We're All Gonna ... Nevermind: Feb. 15, 2013 Edition

Looks like we're in for another close pass by a big chunk of space debris:

Talk about a close shave. On Feb. 15th an asteroid about half the size of a football field will fly past Earth only 17,200 miles above our planet's surface. There's no danger of a collision, but the space rock, designated 2012 DA14, has NASA's attention.

"This is a record-setting close approach," says Don Yeomans of NASA's Near Earth Object Program at JPL. "Since regular sky surveys began in the 1990s, we've never seen an object this big get so close to Earth."

Record Setting Asteroid Flyby

The new, digital NASA even has an online video to talk about it, which is where this diagram of 2012-DA14's close approach to earth came from:

Image credit: Screenshot of this NASA video by Cujo359

So, yes, once again we will not get to see earth-shattering explosions happen, unless, of course, we like what passes for science fiction cinema these days. As the graphic shows, the asteroid will pass closer than geosynchronous satellites, but well above the International Space Station (ISS) or the Hubble Space Telescope, so there's not much danger there, either. (Well, maybe not "shows" as "implies. See UPDATE/NOTE1.)

What would have happened had this asteroid hit the Earth? It would have been extremely unpleasant for some of us:

The impact of a 50-meter asteroid is not cataclysmic--unless you happen to be underneath it. Yeomans points out that a similar-sized object formed the mile wide Meteor Crater in Arizona when it struck about 50,000 years ago. "That asteroid was made of iron," he says, "which made it an especially potent impactor." Also, in 1908, something about the size of 2012 DA14 exploded in the atmosphere above Siberia, leveling hundreds of square miles of forest. Researchers are still studying the "Tunguska Event" for clues to the impacting object.

"2012 DA14 will definitely not hit Earth," emphasizes Yeomans. "The orbit of the asteroid is known well enough to rule out an impact."

Record Setting Asteroid Flyby

As this photo I took of the meteor that hit Meteor Crater, shows, that was, indeed, made of metal, which made it a more formidable projectile. 2012 DA14 is made of stone, so probably would break up more before reaching the surface.

The main reason I mention this is that, for some reason, the Space.com article on this subject is "embargoed", to use their terminology from the front page. I'm not sure why that is, but it doesn't appear to be the work of some doomsday cult.

UPDATE/NOTE 1: Well, actually, the graphic doesn't show low earth orbit, largely because it's so near the Earth on that scale that you probably couldn't see it. The ISS is roughly 200 miles (let's say roughly 300 kilometers) above the Earth's surface. That's well below where the asteroid will be passing us.

Into Or into

Some days, xkcd outdoes itself:

Image credit: xkcd

Yes, lampooning Wikipedia discussions and Star Trek fans in one go isn't easy, but xkcd managed.

For my part, I wasn't even aware that a title had been decided on for this latest Trek movie, much less that it had a Wikipedia page, or when it might be opening. I made a passing reference to the last one in a review I wrote of District 9 a few years ago, which was about all it deserved. Frankly, the phrase "mindless explosion fest" is as much a review as I could give it without having to remember the sordid details.

So, no, this one isn't on my must-see list, either. It strikes me that the last one was a sad end to what once was a thoughtful television series, and I can't imagine being subjected to one more death rattle from the old corpse.

Still, the thought of a bunch of Trekkies arguing over a stylistic choice is an amusing thought, and no doubt not far enough from the truth to not be a little sad, too.

[Click on the image to see the original.]

Sunday Photo(s)

Since I mentioned the other day that I had been trying to photograph an airplane passing overhead, I figured I'd share a few that I have managed to capture with the new camera. Federal Way is right underneath the approach to Sea-Tac Airport's runways, so most days we can see airliners taking off or landing. Since the new camera has a big zoom lens and is much more sensitive to light than the old one, I often try to take pictures of them now.

I'm sure I'll get over it eventually...

On the day that the world was going to end, I noticed that American Airlines decided to keep flying their 737s:

Quote Of The Day

Caption: On a sphere, the sum of the angles of a triangle is not equal to 180°. The surface of a sphere is not a Euclidean space, but locally the laws of the Euclidean geometry are good approximations. In a small triangle on the face of the earth, the sum of the angles is very nearly 180°.

Translation: Here on Planet Earth, things don't always work like an elegant theory says they ought to.

Image credit: Lars H. Rohwedder/Wikimedia

No peeking now, who wrote this and when?

The classical [economics] theorists resemble Euclidean geometers in a non-Euclidean world who, discovering that in experience straight lines apparently parallel often meet, rebuke the lines for not keeping straight as the only remedy for the unfortunate collisions which are occurring. Yet, in truth, there is no remedy except to throw over the axiom of parallels and to work out a non-Euclidean geometry. Something similar is required today in economics. We need to throw over the second postulate of the classical doctrine and to work out the behaviour of a system in which involuntary unemployment in the strict sense is possible.

The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money: Chapter Two

Was it Paul Krugman, Dean Baker, or any of the other modern economists who aren't of the "classical" persuasion? No. Is it me, writing about the sorry state of economics versus reality? No.

It's John Maynard Keynes, writing in 1936. Keynes was the economist who best understood the implications and remedies of the Great Depression. In part, based on what I've read of this book so far, this is due to his habit of checking economic theory against the real world, and noting where the two aren't related.

I'm often struck by the parallels between creationism and classical economics. Each is based on beliefs that don't actually correspond to reality, yet they persist. The arguments of Darwin's or Keynes' day are much the same as today, except for anyone who has followed the issue, it's even more clear that the old theory isn't just wrong, but spectacularly so.

No Climate Change To See Here

While trying to photograph a passing airplane yesterday, my camera caught this instead:

Image credit: Cujo359

Yes, those are cherry blossoms, in January. It's not the Climate Change Cherry Tree, but it's only a few blocks away. We can't say this is a scientific study without an official observation at the CCCT, of course, but it's sure looking like spring will be here really early this year.

Progressive Idiocy: What, You Thought Something Would Change?

Caption: Think this was going to happen? Think again. This is 21st Century America.

Image credit: public domain/Wikimedia

Remember how, last December, the Democrats in the Senate were going to "cowboy up" and maybe change it so that the minority would have to actually show up for a filibuster?

Well, brace yourselves - it turned out that was just too radical an idea:

The final agreement reached by leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell and passed overwhelmingly by the Senate Thursday evening did not weaken the filibuster. It essentially served to move uncontroversial Senate business more quickly. Democratic senators roundly backed it — even the ones who were eager to end silent filibusters. Republicans didn’t object either.

How did it all fall apart?

According to conversations with pro-reform Democratic aides, party leadership sources and outside opponents of the filibuster, Reid’s main goal was ultimately not to weaken the 60-vote threshold that reformers desperately wanted to change. Instead his objective was to eliminate mandatory gaps between votes in order to move legislation and nominees that have cleared a filibuster more quickly — which he achieved.

Filibuster Reform Ends With A Whimper: How It Fell Apart

Wow, I bet none of you saw that coming, huh?

I felt so negative at the time for writing this:

To break a filibuster, the majority party needs to have at least 60 Senators ready to vote for it at the next opportunity. The minority party only needs to have the one speaking, and a couple of relief Senators at any time. As things stand now, that still gives the Republicans an advantage.

And that, I think, is the point. They still don't want to honk off their benefactors by doing what their supporters want.

As long as that's true, real change is worth about as much as a filibustering Senator's words.

Senate Democrats Might Do Something About The Filibuster, Kinda...

It turns out that I was too optimistic. Things may go a little more smoothly in the Senate, assuming there's no contention over at least a few things, but most of the legislation and appointments will move as slowly as they ever did. What the end result will be, of course, is that the Republicans, and conservatives generally, will get even more of what they want, and progressives won't. Why? Because they'll get what everyone agrees on, which was at least endangered now, and they're still going to obstruct everything else, because they can and their base expects them to actually accomplish something.

Folks have taken to blaming Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader for this, but it sure looks like he still has his job. If Democrats were upset over his failure, they could have removed him. They didn't. As far as I'm concerned, that makes this the Democrats' problem, not just Harry Reid's. At some point, you really have to blame the electorate for the people they vote for.

Maybe progressives will figure that out some day... Nah!

The next time some idiot of a "progressive" asks me why I'm so negative..., well, I already had lots of reasons. Now, I just have one more.

Opportunity Soldiers On

Caption: In a heart-tugging cartoon from 2010, xkcd memorializes the Spirit Mars rover. Spirit's brother Opportunity is still working on the surface of Mars three years later. See image credit link for the full cartoon.

Image credit: xkcd

Opportunity celebrated its ninth anniversary on Mars today:

PASADENA, Calif. -- NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity, one of the twin rovers that bounced to airbag-cushioned safe landings on Mars nine years ago this week, is currently examining veined rocks on the rim of an ancient crater.

Opportunity has driven 22.03 miles (35.46 kilometers) since it landed in the Meridiani Planum region of Mars on Jan. 24, 2004, PST (Jan. 25, Universal Time). Its original assignment was to keep working for three months, drive about 2,000 feet (600 meters) and provide the tools for researchers to investigate whether the area's environment had ever been wet. It landed in a backyard-size bowl, Eagle Crater. During those first three months, it transmitted back to Earth evidence that water long ago soaked the ground and flowed across the surface.

Since then, the mission's team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., has driven Opportunity across the plains of Meridiani to successively larger craters for access to material naturally exposed from deeper, older layers of Martian history.

Opportunity has operated on Mars 36 times longer than the three months planned as its prime mission.

NASA's Veteran Mars Rover Ready to Start 10th Year

Maybe the best illustration of what that means is provided by this self portrait of the rover, taken almost a year ago:

Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Cornell/Arizona State Univ.

What's In A Name?

There are quite a few objections to team names I don't understand, but this isn't one of them:

All major Native American organizations have called for the Washington pro football franchise to end its team's despicable name. Why? Because it's a racial slur and – no matter how many millions it spends trying to sanitize it and silence native peoples – the epithet is not, was not, and will not be an honorific.

Washington 'Redskins' is a racist name: US pro football must disavow it

I seem to remember objections being raised about the names of the Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians baseball teams, for instance, and I really don't get that. This I get. Would anyone name their team, say, the "Indianapolis Honkies"? I don't think so. The closest I can come to an offensive stereotype in team names is Notre Dame's "Fighting Irish", and even there I'd have to say that it would probably be best for those offended by that name to acquire a sense of humor. Aggression, after all, is considered a good thing in many sports.

But the name of our nation's capital's football team is singularly offensive. Not only has the term been a historically demeaning one, but it reminds us of the long, sad history of relations between the indigenous population of the United States and those of us who came afterward. Maybe it's good to be reminded of that once in a while, but I'd rather we came to realize that it was a bad thing, that racist attitudes of some of the newcomers were a big part of that reason, and we don't think those racist attitudes were OK.

This is why, on the rare occasions when Washington's team does something notable, I've refused to refer to it by its team name, and will continue to not refer to it that way.

It may not rank high on the list of crimes committed by America these days, but I agree that the NFL ought to change it.

Today's Pop Quiz

Robert Reich wrote this today as his opening remarks about President Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense, or more accurately, the reaction of the neo-conservative Republicans to that nomination:

If the neocons in the GOP who brought us the Iraqi war and conjured up “weapons of mass destruction” to justify it are against Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary, Hagel gets bonus points in my book.

The Neocons vs. Chuck Hagel

What logical fallacy is Prof. Reich committing here?

A Gusher In My Inbox

Image credit: werner22brigitte

The world never fails to amaze me. I received this e-mail yesterday at this blog's e-mail address:

From: Opec Award <xxxxxxx@notarealaddy.com.invalid>

To: undisclosed-recipients@null, null@null

Subject: Attention: Read Carefully

Date: Jan 14, 2013 2:28 AM

--

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries

Obere Donaustrasse 93

A-1020 Vienna,

Austria

ATTN:

You have been chosen as one of the LUCKY RECIPIENT of the excess funds generated from petroleum products(Africa,Asia and Pacific region) in the past years. For further information

Email 1: zairahoshiko447@yyyyy.com.invalid

Sincerely,

Zaira Hoshiko

On three large continents, with some of the most poverty-stricken nations on the planet, these folks can't think of anything to do with their "excess funds" but offer them to an Internet persona named after a rabid animal. I bet these folks would fit right in on the Obama Administration's economics team.

Afterword: Since I haven't done on of these in a while, I'll point out that nothing in the e-mail should be taken as real information, even the e-mail address after the "Email 1:". That, as it turns out, was the reply address before I altered it a little. Who knows who is scamming whom here?