Moral rethink

OPINION LETTERS Moral rethink From Bill Summers When it comes to bankers and their errant behaviour, Christopher Boehm asks if our evolved moral instincts have failed us (23 March, p 26). They clearly have not, since we are all outraged, if powerless. What has failed is our collective ability to design and implement a system that achieves a moral outcome. Corporate entities are not amenable to regulation based on morality, which is a human emotion. It is the individual bankers who need to be regulated. So, instead of pointless moral outrage, let us try a redesign of the system. Sturminster Newton, Dorset, UK From Sebastian Hayes Boehm wonders why no bankers have been seriously penalised since the financial crisis erupted, despite public anger. In the UK it is clear: many MPs don’t resent bankers, they are in awe of them. With our industry outsourced and little economic contribution from agriculture, the British

economy is more dependent on its financial sector than any other advanced nation. They have us over a barrel. Shaftesbury, Dorset, UK

The answer is… From Peter Wilby In your look at stupidity, a question illustrating the decisionmaking cognitive bias known as the ambiguity effect was posed (30 March, p 30): Jack is looking at Anne but Anne is looking at George. Jack is married but George is not. Is a married person looking at an unmarried person? Since we are not told Anne’s marital status I think the answer is “cannot be determined”. However author Sally Adee says the answer is “yes”. Please explain. Other readers may also be puzzled… I hope! Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK The editor writes: n You are far from alone. To put readers out of their misery, here’s the explanation: knowing whether or not Anne is married

Enigma Number 1744

Clive’s number PETER CHAMBERLAIN In a new design of cellphone, each of the number keys 1 to 9 is associated with two or three letters of the alphabet. Predictive text software chooses letters for you as you type. The letters are not in the usual alphabetic order and there are no letters on the zero button. The eight words TWO, THREE,.... , NINE are each encoded by numbers that

are divisible by the single digit implied by their names. Also, two consecutive items in that list are equal to their single digit raised to some power (a different power in each case). The word SCIENTIST is given by typing in a number that is a multiple of 11 and CLIVE is also a multiple of 11. What number corresponds to CLIVE?

WIN £15 will be awarded to the sender of the first correct answer opened on Wednesday 8 May. The Editor’s decision is final. Please send entries to Enigma 1744, New Scientist, Lacon House, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS, or to [email protected] (please include your postal address). Answer to 1738 Two perfect squares: the squares are 1296 and 5625 The winner Anthony Buragina of Oakville, Ontario, Canada

28 | NewScientist | 13 April 2013

isn’t necessary. If Anne is married, it means that she is the married person looking at an unmarried person – George. If Anne is not married, the answer is still yes: it just means that Jack is the married person looking at an unmarried person, Anne.

Body beautiful From Thorsten Wirth I enjoyed your insightful look at the workings of the human body, including oddities such as yawning (16 March, p 34). Here’s my it-really-does-work remedy for hiccups – press-ups. I resorted to this after trying everything else for a severe bout of hiccuping. After 12 to 20 pressups they’re gone, guaranteed. Berlin, Germany From Brett Reynolds You claim that blood travels 19,000 kilometres a day in the body (p 37). That would equate to about 792 kilometres an hour. At that speed, my guess is that your body would be torn apart. Perhaps the figure wrongly assumes all your blood travels through every millimetre of available blood vessels every time it circulates. Caledon Village, Ontario, Canada

One-way ticket From Peter Household Your coverage of the Mars One project to set up a human colony on the Red Planet stated: “The trip is one way, as getting back is too difficult…” (16 March, p 12). Invoking the spirit of Star Trek, British physicist Paul Davies and US geologist Dirk Schulze-Makuch promoted the concept of a oneway mission in an article entitled “To Boldly Go” in the Journal of Cosmology in 2010 (vol 12, p 3619). They argued it would be little different from early settlers who left Europe for North America with little hope of return. Really? At least they anticipated green

grass, blue skies and white clouds. Numerous scientific benefits were cited by Davies and SchulzeMakuch, all of which I agree with. But if it really is a suicide mission, some questions should be asked. Even if someone volunteers for a one-way mission, is it right? If the colonists know the risks but willingly accept them in a spirit of adventure, does that absolve those who send them? Mars One is an exciting idea… but these ethical questions must be aired. Mitchelstown, Cork, Ireland

We are not amused From Chris Ford I was not impressed by Michael Leonard’s letter suggesting readers pay more to save the UK’s Royal Institution (23 March, p 31). Organisations tagged as royal should ask the queen for support. She’s worth a few pennies. Walsall, West Midlands, UK

Patent pending From Peter Hohmann Stephen Ornes raises the vexed issue of software patents (16 March, p 26). Software relies on mathematics, usually considered a discovery rather than an invention, and so is often unpatentable, stifling innovation. The dilemma could be solved this way: mathematical truths pre-exist informally and are discovered by mathematicians. However, the particular way in which a mathematical truth is