Arrogance is its own brand of stupidity. See this post from Matt Osborne at C&L. Aaron Barr is the CEO of HBGary Federal, one of the outfits retained, in a fully plausibly deniable manner, by Bank of America to trash those who were, it thought, about to unmask possibly criminal activities by its upper echelons. It didn't quite work out that way:
HBGary Federal CEO Aaron Barr thought he had unmasked the hacker hordes of Anonymous and was preparing to name and shame those responsible for co-ordinating the group's actions, including the denial-of-service attacks that hit MasterCard, Visa, and other perceived enemies of WikiLeaks late last year.
When Barr told one of those he believed to be an Anonymous ringleader about his forthcoming exposé, the Anonymous response was swift and humiliating. HBGary's servers were broken into, its e-mails pillaged and published to the world, its data destroyed, and its website defaced. As an added bonus, a second site owned and operated by Greg Hoglund, owner of HBGary, was taken offline and the user registration database published.
It gets worse -- a study in incompetence. This is the cherry on top:
Alas, two HBGary Federal employees—CEO Aaron Barr and COO Ted Vera—used passwords that were very simple; each was just six lower case letters and two numbers. Such simple combinations are likely to be found in any respectable rainbow table, and so it was that their passwords were trivially compromised.
This is a firm that specializes in Internet security.
Barr also completely misread the nature of Anonymous. Do follow the links -- there's some very interesting information there.
It would seem that the oligarchs' idea that they are above mere right and wrong has unintended consequences.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Rob Tisinai on Marriage (Updated)
Rob Tisinai is doing a very nice dissection of an article by Robert George that claims to establish the basis of "real marriage" (i.e., the "traditional" patriarchal version). My only objection is that I think Tisinai is being way too nice, but then, I have small patience with fools.
Check it out.
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Update:
Here's another comment on George's article from Jason Kuznicki that's quite cogent and pretty devastating. This comment from one of Kuznicki's readers echoes the comment I left at Tisinai's Part V:
The upshot was that “marriage” (in quotes now because there isn’t a truly universal definition) was a cultural construct and can’t be properly understood outside its cultural context. If you want to understand Nuer marriage, for instance, you need to get a grasp of the panoply of formal relationships in their culture, and if one of them more closely resembles our notion of marriage and you want to call it marriage, so be it.
The larger point I’m driving at is that if a culture wants to recognize gay marriage as marriage just say it is and it is. No need to talk about penises or vaginas or any other naughty bits, which don’t have any cosmic significance that I am aware of. If society says it is, it is.
Check it out.
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Update:
Here's another comment on George's article from Jason Kuznicki that's quite cogent and pretty devastating. This comment from one of Kuznicki's readers echoes the comment I left at Tisinai's Part V:
The upshot was that “marriage” (in quotes now because there isn’t a truly universal definition) was a cultural construct and can’t be properly understood outside its cultural context. If you want to understand Nuer marriage, for instance, you need to get a grasp of the panoply of formal relationships in their culture, and if one of them more closely resembles our notion of marriage and you want to call it marriage, so be it.
The larger point I’m driving at is that if a culture wants to recognize gay marriage as marriage just say it is and it is. No need to talk about penises or vaginas or any other naughty bits, which don’t have any cosmic significance that I am aware of. If society says it is, it is.
The Farmer's Life
It struck me, as my mind was following its own little pathways this morning, that the structure of our days, even in our "post-industrial" society, is founded in the patterns and rhythms of agriculture. (This comes about because I was actually thinking about how my system just can't tolerate regular meals any more. All that food at once knocks me out.)
Think about it. Back in our hunter/forager days, we nibbled throughout the day. I mean, we had meals, but they were often as much ritual as anything else -- a community gathering, in part to socialize, in part maybe to make sure everyone was there. (Life was kind of risky in those days.) The idea of "three squares" rises with agrarian societies: you got up in the morning and had a hearty breakfast because you had to go out and work in the fields, and then broke for lunch so you could go out and work in the fields some more, and then had dinner because you had been working in the fields all day.
We still do that.
Think about it. Back in our hunter/forager days, we nibbled throughout the day. I mean, we had meals, but they were often as much ritual as anything else -- a community gathering, in part to socialize, in part maybe to make sure everyone was there. (Life was kind of risky in those days.) The idea of "three squares" rises with agrarian societies: you got up in the morning and had a hearty breakfast because you had to go out and work in the fields, and then broke for lunch so you could go out and work in the fields some more, and then had dinner because you had been working in the fields all day.
We still do that.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
One Can Only Hope
That this idea spreads.
Most office buildings are divorced, in a way, from their surroundings. Each day in the mechanical trenches of heating, cooling and data processing is much the same as another but for the cost of paying for the energy used.
The energy lab’s Research Support Facility building is more like a mirror, or perhaps a sponge, to its surroundings. From the light-bending window louvers that cast rays up into the interior office spaces, to the giant concrete maze in the sub-basement for holding and storing radiant heat, every day is completely different.
It sounds like some sort of high-tech utopia, but get this:
The answer at the research energy laboratory, a unit of the federal Department of Energy, is not gee-whiz science. There is no giant, expensive solar array that could mask a multitude of traditional design sins, but rather a rethinking of everything, down to the smallest elements, all aligned in a watt-by-watt march toward a new kind of building.
Managers even pride themselves on the fact that hardly anything in their building, at least in its individual component pieces, is really new.
Off-the-shelf technology, cost-efficient as well as energy-efficient, was the mantra to finding what designers repeatedly call the sweet spot — zero energy that doesn’t break a sweat, or the bank.
I work in downtown Chicago, just north of the Loop, and over the past couple of years I've watched several new buildings go up -- the climate control systems are massive, and there's obviously no thought given to energy conservation, or very little: there's a new hotel across the street that claims "green friendliness," but it doesn't seem to be on any large scale.
One thing the article doesn't touch on that would be workable, I think, someplace like my work neighorhood: wind generators to take advantage of the updrafts and downdrafts created by these high-rises.
This, though, is the sort of thing that should be getting a massive boost from the government -- forget the damned subsidies for oil exploration.
Most office buildings are divorced, in a way, from their surroundings. Each day in the mechanical trenches of heating, cooling and data processing is much the same as another but for the cost of paying for the energy used.
The energy lab’s Research Support Facility building is more like a mirror, or perhaps a sponge, to its surroundings. From the light-bending window louvers that cast rays up into the interior office spaces, to the giant concrete maze in the sub-basement for holding and storing radiant heat, every day is completely different.
It sounds like some sort of high-tech utopia, but get this:
The answer at the research energy laboratory, a unit of the federal Department of Energy, is not gee-whiz science. There is no giant, expensive solar array that could mask a multitude of traditional design sins, but rather a rethinking of everything, down to the smallest elements, all aligned in a watt-by-watt march toward a new kind of building.
Managers even pride themselves on the fact that hardly anything in their building, at least in its individual component pieces, is really new.
Off-the-shelf technology, cost-efficient as well as energy-efficient, was the mantra to finding what designers repeatedly call the sweet spot — zero energy that doesn’t break a sweat, or the bank.
I work in downtown Chicago, just north of the Loop, and over the past couple of years I've watched several new buildings go up -- the climate control systems are massive, and there's obviously no thought given to energy conservation, or very little: there's a new hotel across the street that claims "green friendliness," but it doesn't seem to be on any large scale.
One thing the article doesn't touch on that would be workable, I think, someplace like my work neighorhood: wind generators to take advantage of the updrafts and downdrafts created by these high-rises.
This, though, is the sort of thing that should be getting a massive boost from the government -- forget the damned subsidies for oil exploration.
Marriage
I haven't written anything about this for a while, and things have been moving. Let's see if I can pull something together.
First, from Pam's House Blend, this report from Washington state:
Lawmakers have chosen today - the day that millions across the country celebrate the bonds of affection shared between two people in love - as the day to introduce major legislation that would no longer restrict gays and lesbians from their right to marry.
Today is not the first time the issue of marriage equality for gays and lesbians and the Valentine's Day holiday have crossed paths.
In early February of 1998, in what has proven to be the darkest of Valentine's for gay and lesbian families in our state, the Legislature enshrined discrimination as the law of the land in Washington by overriding the veto of then-Gov. Gary Locke to approve the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act."
Let's not start cheering -- a marriage bill has been introduced in every session of the legislature for years; maybe this year it will finally make it out of committee. From The Stranger:
Murray acknowledges that the bill isn't going anywhere this year.
The legislature doesn't have the votes, and if it did, the law probably wouldn't survive the referendum that conservatives would gleefully run to put it on the ballot. Murray has introduced a marriage-equality bill in every legislative biennium since 1997 and none has ever even gotten out of committee, he says. But it's not about passing it this year. Murray insists it's about "raising the flag" to call for a better ground game outside Seattle; actually passing the bill is the "end game." Murray points out that, of the 14 Dem cosponsors, some have never signed on before (including Sens Eide and McAuliffe), and that's a sign the legislature will warm up—eventually.
In Maryland, the marriage bill needs 24 votes in the Senate to pass. It now has 23. Via AmericaBlog Gay:
This year changes in a key senate panel delivered advocates the best chance they've ever had to legalize same-sex marriage. They believe that they have the 29 votes needed to cut off debate in the chamber and vote. The bill is expected to be voted out of committee this Thursday.
Remember, Maggie Gallagher's testimony against SSM was crucial in changing some minds -- in our favor.
Rhode Island seem to have broad support for marriage, but there's the little matter of legislative politics. From the Boston Globe, a few days ago:
Hundreds of people turned out at the Statehouse Wednesday to testify or hear from advocates and opponents of a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Rhode Island.
People on both sides rallied in the Statehouse rotunda ahead of the hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. The legislation has been introduced several times over the years, but failed amid opposition from previous Republican Gov. Don Carcieri and former legislative leaders. This year, advocates are optimistic because it has the support of new independent Gov. Lincoln Chafee and Democratic House Speaker Gordon Fox, who is gay and is a co-sponsor of the bill.
Here's a more detailed discussion from The Rainbow Times.
In New Hampshire, the bid to repeal the state's marriage law is up for grabs. 62% of the electorate oppose repeal, and that's going to have an effect in the legislature. From Seacoastonline:
Predictions on both sides are that the repeal will pass in the House and Senate, will be vetoed by Gov. John Lynch, and the battle will come over the effort to overturn or sustain the veto. A two-thirds affirmative vote is needed in both houses to overturn. . . .
The UNH Survey Center's Smith said he believes a repeal effort will ultimately fail. "The Republican electorate in New Hampshire is a moderate to liberal electorate, as compared to their counterparts nationwide," he said. "And politicians want to get re-elected. Eventually, the people in Concord are going to say, 'If I want my job, I better not vote to repeal.'"
I think repeal will fail -- no one has any real stomach for it, and the NOM brigade has to pressure the legislature to get a bill to the floor, which I don't think they can do.
As a sidebar, Illinois' civil unions bill has been signed and is now law. The consensus is that the push for full marriage will happen within the next couple of years. And Colorado is now considering a civil unions bill.
I'm not going to get into the situation in New York -- it's still too murky (although Gov. Cuomo is insisting it's going to happen this year) -- and we can write New Jersey off, at least until Gov. Christie finishes trashing the state's finances and gets his ass canned.
And one thing that's not happening here, but that I think will have a lot of resonance: The UK is moving very fast on full marriage rights:
The government is expected to announce full marriage equality for gays and lesbians under reforms to marriage laws to be announced later this week. The reported move will end the final major legal discrimination against gays and lesbians in Britain.
According to the Sunday Times, a proposal to end the ban on same sex marriage will be announced by the Liberal Democrat equality minister Lynne Featherstone at the same time as the government announces the time table for civil partnerships to be held in religious buildings.
This is from a report two days ago.
Gone are the days when 70% majorities would put an anti-marriage amendment in state constitutions. (And those are all vulnerable to 14th Amendment challenges, and I can hardly wait.)
And that's all I have to say on the matter right now.
First, from Pam's House Blend, this report from Washington state:
Lawmakers have chosen today - the day that millions across the country celebrate the bonds of affection shared between two people in love - as the day to introduce major legislation that would no longer restrict gays and lesbians from their right to marry.
Today is not the first time the issue of marriage equality for gays and lesbians and the Valentine's Day holiday have crossed paths.
In early February of 1998, in what has proven to be the darkest of Valentine's for gay and lesbian families in our state, the Legislature enshrined discrimination as the law of the land in Washington by overriding the veto of then-Gov. Gary Locke to approve the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act."
Let's not start cheering -- a marriage bill has been introduced in every session of the legislature for years; maybe this year it will finally make it out of committee. From The Stranger:
Murray acknowledges that the bill isn't going anywhere this year.
The legislature doesn't have the votes, and if it did, the law probably wouldn't survive the referendum that conservatives would gleefully run to put it on the ballot. Murray has introduced a marriage-equality bill in every legislative biennium since 1997 and none has ever even gotten out of committee, he says. But it's not about passing it this year. Murray insists it's about "raising the flag" to call for a better ground game outside Seattle; actually passing the bill is the "end game." Murray points out that, of the 14 Dem cosponsors, some have never signed on before (including Sens Eide and McAuliffe), and that's a sign the legislature will warm up—eventually.
In Maryland, the marriage bill needs 24 votes in the Senate to pass. It now has 23. Via AmericaBlog Gay:
This year changes in a key senate panel delivered advocates the best chance they've ever had to legalize same-sex marriage. They believe that they have the 29 votes needed to cut off debate in the chamber and vote. The bill is expected to be voted out of committee this Thursday.
Remember, Maggie Gallagher's testimony against SSM was crucial in changing some minds -- in our favor.
Rhode Island seem to have broad support for marriage, but there's the little matter of legislative politics. From the Boston Globe, a few days ago:
Hundreds of people turned out at the Statehouse Wednesday to testify or hear from advocates and opponents of a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Rhode Island.
People on both sides rallied in the Statehouse rotunda ahead of the hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. The legislation has been introduced several times over the years, but failed amid opposition from previous Republican Gov. Don Carcieri and former legislative leaders. This year, advocates are optimistic because it has the support of new independent Gov. Lincoln Chafee and Democratic House Speaker Gordon Fox, who is gay and is a co-sponsor of the bill.
Here's a more detailed discussion from The Rainbow Times.
In New Hampshire, the bid to repeal the state's marriage law is up for grabs. 62% of the electorate oppose repeal, and that's going to have an effect in the legislature. From Seacoastonline:
Predictions on both sides are that the repeal will pass in the House and Senate, will be vetoed by Gov. John Lynch, and the battle will come over the effort to overturn or sustain the veto. A two-thirds affirmative vote is needed in both houses to overturn. . . .
The UNH Survey Center's Smith said he believes a repeal effort will ultimately fail. "The Republican electorate in New Hampshire is a moderate to liberal electorate, as compared to their counterparts nationwide," he said. "And politicians want to get re-elected. Eventually, the people in Concord are going to say, 'If I want my job, I better not vote to repeal.'"
I think repeal will fail -- no one has any real stomach for it, and the NOM brigade has to pressure the legislature to get a bill to the floor, which I don't think they can do.
As a sidebar, Illinois' civil unions bill has been signed and is now law. The consensus is that the push for full marriage will happen within the next couple of years. And Colorado is now considering a civil unions bill.
I'm not going to get into the situation in New York -- it's still too murky (although Gov. Cuomo is insisting it's going to happen this year) -- and we can write New Jersey off, at least until Gov. Christie finishes trashing the state's finances and gets his ass canned.
And one thing that's not happening here, but that I think will have a lot of resonance: The UK is moving very fast on full marriage rights:
The government is expected to announce full marriage equality for gays and lesbians under reforms to marriage laws to be announced later this week. The reported move will end the final major legal discrimination against gays and lesbians in Britain.
According to the Sunday Times, a proposal to end the ban on same sex marriage will be announced by the Liberal Democrat equality minister Lynne Featherstone at the same time as the government announces the time table for civil partnerships to be held in religious buildings.
This is from a report two days ago.
Gone are the days when 70% majorities would put an anti-marriage amendment in state constitutions. (And those are all vulnerable to 14th Amendment challenges, and I can hardly wait.)
And that's all I have to say on the matter right now.
Yet Another Planet
And it's ours:
If you grew up thinking there were nine planets and were shocked when Pluto was demoted five years ago, get ready for another surprise. There may be nine after all, and Jupiter may not be the largest.
The hunt is on for a gas giant up to four times the mass of Jupiter thought to be lurking in the outer Oort Cloud, the most remote region of the solar system. The orbit of Tyche (pronounced ty-kee), would be 15,000 times farther from the Sun than the Earth's, and 375 times farther than Pluto's, which is why it hasn't been seen so far.
Here's the link showing Tyche's location (pdf).
And here's a jpeg:
So now we have nine planets again -- maybe.
I miss Pluto, though.
If you grew up thinking there were nine planets and were shocked when Pluto was demoted five years ago, get ready for another surprise. There may be nine after all, and Jupiter may not be the largest.
The hunt is on for a gas giant up to four times the mass of Jupiter thought to be lurking in the outer Oort Cloud, the most remote region of the solar system. The orbit of Tyche (pronounced ty-kee), would be 15,000 times farther from the Sun than the Earth's, and 375 times farther than Pluto's, which is why it hasn't been seen so far.
Here's the link showing Tyche's location (pdf).
And here's a jpeg:
So now we have nine planets again -- maybe.
I miss Pluto, though.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Priceless
From Bill Maher, who is rapidly becoming one of my favorite commentators, right up there with Rachel Maddow.
With thanks to Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.
With thanks to Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.
The Reality of Social Security
I've been seeing too much lately about how Social Security is broke, or nearly, and workers in their 40s are never going to see a dime of benefits, and on and on and one. Digby has done us the signal service of publishing a letter from Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, that lays it all out. It's to Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Fantasyland), one of the quieter know-nothings in the Senate. I am taking the liberty of reposting it here:
February 9, 2011
The Honorable Richard Shelby
304 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Shelby:
During a recent breakfast at the Institute for Education, you said that Social Security is actuarially unsound, that the next generation of workers would receive little or nothing from Social Security and that there is no proof that your sons would get much at all. This is badly mistaken. You should know, both for your own personal finances, and more importantly for your actions as Senator, that under any plausible set of circumstances you and your sons can anticipate a substantial Social Security benefit.
You reached the national retirement age for Social Security in 1999. While I don’t know your precise earnings history, your pay as a senator made you eligible for the maximum benefit if it were sustained for 35 years. The Social Security Trustees Report and likely your own personal finances show that a maximum wage earner retiring in 1999 receives an annual benefit of $21,674 in 2010 dollars.
The trustees’ projections show that if nothing is ever done, then Social Security would pay full benefits through the year 2037. At this point, even if Congress does nothing there still would be substantial money flowing into the program, allowing the program to pay just under 80 percent of benefits. In the case of your youngest son, he would receive $29,700 from 2037 on (in today’s dollars), if his lifetime earnings path is similar to your own (i.e. he is a maximum wage earner).
As can be seen in Table V1.F2 of the Trustees Report, Social Security’s revenue in 2040 will be equal to 13.23 percent of covered payroll, while its outlays are projected at 16.64 percent. This would be sufficient to pay 79.5 percent of scheduled benefits.
Social Security’s finances are actually projected to improve slightly over the next decade so that the program would be able to pay 81.0 percent of scheduled benefits in 2050. For your son, this would be a benefit of slightly over $30,000. The situation is projected to change little in subsequent years. This means that your youngest son should be able to get a benefit of roughly this size for as long as he lives, even if Congress never does anything to eliminate the shortfall in the program. Again, these sums are all adjusted for inflation.
You also said that the normal retirement age for social security should be raised “every several years”. However, this would amount to a cut in benefits with each successive increase in the retirement age. If the normal age of retirement is phased in to reach 70 by 2036, it would result in a 4.0 percent reduction in benefits for workers between the ages of 50-54 in 2007 and a 10 percent reduction for workers between the ages of 40-44 in 2007.
Another point worth considering is that if the normal retirement age increased every few years, many workers would find it increasingly difficult to work until they are eligible for Social Security benefits. Forty five percent of workers over the age of 58 work in jobs that are physically demanding or have difficult work conditions. It is hard to imagine construction workers, firefighters, or nurses working well into their mid 60’s. Many would end up taking early retirement with a considerable reduction in benefits compared to currently scheduled levels.
Of course, it would be extremely unfortunate if Congress ever allowed Social Security to pay less than the full scheduled benefit. As a political matter it also seems unlikely in a context where beneficiaries are almost 50 percent larger as a share of the adult population than they are today. It is also worth noting that the necessary increases in funding are relatively small compared to items like the rise in defense spending over the last decade, so there certainly are not major economic obstacles to maintaining full funding.
I hope that you will take the time to review the program’s finances more carefully so that when you speak on it in the future you are better informed. I would be happy to assist you in providing additional background if it would be helpful.
Regards,
Dean Baker
Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Check out Digby's comments, as well -- they're short, but pungent.
February 9, 2011
The Honorable Richard Shelby
304 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Shelby:
During a recent breakfast at the Institute for Education, you said that Social Security is actuarially unsound, that the next generation of workers would receive little or nothing from Social Security and that there is no proof that your sons would get much at all. This is badly mistaken. You should know, both for your own personal finances, and more importantly for your actions as Senator, that under any plausible set of circumstances you and your sons can anticipate a substantial Social Security benefit.
You reached the national retirement age for Social Security in 1999. While I don’t know your precise earnings history, your pay as a senator made you eligible for the maximum benefit if it were sustained for 35 years. The Social Security Trustees Report and likely your own personal finances show that a maximum wage earner retiring in 1999 receives an annual benefit of $21,674 in 2010 dollars.
The trustees’ projections show that if nothing is ever done, then Social Security would pay full benefits through the year 2037. At this point, even if Congress does nothing there still would be substantial money flowing into the program, allowing the program to pay just under 80 percent of benefits. In the case of your youngest son, he would receive $29,700 from 2037 on (in today’s dollars), if his lifetime earnings path is similar to your own (i.e. he is a maximum wage earner).
As can be seen in Table V1.F2 of the Trustees Report, Social Security’s revenue in 2040 will be equal to 13.23 percent of covered payroll, while its outlays are projected at 16.64 percent. This would be sufficient to pay 79.5 percent of scheduled benefits.
Social Security’s finances are actually projected to improve slightly over the next decade so that the program would be able to pay 81.0 percent of scheduled benefits in 2050. For your son, this would be a benefit of slightly over $30,000. The situation is projected to change little in subsequent years. This means that your youngest son should be able to get a benefit of roughly this size for as long as he lives, even if Congress never does anything to eliminate the shortfall in the program. Again, these sums are all adjusted for inflation.
You also said that the normal retirement age for social security should be raised “every several years”. However, this would amount to a cut in benefits with each successive increase in the retirement age. If the normal age of retirement is phased in to reach 70 by 2036, it would result in a 4.0 percent reduction in benefits for workers between the ages of 50-54 in 2007 and a 10 percent reduction for workers between the ages of 40-44 in 2007.
Another point worth considering is that if the normal retirement age increased every few years, many workers would find it increasingly difficult to work until they are eligible for Social Security benefits. Forty five percent of workers over the age of 58 work in jobs that are physically demanding or have difficult work conditions. It is hard to imagine construction workers, firefighters, or nurses working well into their mid 60’s. Many would end up taking early retirement with a considerable reduction in benefits compared to currently scheduled levels.
Of course, it would be extremely unfortunate if Congress ever allowed Social Security to pay less than the full scheduled benefit. As a political matter it also seems unlikely in a context where beneficiaries are almost 50 percent larger as a share of the adult population than they are today. It is also worth noting that the necessary increases in funding are relatively small compared to items like the rise in defense spending over the last decade, so there certainly are not major economic obstacles to maintaining full funding.
I hope that you will take the time to review the program’s finances more carefully so that when you speak on it in the future you are better informed. I would be happy to assist you in providing additional background if it would be helpful.
Regards,
Dean Baker
Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Check out Digby's comments, as well -- they're short, but pungent.
Lucy's Foot
was pretty much like ours. That's what a new find indicates.
Lucy may be 3.2 million years old, but she still has the ability to surprise. Scientists recently reported that Lucy, aka Australopithecus afarensis, likely walked on two feet.
The findings came when researchers discovered a new foot bone belonging to Lucy. The bone's structure suggests that Lucy walked much like we do today. National Geographic explains that "until now it had been unclear just how upright -- in a sense, just how human -- Lucy really was."
The bone, which was found in Ethiopia, connected the toe to the base of Lucy's foot. It helped researchers confirm that Lucy's feet had "well-defined" arches, which likely helped the famous fossil to strut around on two feet and not via a grasping movement.
I had always thought that Lucy was entirely bipedal, but maybe I'm misremembering.
And here's a nice impression of her footprint:
The article is brief, but worth a read. The comments are distressing -- I'm continually amazed that there is so much ignorance in the world, all too often coupled with a large does of hostility.
Lucy may be 3.2 million years old, but she still has the ability to surprise. Scientists recently reported that Lucy, aka Australopithecus afarensis, likely walked on two feet.
The findings came when researchers discovered a new foot bone belonging to Lucy. The bone's structure suggests that Lucy walked much like we do today. National Geographic explains that "until now it had been unclear just how upright -- in a sense, just how human -- Lucy really was."
The bone, which was found in Ethiopia, connected the toe to the base of Lucy's foot. It helped researchers confirm that Lucy's feet had "well-defined" arches, which likely helped the famous fossil to strut around on two feet and not via a grasping movement.
I had always thought that Lucy was entirely bipedal, but maybe I'm misremembering.
 |
This undated handout combination photo provided by the journal Science shows four images of the fourth metatarsal, a long bone in the foot that shows Austraopithecus afarensis had an arched foot, indicating it was fully adapted to life on the ground rather than in the trees. Lucy's feet were made for walking. That's the word from a team of researchers that has gotten the first look at a foot bone from an human relative that lived three million or more years ago.… Read more » (AP Photo/Science) |
And here's a nice impression of her footprint:
The article is brief, but worth a read. The comments are distressing -- I'm continually amazed that there is so much ignorance in the world, all too often coupled with a large does of hostility.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Today's Must Read
This post by Glenn Greenwald, one of the targets of a campaign on behalf of Bank of America to cover its very wealthy ass against a potential leak of documents purportedly showing deep corruption and fraud at the highest levels of the corporation. (Gee -- why does this start to sound so familiar? I guess everybody's doing it.)
It's a thorough summary of events to date (and I'm happy to see that two of the security firms involved are feeling the heat) and being Greenwald, it's thoroughly documented and linked to other commentaries.
Welcome to the Banana Republic of America.
It's a thorough summary of events to date (and I'm happy to see that two of the security firms involved are feeling the heat) and being Greenwald, it's thoroughly documented and linked to other commentaries.
Welcome to the Banana Republic of America.
Republicans in a Nutshell
From this article at WaPo:
But across 18 areas of federal spending, a majority of Republicans support decreasing spending in just one: aid to the world's needy.
And this is the Jesus Party.
I think that says a lot.
But across 18 areas of federal spending, a majority of Republicans support decreasing spending in just one: aid to the world's needy.
And this is the Jesus Party.
I think that says a lot.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Made My Day
Maggie Gallagher -- you gotta love 'er.
The Senate Judicial Proceedings committee heard 7 hours of testimony last night on whether or not to legalize gay marriage, including from NOM’s Maggie Gallagher. Now one Senator, who was previously a foe, has said her testimony convinced him to support marriage equality.
Senator James Brochin (D) was one of the few Democrat Senators who was opposed to gay marriage. But after listening to testimony from Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization For Marriage (NOM), he’s said that her “demonization” of gay families has convinced him that he should side with marriage equality.
Please, let her keep testifying.
The Senate Judicial Proceedings committee heard 7 hours of testimony last night on whether or not to legalize gay marriage, including from NOM’s Maggie Gallagher. Now one Senator, who was previously a foe, has said her testimony convinced him to support marriage equality.
Senator James Brochin (D) was one of the few Democrat Senators who was opposed to gay marriage. But after listening to testimony from Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization For Marriage (NOM), he’s said that her “demonization” of gay families has convinced him that he should side with marriage equality.
Please, let her keep testifying.
Sunday, February 06, 2011
Egypt
I haven't said anything about this, partly because I've been under the weather, which tends to fog my thinking just the least little bit, and partly because the reports are so diverse and so contradictory that it's hard to make sense of it. However, here's a couple of clips from C&L with Egyptian journalist Mona Eltahawy that explode some of the crap. The first is pretty substantial:
This one, much briefer, is choice: Eltahawy brings up the statistics that Maher left out:
The prevailing meme in the West is the threat of radical Islam, which Eltahawy quite neatly counters. And let's face it, it's a right-wing talking point that the press has quite obediently parroted until it has become the reigning truth. The reality seems to be that the U.S. has been propping up these dictators, the way it did for so long in Latin America, because dictators represent "stability" and we need "stability" in the Middle East. Why? Because of oil. I can't think of another reason.
What gets swept under the rug is one simple fact: what causes this unrest is not radical religious extremists but really basic things, like no jobs, high prices, and no opportunities. And instead of working to alleviate those basic, overriding concerns, we funnel money into the dictators' military establishments -- and their own pockets -- while ignoring the real needs of their people, when meeting those needs would much better serve our interests than another contract for Boeing.
So we've left those who want democracy no alternative but radical religious fundamentalists. We've seen how well that works.
This one, much briefer, is choice: Eltahawy brings up the statistics that Maher left out:
The prevailing meme in the West is the threat of radical Islam, which Eltahawy quite neatly counters. And let's face it, it's a right-wing talking point that the press has quite obediently parroted until it has become the reigning truth. The reality seems to be that the U.S. has been propping up these dictators, the way it did for so long in Latin America, because dictators represent "stability" and we need "stability" in the Middle East. Why? Because of oil. I can't think of another reason.
What gets swept under the rug is one simple fact: what causes this unrest is not radical religious extremists but really basic things, like no jobs, high prices, and no opportunities. And instead of working to alleviate those basic, overriding concerns, we funnel money into the dictators' military establishments -- and their own pockets -- while ignoring the real needs of their people, when meeting those needs would much better serve our interests than another contract for Boeing.
So we've left those who want democracy no alternative but radical religious fundamentalists. We've seen how well that works.
Saturday, February 05, 2011
You May Have Noticed
I'm doing mostly not-politics the past few days, when I post at all. Partly, I'm still recuperating, in what I should expect to be the usual pattern at this point: feel great, get tired out, sleep and eat, feel even greater, get tired out. . . .
And as far as political commentary goes, I feel too much like I'm shouting into a bucket. I've pretty much had enough of that.
So, I'm going to post on whatever I feel like posting on, as always, and may take some time to rethink this whole blogging thing.
Which is, I guess, my way of saying that I'll be back, but it may not be the same snarky old Hunter you're used to.
And as far as political commentary goes, I feel too much like I'm shouting into a bucket. I've pretty much had enough of that.
So, I'm going to post on whatever I feel like posting on, as always, and may take some time to rethink this whole blogging thing.
Which is, I guess, my way of saying that I'll be back, but it may not be the same snarky old Hunter you're used to.
Wunderkind
Sam Tsui. I'd not heard of him, but ran across this video at Towleroad when I was in a mood to stop and watch. He's covering Britney Spears' new one, "Hold It Against Me."
Apparently that's pretty much what he does, covers and mashups -- so far, at least. Good singer.
Apparently that's pretty much what he does, covers and mashups -- so far, at least. Good singer.
Traveling in Time
We're doing it, but not the way you might expect. Get this.
Astronomers have pushed the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope to its limits by finding what is plausibly the most distant and ancient object in the Universe [1] ever seen. Its light has travelled for 13.2 billion years to reach Hubble [2], which corresponds to a redshift around 10. The age of the Universe is 13.7 billion years.
The dim object, called UDFj-39546284, is likely to be a compact galaxy of blue stars that existed 480 million years after the Big Bang, only four percent of the Universe’s current age. It is tiny. Over one hundred such mini-galaxies would be needed to make up our own galaxy, the Milky Way.
Remember, what they're seeing was happening 13.2 billion years ago. Our earth hasn't even been here that long.
Makes you think.
Astronomers have pushed the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope to its limits by finding what is plausibly the most distant and ancient object in the Universe [1] ever seen. Its light has travelled for 13.2 billion years to reach Hubble [2], which corresponds to a redshift around 10. The age of the Universe is 13.7 billion years.
The dim object, called UDFj-39546284, is likely to be a compact galaxy of blue stars that existed 480 million years after the Big Bang, only four percent of the Universe’s current age. It is tiny. Over one hundred such mini-galaxies would be needed to make up our own galaxy, the Milky Way.
Remember, what they're seeing was happening 13.2 billion years ago. Our earth hasn't even been here that long.
Makes you think.
Friday, February 04, 2011
Gasbag Blowin' in the Wind
Wonderful commentary from Digby on that boil on the butt of American conservatism, Rush Limbaugh, and how confused he is by Egypt:
I don't know when I've seen a story that so confused the wingnut gasbags before. They honestly don't know what to do when they don't know who they're supposed to hate.
I guess even the head of the Republican party needs to get his talking points from someone.
I don't know when I've seen a story that so confused the wingnut gasbags before. They honestly don't know what to do when they don't know who they're supposed to hate.
I guess even the head of the Republican party needs to get his talking points from someone.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Extrasolar
 |
| An artist's impression of the densely packed Kepler 11 system shows three planets transiting in front of their host star simultaneously. Image: NASA/Ames/JPL-Caltech/T. Pyle |
There's lots of planets out there:
Kepler is well on its way to vastly augmenting the roster of known exoplanets, of which there are now 500 or so, and may have already gotten a whiff of several potentially habitable worlds. "We have 54 planets in the habitable zone of their stars," Borucki says, referring to the temperate orbital zone around a star that would allow for the existence of liquid water on a planet. "One of them is 0.9 times the radius of the Earth, and four of them are less than two Earth radii." Any of those would be the most Earth-like world ever detected outside the solar system. What is more, some of the larger, more Jupiter-like planets Kepler is sniffing at in the habitable zone might have moons, and some of those satellites would themselves be potentially habitable. "It's sort of awesome," Borucki says of Kepler's haul. "The implications are that there are an awful lot of planets out there."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)