belarus traditional child ornament


New Scientist in 2002

Almost by accident I’ve received six back issues of “New Scientist” from 2002 which I read yesterday and today with great interest. I was quite surpised to see that even short-term forecasts in science don’t seem to hold up. Here are just a few funny ones that I’ve spotted:

Cloning. The January issue predicts that there could be a first human clone in 2003!

Human space exploration. With great excitement they write about ISS ambitious plans and a human mission to Mars in the nearest future. However, the explosion of “Columbia” on Febrary, 1, 2003 crossed out those optimistic forecasts and threw human space exploration plans many years back.

Planet X. There’s an exciting feature story about the search for the tenth planet. The ironic thing is that the tenth planet was indeed found and got a temporary name 2003 UB313, but instead of becoming the tenth planet, it sparkled debates on what’s a definition of planet, and now physicists are thinking whether Pluto deserves the status of the ninth planet at all.

• And the funniest one, by far, is about teleportation, I quote: “Sometime this year [2003] they may have teleported an object big enough to be visible.”

Isn’t it hillarious? Teleporting in 2003. And in other news:

Zmicier Pimenau was set free. Belgian police released him on Friday and said that it was mistake and they are sorry. Duh…

• I’m lagging behind in answering questions in my mail box and in my blog. I hope I’ll catch up with that within a couple of days. Btw, commenting here is now open to everybody, no need to register.

2 Responses to “New Scientist in 2002”

  1. }T{Reme [Q_G] Says:

    Interesting magazine :) Yes I do too find it amusing to occasionally bump into some old document making theories about the future, part of it ends up being true :)

    They were “sorry” eh? Well.. I dunno but according to most law books.. he can sue the police / government for unjustified detention. Any reasonable lawyer would pulverize any form of arguments the police may have for keeping him detained. They had no reason to do so, period.

  2. ghrtyrtyreyt Says:

    ghrtyrtyreyt

    ghrtyrtyreyt

Leave a Reply