Harriot was a well funded professional. However, his funds came from patrons who were politically tainted (if trying to kill your king deserves such an unharsh word.) So I agree that he may have had good reason to keep a low profile for a short while, and by then moon-maps were two a penny. Possibly an accurate term as a penny was worth something back then.

But is someone who published little and apparently avoided risk deserving of the term 'hero'

I really have no idea why he was so well funded over so many years by people who were in and out of power. I suspect he was essentially what would today be a civil servant, a senior scientific officer. ( Whatever the appropriate British term is.) On that basis, he would remain a background figure, much like the mathematician who invented the RSA algorithm before R, S & A did.

The minor bit of irony is that apparently he has a moon crater named after him, but it is on the we-don't-see-it side. (The Larson or Far Side of the moon.) And to cap it off, Wikipedia makes no reference to Thomas Harriot at all. Truly one of the grey suits of British science.

'here' is New Zealand, but that is actually irrelevant, as I do not believe the rule is official. Rather, youngsters who ring up to register are intimidated and confused before the process even starts. The brief briefing we as parents got was garbled, but that is par for the course.

In NZ, local calls are free, but cell phone calls cost you quite seriously. My guess is the top toad at that office issued a rule that wherever possible, land-line phone numbers were to be obtained. This filters out to the case managers to result in statements designed to force compliance such as "We really need a land-line number in order to register you.". My daughter was in the process of changing flats and a land-line was an impossibility. She could have clearly pointed this out, and been assertive. Instead, she behaved in quite a predictable manner for someone who is inexperienced but tries hard to sort problems out. She made inconclusive noises to end the conversation and spent the next hour trying to arrange a temporary land-line. She simply gave up in the end and focussed on updating her CV instead.

I doubt if anyone was out and out 'bullshitting' here. Rather, there has been a decade of prosperity with low unemployment. So low that getting half-way suitable employees a year ago was a problem. The bureaucracy has been dealing with people who can be rapidly employed, mixed in with no-hopers who lie, cheat and really want to be paid to smoke dope. Plus the medical cases, etc. Possession of a land-line implies a fixed address and life stability. I suspect the system has evolved methods of sorting the useful from the problematic that may collapse now that unemployment has doubled and many of those are young. Previously, being young and mobile was an advantage.

In terms of the phone discussion here, I'd say it pays to have a land-line if you are looking for a job. It is part of a package that says to employers - I am reliable. They do not even have to be conscious of the fact. It gets bundled in with where you live, the quality of your clothes, clarity of expression and so on. People like to employ people like themselves.

My daughter became unemployed before Xmas. To register as unemployed, she had to have a land-line, a cellphone being unacceptable. So you can't even be officially unemployed without a phone here.

She also could not go onto a wanting-to-accept-a-job list without going on a week long course. You have to be trained to be unemployed.

I expect they will make it a 3 year university course soon. One whole semester on the use of phones; what to do when caught in possession of a phone (ring your lawyer), leaving your cell-phone on during an interview (implies your are in high demand), acceptable ring-tones for interviews, and so on. According to Parkinson's Law, 'Course content rises to use up un-tenured tutors.'

Really, how can anyone claim to be seriously looking for a job and not have three phones? (Cell, land-line, and apparent referee with a very different accent.) Officialdom could lower dole costs, freeing up dollars for financiers, who, if they are unemployed (Mammon forbid!), will have many, many phones.

Actually, I wasn't calling you illiterate. The original article was a really long read with quite complex language at times. It was slow going with a mix of stats and university level English. I had the problem. So my apologies for an inadvertent insult.

On full scan DNA testing: Yes it should be possible within 5 years to get full scans at a reasonable price. If there is a specific DNA fault tied to a particular problem, it will probably find it. (Full I expect to mean mean 1% of the DNA, the 'exome', which I understand generates all the proteins.) Worth doing, I agree, if you can afford it, or if there is a likely (familial) fault and it is worth it for a society to help you avoid propagating a serious problem.

Pinker argued that whilst there are these specific and valid cases, the interpretation of the genetic fitness of an individual is just plain too difficult in the majority of cases. My opinion is that a generation from now it should be different, but the snake oil merchants are not going to wait that long. The valid cases will not pay for them; they will prey on fear and the misunderstandings of statistics. If someone pays $1000 for a test, telling them they do not have any one of 20 rare cases just means they have blown their money. If you go on to elaborate on probabilities and possibilities, then you catch their attention, and they recommend the test to their friends. I dislike what I see as a probable social outcome.

My opinions may be dead wrong, but I am not bothered by that. I express them as a way of having them open for examination, and discarding if need be. Piss on them by all means. But if 'eugenics' is worse than talking to a gossip, I think this comparison should be made clear. Telling people that there is some convoluted statistical correlation that implies they have a potential health problem then they will worry, or alternatively, not employ or insure someone. Say you talked to the local gossip and then trot out the same conclusion and you will be despised. I think there is going to be too much money invested in 'eugenics' to allow people to make rational decisions.

I've been in science, and had to try and explain technology to policy makers who were ignorant of my area, and pretty shaky on even simple stats. In the end, simple comparisons are all that worked. "Eugenics is not as good as talking to your family." That message may undermine billion dollar investments, but I still think it is valid.

On the other hand, I do have a genetic fault that has resulted in a heart op. The DNA link is unknown at present. Long term, yeah it would be nice for family members to know if they have the problem, as it can be better managed than I did in my ignorance. At least when it comes to being dead wrong, the emphasis is still on the wrong.

Hoo boy! You didn't read the article, did you. Reading the 8 long pages takes a while, given that the language isn't designed for the illiterate. I'd recommend page 5.

The basic message is simple - the DNA tests are slightly better than horseshit, and nowhere near as good as talking to some gossipy individual (prejudices and all) who knows you and your family. He quotes horrible stats like a study of 16,000 people for DNA contribution to IQ which managed to explain 2% of the variance. So if you are going to spend $400 to $100,000 per individual on outcome info, the best way to do it is to pay dear old ladies to babble to someone typing into a database. Saying things like, "Yeah, that family were often off to the library and that's why he had to get glasses aged 14." Such a database would be a huge heap of social venom but it would work better than genome testing.

The downside is that it would lack the aura of technology and be difficult to persuade funding for.

There are a few rare conditions worth testing for, but those are in the main an irrelevancy. They are rare, and usually the family history is already really informative.

If you don't want your tax dollars going to needless medical costs, then genome testing is not a good approach. Try persuading people not to eat high salt fatty food. Pay for TV ads for this. It will be a total waste of time, but so is playing with eugenics. At least you will know in advance that you are wasting your dollars.

It is not a bunch of hippies doing the complaining, it is the residents. They have little use for the WiFi, which has been used 422 times in 6 months. I suspect the locals know exactly what they want. Maintaining jobs and a way of life, which draws on 5000 years of hocus pocus. Orgone generators are right in there as a mix of crystals and gold and romanticism.

  As for the headaches? Quite genuine reporting I'd say. My father told me that a satellite receiving station near where he worked was found to generate a wide mix of ills in the 3 months following its official opening. This was not published because it would have embarrassed the Minister. Due to a cock-up in parts supply, they faked the opening and it sat idle but impressive whilst headaches abounded.

Headaches occur, and people want causes assigned. It's a matter of opinion whether it is better to blame an aerial or a spell cast by a witch. Just so long as the majority have a good laugh in the pub in the off-season. Witchcraft is a bit like Royalty. A good historical reason for people to kill each other, but really just a useful source of tourist dollars these days.