home insulation on the agenda again. Let’s loosen-up on our ridiculously restrictive policy on wind farms. Let’s invest in our national electrical grid to permit more connections to be made easier and quicker.

Yes, it’s advantageous for the PR companies employed by high carbon businesses to talk up difficulties and herald small gains as miracles. I mean, that’s what they are employed to do. On the other side we have PR companies employed by activists and campaigners who paint pictures of dire consequences and delinquent Governments.

I keep pointing out the dangers of populism and nationalism. The history of both is not a good one. They generally make most people poorer and a minority richer and more powerful. However, the tactics they use to gain popular appeal don’t seem to die off down the ages. A case in point is the story of Rome and Julius Caesar, as he crushed Roman democracy and seized power[1]. The chronicle is being well told on BBC 2. In the Britian, it’s often only their incompetence that halts the progress of Caesar like characters. Not mentioning any names.

To make change happen on climate change there needs to be a greater appeal to the populous. Expecting politicians to take a lead on the subject is nice in theory but wanton of hope. In our system of governance terms of office can be measured in days. Expecting neurotic politicians to step-up to a challenge that requires real long-term commitment is asking a bit much.

Campaigners will not give up on highlighting the challenges ahead. Periodically, politicians will pick-up on that campaigning fervour and try to jump on-board. However, as soon as a more immediate public concern comes along, they will jump-off.

I’m not saying that the cost-of-living crisis isn’t a number one priority. What I am saying is that a cost-of-living crisis is not an excuse to put climate policy on a dusty shelf for another few years. The road to fixing climate change is not an endless road.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0gjlmkv

D minus PM

In the second decade of the 21^st century we should be surprised that a British Prime Minister should behave as if he lived in the 19^th century. Common problems, future collaboration and an alliance of decades are too important to jeopardise. Relations between Britain and Greece are of great importance. Today’s spat is foolish.

There’s a joke going around the social media. It asks the question: Why are the pyramids in Egypt? The answer being: Because they were too heavy for the British to carry-off. In other words, if they were smaller, they would be in the British Museum. That light-hearted quip highlights an inherited problem. Although, the same line could have been written about many imperial European countries. It was the fashion. Here British country houses were not properly dressed unless they had a sprinkling of ancient Greek artefacts. Those artefacts were often taken by the powerful. That’s our history.

The Parthenon is not any old relic. Its image is as heavily identified with modern Greece as it was with ancient Greece. As a symbol of western civilisation, it’s unmatched. Its sculptures are high points of classical Greek art.

Once upon a time, the argument was made that the Parthenon Sculptures were better protected by British Museum than they would be elsewhere. During the turbulent periods before the birth of modern Greece that argument was probably a fair one. Greek indepenence, helped by a famous British poet, became the start of the modern European State.

Lord Byron’s early death, at 36, was grieved both in Britain and Greece. His remains were returned to Britain where he was laid to rest. It was respectful to return to the great man to the land of his origins.

In 2023, Britain and Greece are friendly nations. We benefit immensely from the excellent relationship between the peoples of both countries. Thus, I can fully understand the Greek Prime Minister “annoyance” at being snubbed while in the country. The British Prime Minister being to busy to see his counterpart.

Athena is an ancient Greek goddess connected with wisdom. The Parthenon is a temple on the Athenian Acropolis. Well, there doesn’t seem to be much wisdom in Number 10 Downing Street. If there was, then such disagreements as there are over the future of the Parthenon Sculptures, would never have created the situation, we have this morning. It’s sad.

Politicians have a duty to address problems and not to run away from them for minor reasons. It’s only through dialogue that a solution will be found to the conflicting claims made about the Parthenon Sculptures. The day they return to the city where they belong will be one of great joy.

Duck

I take for granted that everyone knows the saying: “Red Sky at night Shepherd’s delight. Red Sky at morning Shepherd’s warning”. It’s not superstition. In the sense that calamitous events will descend on us because the rising sun happens to colour early morning clouds. It’s more the practical reality that British weather most often comes from the North Atlantic. So, clouds hovering in the West can be the signs of a cold front coming our way.

Being born in the countryside these ditties are bread and butter to me. Rural sayings about different times of the year, or nature in general endure, even in the mobile phone age. Now, up to date weather predictions, based on proven science are only a touch screen stroke away. Even so, memorable adages stick.

Last week, I heard a new one. New to me. A rhyming prognostic on the coming winter. This is not only a saying confined to rural areas. It adds to a long list of observations about the habits of birds.

This is not witchcraft. Birds’ behaviour can help us predict the weather, even if the means they use can be obscure. Our feathered friends are much more in-touch with nature than we can be.

“If the ice in November can bear a Duck. The rest of the Winter will be slush and muck”.

What’s going on with this traditional bird proverbs stumps me. OK, this suggest that a hard frost in November is an indicator that a warm, wet, and soggy winter is ahead. The duck as a measure of weight may be incidental. However, some ducks do migrate to find warmer places to overwinter. So, does the saying mean that because the duck is still here, it’s decided that the winter will be mild?

That’s contradictory to the presence of the thickness of ice needed to hold a three-pound bird. If a duck can stand on the ice and is happy with that situation. They are in the local park. Then that could mean a blast of cold air from the North before the year ends, has some meaning in terms of what happens next. What’s that got to do with slush and mush? I wonder.

Is this saying somehow linked to the past when hunting ducks was an annual event. Some strange observation that ducks are easier to hunt earlier in the winter. Or is that nonsense on my part.

This folklore saying about winter can be put to the test. Although we are close to the end of November, the frost has been hard enough to bear a duck. Not a huge duck but an average mallard.

If this means a mild winter, we’ll soon know. Maybe duck barometers will work as long-term predictors. Showing us a sign of coming foul weather. Ho, ho.

Another -isation

Coming across a new word kicks off some mixed feelings. What should I think? Should I be a pedant? Should I start using it right away or write to the newspapers in disgust?

This morning, I put a new word to Sue at breakfast. Her reaction was “that’s obscene”. It’s true that only one of us might be eligible or think about joining the Apostrophe Protection Society[1]. I was ambivalent towards technical colleagues making-up a new word. In this case, there’s no ambiguity in meaning. No need to explain. Chunking two ideas together is creativity – isn’t it?

I can’t go as far as to sniff at a newfound English word. Modern language must evolve. It must branch off onto fresh exotic paths. I’ve always thought the idea that there should be legislation to protect a “true” version of a langauage is as useful as hammering the nails into its coffin.

Composite words can be a delight. For one Christmas, I got a wonderful book of some of the longest German words that know no English equivalent. Naming objects or expressing combinations of circumstances in one gigantic word can be a lot of fun and surprisingly practical.

Who doesn’t like: Streichholzschächtelchen. Yes, it’s a matchbox.

Today, we talk of streaming as if that word had been around since prehistoric times but there are limits as to how we use it. For example, I’d sound strange if I said I was all streamed-up or streamed-out. My meaning being the memory on my mobile device was full of endless streamed material.

The word software[2] started its life as the name suggests. Something, like wool that was soft to ware. Say; I like this well-made winter coat. It’s good quality software. A crate in a coat makers factory might have a label with that humble word attached.

Today, no one would normally make that association. Almost since the date of my birth. And I could say the era of my birth was the beginning of the Space Age. The 1960s. Since the date of my birth, and the major part computers take in our everyday lives the term software has grown and grown. If a child of 5-years-old doesn’t know the word, there education must be wanting.

Living a sheltered existence, it’s only this morning that the word softwarisation came to my notice. Even the spellchecker and text prediction want to turn it into something else. The word does follow that simple composting convention that seems so popular, particularly amongst technical society. Assuming everyone knows what software is then it adds an ending that suggest a transformation from something into software. I’m not talking about turning a lump of cheese into software, so context is all important.

Software’s forefather, or mother was hardware. That’s the physical electronics that you can touch and hold. Loads of semiconductors and tiny circuits in our devices that are constantly taken for granted. Softwarisation is a way of saying that more and more digital device functionality is dependent on software and not physical hardware. More and more device hardware is becoming general purpose and it’s the software does the thinking. I’ll go with that. It’s happening.

PS: I didn’t use Microsoft Bing (software) to help create the above but after I’d written it I did have a look to see what it said about the subject. Help, there’s no going back.

[1] https://www.apostrophe.org.uk/

[2] https://www.etymonline.com/word/software

Drift

There’s a problem. A big problem. Waking up to hear the Dutch situation, it’s not as if we should be surprised[1]. Hearing of the violence on the streets of Dublin. It’s shocking. Listening to right-wing politicians talk about the latest immigration figures. Distortion and twisting of the numbers are commonplace tactics. Fearmongering is the stock and trade of an unscrupulous bunch.

Although populist have delivered only failure in the last decade there’s something about them that sticks. They have ring fenced the arena of doom and gloom for their own ends. Whereas in the past, shining a light on the flaws and nonsense of certain people’s arguments was enough to consign them to the margins, now that doesn’t work so well. Misinformation goes mainstream.

The Brexit referendum was a lesson in 21^st century campaigning. More facts don’t win the hearts and minds of the populous. Why liberal, like myself always major on rationality is a mystery. As the ancient Greeks might have put it “logos” has its place in the art of persuasion but it’s one of three. Credibility, or “ethos” matters greatly. But the one on the list that works, “pathos,” meaning persuasion based on emotion, is far the most effective.

I happened to catch a few minutes of The World at War[2] on one of the more obscure British televisions channels. The digital air is full of fringe channels. This epic 1970s series presents interviews with those who experienced WWII. Every time, I watch even a clip of the series a shiver runs down my spine. The times it documents are not long ago. It’s the modern world.

The evils that despots and extreme nationalism can do is unquestionable. The hard conviction that others are inferior and that they are a threat to the way of life of a nation has not perished. Politicians unwilling to accept accountability are keen to point fingers at those they can blame for promises broken. Blinkered minds fixate to blank out inconvenient facts.

The history books show that the drift towards mindlessness doesn’t always announce itself. Only retrospectively can a day when the atmosphere changed be highlighted. Then it can seem obvious. Being mindful of the impact that divisive speeches and campaign slogans can have is an absolute must. Language counts.

Migration will always be an issue. This age is one of high levels of mobility. Transport is affordable. It’s open to those seeking to escape discrimination or to ambitious for a better life. Shifting population made nations. America and Australasia are examples of people moving (or being moved).

What we don’t have is a workable way of wining hearts and minds. Yes, managing migration is a priority issue but not managing it as a crisis with negativity and warnings of catastrophe. The results of doom and gloom will be more doom and gloom. That just feeds far right-wing movements.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67512204

[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071075/

The Dr

There’s something wonderfully peculiar about a time traveller wandering around the universe in a British police box. Time and space are the stuff of an infinite number of story lines. But the ones who strike a cord with us most are the humancentric ones. Our home, Earth is under threat. Humanity is in peril. Nobody knows what to do. Then stepping out of street furniture from the 1960s comes a hero. Not a muscle bound, gun toting superhero with magical powers. No, an eccentric, cerebral alien who looks like a college professor who took too many happy pills in their hippy phase. Humanoid in appearance. Wherever The Doctor goes so enemies follow, set for a final showdown[1].

Iconic features of Dr Who’s[2] life echo down through our decades. The Doctor’s vehicle is nothing like H G Well imagined. With a nice trick of being bigger inside than out it dazzles all who hitch a ride. If only we could master that transformation. I for one, don’t think it’s entirely impossible. Afterall isn’t physics up to about 12 dimensions now?

No saviour of the human race is complete without uniquely bad adversaries. Strangely enough quite a few are machine-based baddies. How in the moment is that? With increasing neurosis about what machines may be capable of in the near future. Daleks look a bit crude with what we know now. Unlike the iPhone we haven’t yet seen an upgrade to a version of the Dalek 15 Pro. I dread to think what that might do. They may have a resistance to any means of destruction.

Some Science Fiction can bore with an intensely serious inspection of our planetary dilemmas. Dr Who steers clear of that trap. Injecting humour and simple everyday relationships into the stories, the level is more connectable. One person matters, as much as billions.

My Doctor is Tom Baker. As a Time Lord, he captured that frenetic, unpredictable, jumbo schoolboy who knew no bounds. Yet, he retained a masterly command of dangerous situations. He could look stern as well as overjoyed. Never did I think that he would turn to the darkside.

My favourite evil monsters are the Cybermen. The idea that machines should decide that humans would be better if they were transformed into machines is a true horror story. It a kind of malevolent evil that doesn’t know it’s evil. It’s possible to believe that could exist.

Pure fiction, mixed with a scary look at expanding technology and always a partnership between good folk to overcome despots like The Master and singularly driven uncharitable aliens. That blend makes for wonderful entertainment. Long may television, and its replacements celebrate this combination. Regeneration has no end.

Today, it’s Doctor Who’s 60th Anniversary[3]. Happy birthday.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056751/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who

[3] https://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/doctor-who-is-60-today-99309.htm