Archive for January 24th, 2010
First, for the steak and sauce, see the update here.
Second, I started watching The American President from the beginning and am glad I did: I spotted several nice touches I missed the first time around.
No longer does Windows "start up"; now it simply starts. What a relief. Every time I booted Windows XP I had to see that redundant preposition. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Fascinating paper (PDF). We’ve certainly see enough instances to already suspect this finding.
And I suspect that, with global warming, it will happen again. Anne Gibbons reporting for Science, the publication of the AAAS:
With 6.8 billion people alive today, it’s hard to fathom that humans were ever imperiled. But 1.2 million years ago, only 18,500 early humans were breeding on the planet–evidence that there was a real risk of extinction for our early ancestors, according to a new study. That number is smaller than current figures for the effective population size (or number of breeding individuals) for endangered species such as chimpanzees (21,000) and gorillas (25,000). In fact, our toehold on the planet wasn’t secure for a long time–at least 1 million years, because our ancestral stock was winnowed with the emergence of our species, Homo sapiens, 160,000 years ago or so and, again, with the migration of modern humans out of Africa. "There’s this history of a precarious existence not just for our species but for our ancestors," says co-author Lynn Jorde, a human geneticist at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
Researchers have long known that modern humans lack the genetic variation found in other living primates, such as chimpanzees or gorillas, even though our current population size is so much larger. One explanation for this lack of variation is that our species underwent recent bottlenecks–events where a significant percentage were killed or otherwise prevented from reproducing. Some researchers proposed that the lack of variation in our maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA suggested these bottlenecks took place as our ancestors spread out of Africa relatively recently. One possibility occurred 70,000 years ago, when the Toba super-volcano erupted in Indonesia and triggered a nuclear winter that fewer than 15,000 individuals survived. Studies of diversity in other regions of the human genome, however, attributed low genetic variation to chronically low numbers, with as few as 10,000 breeding humans at different times during the past 2 million years. But the problem with all these studies is that they tracked specific genetic lineages, and not the entire genome and, hence, populations.
Now, a new method of studying markers across the entire genome is allowing geneticists to look back farther in time, before the emergence of our species 200,000 years ago, to see the population history of our really ancient ancestors, such as Homo erectus. Jorde and his colleagues used short lengths of DNA that randomly insert themselves into the genome, known as Alus, as probes to find ancient parts of the genome. Alu insertions are rare events but once inserted, they are hard to remove–a 300-basepair-length of an Alu is seldom lost in entirety, so Alu insertions work like fossils to mark ancient regions of the genome. By examining the mutations in DNA near Alu insertions in two completely sequenced modern human genomes, they could calculate how much genetic diversity existed in our ancestors. They used the number of those genetic differences between the two genomes to calculate how large the population was at that time.
As they report online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers found that the ancient human effective population size 1.2 million years ago, the number who could breed–was about 18,500, and couldn’t have been larger than 26,000…
I started reading James Hansen’s new book, Storms of My Grandchildren, at the edge of a vanishing Arctic. I sat on a bare brown Greenland hillside listening to the ferocious crack and crash of the dying glaciers in the distance. As I watched the corpse of the ice sheet float by, broken into a thousand icebergs, it seemed the right place to begin the leading NASA scientist’s explanation for what I was seeing. Since the year I was born, 1979, 40 percent of the Arctic sea ice has vanished. If we don’t change our behavior fast, Hansen says I will live to see the day when it is all gone, and the North Pole is a point in the open ocean, reachable by boat. He stresses these are only the starting symptoms of a planetary fever that will remake the map of the world—and the capacity of human beings to survive on it. I finished reading the book at the Copenhagen climate summit, where the world’s leaders gathered to offer a giant shrug.
Professor Hansen has been driven into a strange situation, and produced a strange book. For one-third of a century now, this cantankerous scientist has been more accurate in his predictions about global warming than anyone else alive. He saw these disastrous changes coming long before others did, and the U.S. government has tried to censor or sack him for his prescience. Now he has written a whistle-blower’s account while still at the top: a story of how our political system is so willfully, deliberately blind to environmental realities that we have no choice now but for American citizens to take direct physical action against the polluters. It’s hardly what you expect to hear from the upper echelons of NASA: not a call to the stars, but a call to the streets. Toss a thousand scientific papers into a blender along with All the President’s Men and Mahatma Gandhi, and you’ve got this riveting, disorienting book.
How did such an implausible American story come to pass? Hansen was born into a dirt-poor family in Iowa, to a farmer who left school in the eighth grade. But he was whip-smart and rose through university science departments, where he spent a decade studying the atmosphere of Venus. But then he noticed a more interesting story was happening right in front of him: “The composition of the atmosphere of our home planet was changing before our eyes, and it was changing more and more rapidly.” Yes, we had known for more than a century that human beings were releasing warming gases into the atmosphere. Every time we burn a lump of coal or a barrel of oil, we unleash in one sudden burst greenhouse gases that took millennia to accumulate. But Hansen believed the effects were now becoming plain—and could be dangerous.
After studying the evidence, in 1981 he made a number of predictions for what a warmer world would look like by the early 21st century. He said that the Arctic ice would be retreating dramatically and the fabled “North-West Passage” would open up, making it possible to sail through the Arctic. It has happened. I have seen it. Yet he was derided at the time as “alarmist” by the political class, and the Reagan Energy Department responded by slashing his research budget.
This set the pattern for his career: Hansen makes scientific warnings that are correct and need to be known by the public, and he is punished for it. In 1988, he famously testified before a Senate committee, …
Evidence relating to the death of Government weapons inspector David Kelly is to be kept secret for 70 years, it has been reported.
A highly unusual ruling by Lord Hutton, who chaired the inquiry into Dr Kelly’s death, means medical records including the post-mortem report will remain classified until after all those with a direct interest in the case are dead, the Mail on Sunday reported.
And a 30-year secrecy order has been placed on written records provided to Lord Hutton’s inquiry which were not produced in evidence.
The Ministry of Justice said decisions on the evidence were a matter for Lord Hutton. But Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who has conducted his own investigations into Dr Kelly’s death, described the order as "astonishing".
Dr Kelly’s body was found in woods close to his Oxfordshire home in 2003, shortly after it was revealed that he was the source of a BBC report casting doubt on the Government’s claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction capable of being fired within 45 minutes.
An inquest was suspended by then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, who ruled that Lord Hutton’s inquiry could take its place. But in the event, the inquiry focused more on the question of how the BBC report came to be broadcast than on the medical explanation for Dr Kelly’s death.
Lord Hutton’s report in 2004 concluded that Dr Kelly killed himself by cutting an artery in his wrist. But the finding has been challenged by doctors who claim that the weapons inspector’s stated injuries were not serious enough.
One of the doctors seeking a full inquest, former assistant coroner Michael Powers, told the Mail on Sunday he had seen a letter from the legal team of Oxfordshire County Council explaining the unusual restrictions placed by Lord Hutton on material relating to his inquiry.
The letter states: "Lord Hutton made a request for the records provided to the inquiry, not produced in evidence, to be closed for 30 years, and that medical (including post-mortem) reports and photographs be closed for 70 years."
Dr Powers asked: "Supposedly all evidence relevant to the cause of death has been heard in public at the time of Lord Hutton’s inquiry. If these secret reports support the suicide finding, what could they contain that could be so sensitive?
More here from blogger Larisa Alexandrovna:
Well this latest news won’t fuel any conspiracy theories (cough) or bring even more serious questions about the alleged murder (not suicide) of former UN weapons’ inspector Dr. David Kelly (cough).
Before we get into the latest astonishing developments, here is a quick summary of who Dr. Kelly was and what happened to him:
1. Dr. David Kelly worked for the Ministry of Defense/U.K. as an expert in bio-weapons. He was also one of the key UN weapons inspectors in Iraq.
2. He became concerned about the US/UK claims of WMD in Iraq in the build-up to the Iraq war in 2003. Much the same way that former US Ambassador Joseph Wilson became concerned about US claims of yellowcake uranium purchases by Iraq from Niger. Like Wilson, Dr. Kelly became an anonymous source for a journalist. In Kelly’s case, he met with BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan.
3. The MoD leaked Kelly’s identity (just like Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity was leaked) to the press.
4. A Parliamentary committee tasked with investigating the planted intelligence on Iraq asked Kelly to testify, which he did.
5. Several days after his testimony and while preparing for a trip with his wife, Dr. Kelly was found dead in a park nearby his home, which was ruled a suicide. On the day he "committed suicide" he had sent an email to New York Times reporter Judith Miller in which he said "many dark actors playing games."
6. Leading physicians and first responders who arrived at the park and inspected Kelly’s body did not think he committed suicide, even going so far as to sue the British government to prove their case.
UPDATE: BTW, if you’re watching any of these on a laptop, I highly recommend that you use a good set of headphones to listen—they will provide much better sound than those tiny laptop speakers.
Via Boing Boing, which has more info on the clip:
The above great clip was the last in a series, and you really should look at ALL of the clips:
UPDATE: I would dearly love to have a zoot suit with the drape shape, and one of those fantastic hats—though I doubt that I could carry it off. (The suit would wear me, rather than the reverse.) Cab Calloway had a stunning yellow zoot suit.
Little by little it’s becoming just a revenue enhancer for health insurance companies. The latest, blogged by John Aravosis at AmericaBlog:
Joe and I saw this coming two days ago. And unfortunately it’s looking increasingly like we were right.
A day after former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe is elevated to a more senior adviser status at the White House and the DNC, Plouffe pens an op ed in the Washington Post in which he seems to suggest that much of President Obama’s promise to ban pre-existing conditions is now being jettisoned.Plouffe wrote in the op ed, which was certainly cleared with the White House, if not written by them:
Parents won’t have to worry their children will be denied coverage just because they have a preexisting condition.
Their children? The original promise – even the bad Senate bill – protects everyone, of any age, from being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Now it’s just children?
And before anyone argues that Plouffe was simply using children as an example – that the legislation could still cover everyone – look at what else happened in the last two days. CBS News reported that the pre-existing conditions promise was now looking unlikely. But even worse, the NYT talked to folks on the Hill and health policy experts, and they were told the compromise package might just protect kids under the age of 19 from being denied for pre-existing conditions. No one else.
It would sure be one hell of a coincidence if Plouffe, on behalf of the White House, is now talking about kids being protected from pre-existing conditions when the growing chatter in town is that only kids may now be protected from pre-existing conditions – that the rest of us are about to get tossed under the Martha Coakley bus.
As Joe noted the other day, the pre-existing conditions promise, for "all Americans," was the top item on the Obama transition’s health care reform page. So, in an effort to appease the masses, they’re now considering gutting the one provision that everyone likes, the one provision that defines the legislation.
Obama has shown before that he doesn’t consider a promise to be binding in any degree. He solemnly promised in his early campaign, explicitly and repeatedly, that he would vote against immunity for the telecom companies for their illegal spying on American citizens. The when the vote came up, he voted for it. At that point I stopped contributing money to his campaign. If he reneges on promises even while still campaigning, one certainly cannot expect that he will keep any promise once he’s elected. And, sure enough, …
Dana Perino, not a publishing climatologist, once offered her own projections of the effects of global warming, which were quite positive: people would fare better in winter, for example. John Cook of Skeptical Science has a nice table that summarizes peer-reviewed findings of the impacts (both positive and negative) of global warming. Since governments will not take action, I believe that global warming will continue until the tipping point (if we’ve not reached it already). Take a look to see what your children and grandchildren will have to deal with.
Interesting: they used the backdoors that were put in to allow the US government to look at your data and mail. Bruce Schneier:
Editor’s note: Bruce Schneier is a security technologist and author of "Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World." Read more of his writing at www.schneier.com.
(CNN) — Google made headlines when it went public with the fact that Chinese hackers had penetrated some of its services, such as Gmail, in a politically motivated attempt at intelligence gathering. The news here isn’t that Chinese hackers engage in these activities or that their attempts are technically sophisticated — we knew that already — it’s that the U.S. government inadvertently aided the hackers.
In order to comply with government search warrants on user data, Google created a backdoor access system into Gmail accounts. This feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access.
Google’s system isn’t unique. Democratic governments around the world — in Sweden, Canada and the UK, for example — are rushing to pass laws giving their police new powers of Internet surveillance, in many cases requiring communications system providers to redesign products and services they sell.
Many are also passing data retention laws, forcing companies to retain information on their customers. In the U.S., the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act required phone companies to facilitate FBI eavesdropping, and since 2001, the National Security Agency has built substantial eavesdropping systems with the help of those phone companies.
Systems like these invite misuse: criminal appropriation, government abuse and stretching by everyone possible to apply to situations that are applicable only by the most tortuous logic. The FBI illegally wiretapped the phones of Americans, often falsely invoking terrorism emergencies, 3,500 times between 2002 and 2006 without a warrant [and, of course, with no punishment or accountability: the US is no longer a nation of laws, except for non-official civilians; Obama has even promised not to go after crimes committed "in the past"---which, of course, is everything that happened before this instant. – LG]. Internet surveillance and control will be no different.
Official misuses are bad enough, but it’s the unofficial uses that worry me more. Any surveillance and control system must itself be secured. An infrastructure conducive to surveillance and control invites surveillance and control, both by the people you expect and by the people you don’t.
China’s hackers subverted the access system Google put in place to comply with U.S. intercept orders. Why does anyone think criminals won’t be able to use the same system to steal bank account and credit card information, use it to launch other attacks or turn it into a massive spam-sending network? Why does anyone think that only authorized law enforcement can mine collected Internet data or eavesdrop on phone and IM conversations?
These risks are not merely theoretical. After September 11, the NSA built a surveillance infrastructure to eavesdrop on telephone calls and e-mails within the U.S. Although procedural rules stated that only non-Americans and international phone calls were to be listened to, actual practice didn’t match those rules. NSA analysts collected more data than they were authorized to and used the system to spy on wives, girlfriends and notables such as President Clinton [again: no punishment, no accountability---the State knows best, so keep your trap shut – LG].
But that’s not the most serious misuse of a telecommunications surveillance infrastructure…
And so on. It’s a Mark Bittman recipe (and at the link is background info and a video showing him making it):
Tri-Tip Steak With Tomato Romesco
1 tri-tip steak, about 2 to 2 1/2 pounds, or other 2-inch-thick steak — [take out of fridge 2 hours before cooking so that it can come to room temperature. - LG]
Salt and freshly ground black pepper
1 cup cherry tomatoes
2 tablespoons almonds, shelled
3 garlic cloves, peeled and lightly crushed
1 jalapeño pepper, seeded and chopped, optional
1 to 2 tablespoons sherry or red wine vinegar, or to taste
1/3 cup olive oil
1/2 teaspoon pimentón or other chili powder, optional.
1. Heat oven to 500 degrees. Generously season both sides of steak with salt and pepper. Put a large cast-iron skillet over high heat. When it is very hot, add steak to one side of pan and tomatoes, almonds, garlic cloves and jalapeños, if you are using them, to the other. Sear steak for 3 to 5 minutes, stirring tomato mixture once or twice.
2. Once a nice crust has formed on one side of steak, turn it over, carefully transfer the now-charred tomato mixture to a food processor, and put pan in oven. (If tomatoes are not a bit blackened, leave them in pan and check again after a minute or two in oven.) Cook until steak is rare to medium-rare, about 6 to 12 minutes longer depending on its thickness (an instant-read thermometer will register 125 degrees when steak is medium-rare). Transfer steak to a plate and let it rest for 5 to 10 minutes.
3. While steak is cooking or resting, add vinegar and olive oil to tomato mixture in food processor, and season with salt, pepper and pimentón or chili powder if using. Process, adding more olive oil or vinegar as you like, until mixture reaches desired consistency. Sauce should still be a little crunchy from almonds.
4. Slice steak thinly, against grain [I think he means across the grain. - LG]. Serve with sauce.
Yield: 6 servings.
Tri-tip is common out here, though it’s sold more as a roast than a steak. I think in the East it’s harder to find.
UPDATE: Unbelievably good!! I used two serrano peppers, which is what I had, and I did remove seeds and ribs. I used 4 cloves garlic and hot paprika for the chili pepper. Otherwise I followed the recipe.
As he says, lots o’ smoke. I was worried that the tomatoes wouldn’t char, but they did right away. The first couple I thought I had just missed a rotten spot, but after 8-10 more, I got the idea. I charred for the full 5 minutes with the cast-iron skillet, heated in the oven, over high heat. (And Bittman is right about the smoke: lots of it. Have the exhaust fan on high, and I also ran my air cleaner.)
Then I removed the tomatoes, peppers, almonds, and garlic into the food processor and turned the steak and put it into the 500º F oven. It took longer than he indicated to get to 125º internal temp, but then I had not taken the tri-tip out 2 hours early so it could come to room temperature—so bad an oversight that I’m honor-bound to make another, correctly.
Also: Don’t worry about leaving pieces of crunch from the almond when you do the processing: lots of crunch will come through if you stop when the sauce seems made.
I used sherry vinegar. Vinegar seemed odd at first, but then I thought of Worcestershire sauce, A1 sauce, horseradish, mustard: all vinegar-based. And bearnaise sauce has a fairly high acid quotient, if I recall correctly. In any event, this sauce turned out to be a perfect partner for the steak.
For the salt, I used Maldon salt for everything.
The wine was Rhone de Robles. (Paso Robles, a town south of here on Highway 101, is surrounded by vineyards.)