Scientists map the genome of the platypus

Thursday, May 8th, 2008

Everyone’s favorite monotreme has been sequenced. Scientists map the genome of the platypus — and it is an odd duck:

The research showed the animal’s multifaceted features are reflected in its DNA with a mix of genes that crosses different classifications of animals, said Jenny Graves, an Australian National University genomics expert who co-wrote the paper.

“What we found was the genome, just like the animal, is an amazing amalgam of reptilian and mammal characteristics with quite a few unique platypus characteristics as well,” she told the Australian Broadcasting Corp.

Scientists believe all mammals evolved from reptiles, and the animals that became platypuses and those that became humans shared an evolutionary path until about 165 million years ago when the platypus branched off. Unlike other evolving mammals, the platypus retained characteristics of snakes and lizards, including the pain-causing poison that males can use to ward off mating rivals, Graves said.

More than 100 scientists from the United States, Australia, Japan and other nations took part in the research, using DNA collected from a female platypus named Glennie.

The New Economics of Semiconductor Manufacturing

Thursday, May 8th, 2008

Clayton Christensen describes The New Economics of Semiconductor Manufacturing:

Never have so many smart people worked so hard for so little money.

Walk into a multibillion-dollar chip-fabrication plant — a fab — and you may very well get the impression that the industry is headed for a spectacular meltdown. One of the first things you’ll see is a bay the size of two basketball courts packed with equipment for projecting a lithographic design onto wafers. Nearby, you’ll find a towering bin, called a stocker, filled with wafers waiting to be processed by this equipment. The wafers are worth from US $10 million to $100 million — all of it idle inventory.

Why? To amortize the $5 billion investment in a fab over a five-year schedule costs more than $3 million a day. Conventional wisdom holds that to generate that much money you must keep all the equipment running all the time, even if that means creating large unused queues of wafers. What’s more, to justify that scale, you have to produce a semiconductor product in volumes of at least 5000 to 10 000 wafers per month.

More than anything else, Moore’s Law has been responsible for the gigantic costs. It takes huge amounts of capital to support the incessant cycles of investment and obsolescence that keep Moore’s Law on the march. That rapid cycling explains why a company’s shining jewels can turn into white elephants in just five years.

Idle inventory? This sound like a job for … Just-In-Time! Or Goldratt’s Theory of Contraints! Or Lean Manufacturing! Yes, lean manufacturing — also known as the Toyota Production System:

In early 2007, we had the opportunity not merely to emulate Toyota’s system but to apply its principles to a logic fab belonging to an integrated device manufacturer (IDM). As consultants, we are not at liberty to divulge the company’s name; however, it’s safe to say that the company is highly competitive — that is, it has survived and prospered by pursuing Moore’s Law, always remaining at the forefront in technology and operational excellence. But Moore’s Law was turning this jewel of a fab into a white elephant while the equipment was still relatively new.

In just seven months, the organization was able to reduce the manufacturing cost per wafer by 12 percent and the cycle time — the time it takes to turn a blank silicon wafer into a finished wafer, full of logic chips — by 67 percent. It did all this without investing in new equipment or changing the product design or technical specifications. And this short experiment has exposed only the tip of the iceberg. We believe that these early results point to what we call the new economics of semiconductor manufacturing and that this will have a profound and lasting effect on the industry and create new opportunities for growth.
[...]
Spear and Bowen distilled TPS into four rules, which in summary are (1) highly specify activities, (2) clearly define the transfer of material and information, (3) keep the pathway for every product and service simple and direct, and (4) detect and solve problems where and when they happen, using the scientific method. When we present these rules, even in their fully detailed form, clients generally protest that they “do it that way already.” But on closer examination — while auditing their fabs — we often find something quite different [see sidebar, “The Toyota Production System Sanity Check”

I suspect the most important change initiative was the switch to a new TPS report cover sheet.

The secret to making money online

Wednesday, May 7th, 2008

David Heinemeier Hansson of 37signals — that’s the guy behind Ruby on Rails — explains the secret to making money online at Paul Graham’s Startup School:

Pixel Perfect

Wednesday, May 7th, 2008

Some people are shocked — shocked! — to find out how much digital retouching goes into modern magazine photos. I’m not, of course, but this bit from Pixel Perfect, which looks at digital artiste Pascal Dangin, seems pretty rich, even to me:

I mentioned the Dove ad campaign that proudly featured lumpier-than-usual “real women” in their undergarments. It turned out that it was a Dangin job. “Do you know how much retouching was on that?” he asked. “But it was great to do, a challenge, to keep everyone’s skin and faces showing the mileage but not looking unattractive.”

Sled Dogs’ Secret to Peak Soldier Performance

Wednesday, May 7th, 2008

In Sled Dogs’ Secret to Peak Soldier Performance, Noah Shachtman looks at Oklahoma State veterinarian Michael Davis‘s “absurd idea” — shared by the folks at Darpa, who have been funding all kinds of research into maximizing human performance — to study how the Iditarod sled dogs of Alaska manage to run for more than a thousand miles straight. in order to get our own troops running around war zones at peak efficiency for “days on end without stopping.” The New York Times explains:

When humans engage in highly strenuous exercise day after day, they start to metabolize the body’s reserves, depleting glycogen and fat stores. When cells run out of energy, a result is fatigue, and exercise grinds to a halt until those sources are replenished.

Dogs are different, in particular the sled dogs that run the annual Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race in Alaska. This is a grueling 1,100-mile race, and studies show that the dogs somehow change their metabolism during the race.

Dr. Michael S. Davis, an associate professor of veterinary physiology at Oklahoma State University and an animal exercise researcher, said: “Before the race, the dogs’ metabolic makeup is similar to humans. Then suddenly they throw a switch — we don’t know what it is yet — that reverses all of that. In a 24-hour period, they go back to the same type of metabolic baseline you see in resting subjects. But it’s while they are running 100 miles a day.”
[...]
In fact, sled dogs in long-distance racing typically burn 240 calories a pound per day for one to two weeks nonstop. The average Tour de France cyclist burns 100 calories a pound of weight daily, researchers say.

How the dogs maintain such a high level of caloric burn for an extended period without tapping into their reserves of fat and glycogen (and thus grinding to a halt like the rest of us) is what makes them “magical,” Davis says.

The energy comes from somewhere, so they’re burning carbs, protein, and/or fat; the question is how much of each? Human endurance athletes typically eat a high-carb diet — although that may be changing — and “carb load” before a race. They then “hit the wall” when they run out of glycogen, a carbohydrate stored in the muscles and liver. The body can store only so much glycogen.

We need carbs for anaerobic respiration, which we use for sprinting, but we can also use carbs aerobically for long, slow, endurance challenges. Fat makes a better aerobic fuel though, because (a) it’s more calorie-dense, and (b) we can store a lot of it. At roughly 100 calories per mile, a 175-pound runner can theoretically go 35 miles on one pound of fat.

Lots of Animals Learn, but Smarter Isn’t Better

Wednesday, May 7th, 2008

Lots of Animals Learn, but Smarter Isn’t Better:

“Why are humans so smart?” is a question that fascinates scientists. Tadeusz Kawecki, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Fribourg, likes to turn around the question.

“If it’s so great to be smart,” Dr. Kawecki asks, “why have most animals remained dumb?”

Dr. Kawecki and like-minded scientists are trying to figure out why animals learn and why some have evolved to be better at learning than others. One reason for the difference, their research finds, is that being smart can be bad for an animal’s health.

For instance, scientists bred smarter flies:

It takes just 15 generations under these conditions for the flies to become genetically programmed to learn better. At the beginning of the experiment, the flies take many hours to learn the difference between the normal and quinine-spiked jellies. The fast-learning strain of flies needs less than an hour.

But the flies pay a price for fast learning. Dr. Kawecki and his colleagues pitted smart fly larvae against a different strain of flies, mixing the insects and giving them a meager supply of yeast to see who would survive. The scientists then ran the same experiment, but with the ordinary relatives of the smart flies competing against the new strain. About half the smart flies survived; 80 percent of the ordinary flies did.

Reversing the experiment showed that being smart does not ensure survival. “We took some population of flies and kept them over 30 generations on really poor food so they adapted so they could develop better on it,” Dr. Kawecki said. “And then we asked what happened to the learning ability. It went down.”

It’s not clear why though.

A $500 Million Week for Grand Theft Auto

Wednesday, May 7th, 2008

It looks like it was A $500 Million Week for Grand Theft Auto and Take-Two Interactive:

Grand Theft Auto IV, the latest iteration of the hit video game franchise, racked up first-week sales of $500 million, Take-Two Interactive, the game’s publisher, plans to announce on Wednesday. The report exceeded the sales expectations of analysts.

Electronic Arts wanted to acquire Take-Two Interactive before these big numbers came in.

Eminent Addicts

Tuesday, May 6th, 2008

I was recently reading Tyler Cowen and Megan McArdle discuss the Drug War and the possible negative effects of legalizing drugs. (You see, they’re talking to a largely libertarian audience, and they’re being contrarian.)

One point I think they miss is that an increased supply of drugs may mean an increase in drug consumption, and it may even mean an increase in drug addiction, but that does not necessarily mean an increase in dysfunctional junkies.

Some eminent narcotics addicts have managed to function at an extremely high level despite their drug problems, because they have had regular access to known quantities of the drug:

The United States Supreme Court’s 1962 characterization of the drug addict as “one of the walking dead” can no doubt be illustrated many times over among addicts living under twentieth-century conditions of high opiate prices, vigorous law enforcement, repeated imprisonment, social ignominy, and periodic unavailability of opiates. The court’s major error was to attribute the effects it so vividly described to the drugs themselves rather than to the narcotics laws and to the social conditions under which addicts live today. To illustrate, let us consider the effects of opiate addiction on a few distinguished addicts who throughout their lives had adequate access to continuing supplies.

Perhaps the most remarkable case was that of Dr. William Stewart Halsted (1852-1922), one of the greatest of American surgeons. Halsted, the scion of a distinguished New York family, and captain of the Yale football team, entered the practice of medicine in New York in the 1870s and soon became one of the promising young surgeons of the city. Interested in research as well as in performing operations, he was among the first to experiment with cocaine-a stimulant drug similar to our modern amphetamines (see Part V). With a small group of associates, Halsted discovered that cocaine injected near a nerve produces local anesthesia in the area served by that nerve. This was the first local anesthetic, and its discovery was a major contribution to surgery.

Unfortunately, Halsted had also injected cocaine into himself numerous times. “Cocaine hunger fastened its dreadful hold on him,” Sir Wilder Penfield, another famed surgeon, later noted. “He tried to carry on. But a confused and unworthy period of medical practice ensued. Finally he vanished from the world he had known. Months later he returned to New York but, somehow, the brilliant and gay extrovert seemed brilliant and gay no longer.” 1

What had happened to Halsted during the period of his disappearance? A part of the secret was revealed in 1930, eight years after his death. Then Halsted’s closest friend, Dr. William Henry Welch, one of the four distinguished founders of the Johns Hopkins Medical School, stated that he (Welch) had hired a schooner and, with three trusted sailors, had slowly sailed with Halsted to the Windward Islands and back in order to keep Halsted away from cocaine.

The effort was not successful. Halsted relapsed and next went to Butler Hospital in Providence, where he spent several months. Again he relapsed, and again he went to Butler Hospital. Halsted’s biographers reported that thereafter he was cured. Through magnificent strength of will, after an epochal struggle, he had cast off his cocaine addiction and gone on to fame and fortune as one of the four distinguished founders of the Hopkins. Or so the story went.

In 1969, however, on the occasion of the eightieth anniversary of the opening of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, a “small black book closed with a lock and key of silver” 2 was opened for the first time. This book contained the “secret history” of the Hopkins written by another of its four eminent founders, Sir William Osler. Sir William revealed that Halsted had cured his cocaine habit by turning to morphine.

Thus Halsted was a morphine addict at the age of thirty-four, when Welch invited him in 1886 to join the distinguished group then laying the foundations for what was soon to become the country’s most distinguished medical school. Welch knew, of course, of Halsted’s addiction, and therefore gave him only a minor appointment at first. Halsted, however, did so brilliantly that he was soon made chief of surgery and thus joined Osler, Welch, and Billings as one of the Hopkins “Big Four.”

“When we recommended him as full surgeon,” Osler wrote in his secret history, “. . . I believed, and Welch did too, that he was no longer addicted to morphia. He had worked so well and so energetically that it did not seem possible that he could take the drug and do so much.

About six months after the full position had been given, I saw him in a severe chill [evidently a withdrawal symptom caused by Halsted's seeking to give up morphine once again] and this was the first intimation I had that he was still taking morphia. Subsequently I had many talks about it and gained his full confidence. He had never been able to reduce the amount to less than three grains [180 milligrams] daily; on this he could do his work comfortably and maintain his excellent physical vigor for he was a very muscular fellow). I do not think that anyone suspected him, not even Welch. 3

While on morphine Halsted married into a distinguished Southern family; his wife had been head nurse in the operating rooms at the Hopkins. They lived together in “complete mutual devotion” until Halsted’s death thirty-two years later.

Halsted’s skill and ingenuity as a surgeon during his years of addiction to morphine earned him national and international renown. For Lister’s concept of antisepsis— measures to kill germs in operation wounds Halsted substituted asepsis: measures to keep germs out of the wound in the first place. In this and other ways, he pioneered techniques for minimizing the damage done to delicate tissues during an operation. Precision became his surgical trademark. A British surgeon, Lord Moynihan, admiringly described the Halsted technique at the operating table as one of “frequently light, swift, sparing movements with the sharpest of knives, instead of free, heavy-handed deep cutting; of no hemorrhage or the minimum of hemorrhage instead of the severance of many vessels, each bleeding freely until clipped .” 4 For pioneering improvements such as these, Halsted became widely known as “the father of modern surgery.”

In 1898, at the age of forty-six, Osler’s secret history notes, Halsted reduced his daily morphine to a grain and a half (90 milligrams) a day. Thereafter the surviving record is silent — though Osler in 1912 expressed a hope that Halsted had “possibly” given up morphine. 5 Halsted died in 1922, at the age of seventy and at the pinnacle of his exacting profession, following a surgical operation. He remained in good health, active, esteemed, and in all probability addicted, until the end.

Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do by Peter McWilliams Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do by Peter McWilliamsI first encountered the story of Dr. Halsted in Peter McWilliams‘s Ain’t Nobody’s Business if You Do.

I come not to bury dual-class stock structures, but to praise them

Tuesday, May 6th, 2008

Marc Andreessen comes not to bury dual-class stock structures, but to praise them:

A dual-class stock structure means that a company has two different classes of common stock. Each class of stock has the same economic ownership of the company, yet different voting rights.

In a typical scenario, Class A shares have a single vote per share, whereas Class B shares have 10 votes per share, for any shareholder vote.

Using this mechanism, for example, the Class B shareholders might only own 20% of the company in economic terms but have a clear majority voting position relative to the Class A shareholders.

In short, Class A shareholders have shares labeled with the earlier letter in the alphabet, but Class B shareholders control the company — in stark contrast to the more normal single-class stock structure which is more classically democratic: “one share, one vote”. Since Class B shareholders will typically be some set of founding management or founding investors in the company, in practice the presence of a dual-class stock structure means that the founders control the company and can overrule all other shareholders on a wide range of issues, including if and when to sell the company.

Both public and private companies can have dual-class stock structures, but the controversy around dual-class stock structures is usually confined to public companies, due to the presence of public shareholders. And so I will focus purely on public companies.

I used to be an absolutist against dual-class stock structures — I used to believe that dual-class stock structures were obviously a bad idea, that the democratic single-class approach of “one share, one vote” was more fair to public investors and more likely to lead to a healthy company in the long run, since total founder control of a public company can allow the founders to overrule normal market forces and the interests of their public shareholders.

And in fact, practically all investor advocates and shareholder activists agree with that stance — dual-class stock structures are at the top of the list of techniques that entrenched managers can use to foil the normal market discipline of a public stock, and to frustrate outside public shareholders who can easily become disenfranchised even when they have majority ownership of a company… with a long-run outcome similar to the kind of insularity and inbreeding you find in royal families. These days, the New York Times Company has of course become the poster child for entrenched bad management operating against the interests of their public shareholders due to its dual-class stock structure — how could anyone possibly be in favor of that?

And on the face of it, a dual-class stock structure simply seems unfair — how can someone own part of something but have a tenth of the rights of someone else who owns the same amount?

After 15 years in the technology industry, though, I have done a complete 180-degree turn on the topic — with some caveats.

I come not to bury dual-class stock structures, but to praise them.

I now believe that dual-class stock structures are a great idea for a technology company that is in the process of going public, under the following conditions:

  • The key leaders of the company — typically the founders — who will own the controlling Class B shares, are also major economic shareholders in the company. They own a significant portion of the company and are therefore highly incented to maximize the value of the company over time.
  • The key leaders of the company who own the controlling Class B shares have a long-term goal of building a major franchise, and the commitment required to execute against that goal.
  • The controlling Class B shareholders have a commitment to treat Class A shareholders fairly and equally in all respects other than voting power.
  • All public shareholders understand what they are getting into up front — no bait and switch.

The key to the whole thing is shared goals — particularly the shared goal of long-term value creation, particularly the creation of a long-term franchise, the kind of franchise that can require 10 years or longer to build.

With such goals, I now believe the interests of public shareholders will often be better served by ceding voting control to the founders and key leaders of the company.

This is a provocative statement, so let me back it up.

In practice, the world at large, the markets in which companies operate, and Wall Street in particular, throw up all kinds of short- and medium-term noise in the face of every public company, all the time.

Crossing the T

Monday, May 5th, 2008

In Crossing the T, Wretchard describes two very different strategies for dealing with defeat:

One type of reaction to Europe was embodied in the British cartoon which showed a cannibal king dressed in a top hat and a morning coat in a sedan chair to meet a British envoy. It was obvious from the cartoon that the tribal King’s efforts at dignity were ironically transformed, in British eyes, to a kind of comical pathos. But on the other side of the world the Japanese, similarly humiliated by the appearance of technologically advanced iron ships on their coast, took a different approach. During the Meiji Era, Japan embarked on the arduous task of stealing the fire from Europe. They sent bright young men in large numbers overseas to learn the best and most advanced technologies of Europe. By 1905 the Japanese had not only evened the score but were in a position to give Imperial Russia a drubbing a Tsushima she would never forget.

Peter Hunt describes what it is like to visit the museum ship Mikasa today. The Japanese equivalent of HMS Victory. Although a ship it is also a memorial to the Admiral who fought it to victory and changed the conception of his country to the world. It was on the Mikasa that Admiral Heihachiro Togo made the turn (“Togo’s turn”) which “capped the T” and allowed him to annihilate the Russian fleet. In that manuever, about one in seven of Mikasa‘s men were killed or wounded. But if the Japanese Admiral alone deserved the victory, it is undeniable that Horatio Nelson was with him in spirit on the bridge. Togo had consciously made Nelson his hero. And as he closed the Russian squadron he hoisted a signal taken nearly word-for-word from Nelson’s signal at Trafalgar. “The fate of the Empire depends upon this event. Let every man do his utmost.” You wouldn’t expect Nelson hero-worship of a man who had watched his country humiliated by the British.
[...]
But for Togo success was the best revenge. Perhaps in his mind he believed the day would come when Nelson’s own navy would raise a salute in honor to his own. And he would attain to it, not by pleading, but the power of his own deeds. This is the fundamental message of Bill Cosby’s speaking tours, as described by Ta-Nehisi Coates in the Atlantic. “This is how we lost to the white man”, he says, by forgetting how to win.

He began with the story of a black girl who’d risen to become valedictorian of his old high school, despite having been abandoned by her father. “She spoke to the graduating class and her speech started like this,” Cosby said. “‘I was 5 years old. It was Saturday and I stood looking out the window, waiting for him.’ She never said what helped turn her around. She never mentioned her mother, grandmother, or great-grandmother.”

“Understand me,” Cosby said, his face contorted and clenched like a fist. “Men? Men? Men! Where are you, men?”

Over and over again Cosby hammers on the point that the only way out of historical injustice — which surely does exist — is to learn the lessons of defeat. It’s not enough to adopt the trappings of success; to wear the morning coat and finery of the cannibal king. The trick is to steal the fire; to imbibe the formula for victory. Not to rely on goodwill of the “enlightened” as a ticket out of misery but to seize success with both hands.
[...]
But it would also have been an oversimplification to expect that Japan’s embrace of technology should have won Japanese instant equality with Europeans. Until the 1960s, the image of Japanese would be of the buck-toothed, bespectacled subhuman who was bowing and scraping when he wasn’t slipping a knife into your back. It remained for Sony, Toyota and Nikon to prove that Made in Japan could mean better than anything anywhere. Yet the issue remains: what is the best starting point in the quest to undo historical inequality. Is it in talking the talk or in walking the walk? And while Cosby’s approach may be an oversimplification, I think he is fundamentally right. Today both India and China are proving, for the second time in history that it is better to attain equality than to demand it. It make take a while before the Left wing intelligensia so common in the Third World picks up this fundamental lesson. But the lesson was there even in Togo’s day.

“In 1906, T?g? was made a Member of the British Order of Merit by King Edward VII. On his death in 1934 at the age of 86, he was accorded a state funeral. The navies of Great Britain, United States, Netherlands, France, Italy and China all sent ships to a naval parade in his honor in Tokyo Bay.”

All Japan mourned.

The Future of American Power

Monday, May 5th, 2008

Fareed Zakaria examines The Future of American Power by contrasting it with British Imperial Power:

Britain has been a rich country for centuries (and was a great power for most of that time), but it was an economic superpower for little more than a generation. Observers often make the mistake of dating its apogee by great imperial events such as the Diamond Jubilee. In fact, by 1897, Britain’s best years were already behind it. Its true apogee was a generation earlier, from 1845 to 1870. At the time, it was producing more than 30 percent of global GDP. Its energy consumption was five times that of the United States and 155 times that of Russia. It accounted for one-fifth of the world’s trade and two-fifths of its manufacturing trade. And all this was accomplished with just two percent of the world’s population.

By the late 1870s, the United States had equaled Britain on most industrial measures, and by the early 1880s it had actually surpassed it, as Germany would about 15 years later. By World War I, the United States’ economy was twice the size of Britain’s, and together France’s and Russia’s were larger as well. In 1860, Britain had produced 53 percent of the world’s iron (then a sign of supreme industrial strength); by 1914, it was making less than 10 percent.
[...]
The historian Paul Kennedy has explained the highly unusual circumstances that produced Britain’s dominance in the nineteenth century. Given its portfolio of power — geography, population, resources — Britain could reasonably have expected to account for three to four percent of global GDP, but its share rose to around ten times that figure. As those unusual circumstances abated — as other Western countries caught up with industrialization, as Germany united, as the United States resolved its North-South divide — Britain was bound to decline. The British statesman Leo Amery saw this clearly in 1905. “How can these little islands hold their own in the long run against such great and rich empires as the United States and Germany are rapidly becoming?” he asked. “How can we with forty millions of people compete with states nearly double our size?” It is a question that many Americans are now asking in the face of China’s rise.

Britain managed to maintain its position as the leading world power for decades after it lost its economic dominance thanks to a combination of shrewd strategy and good diplomacy. Early on, as it saw the balance of power shifting, London made one critical decision that extended its influence by decades: it chose to accommodate itself to the rise of the United States rather than to contest it. In the decades after 1880, on issue after issue London gave in to a growing and assertive Washington.
[...]
Britain was undone as a global power not because of bad politics but because of bad economics. Indeed, the impressive skill with which London played its weakening hand despite a 70-year economic decline offers important lessons for the United States. First, however, it is essential to note that the central feature of Britain’s decline — irreversible economic deterioration — does not really apply to the United States today. Britain’s unrivaled economic status lasted for a few decades; the United States’ has lasted more than 120 years. The U.S. economy has been the world’s largest since the middle of the 1880s, and it remains so today. In fact, the United States has held a surprisingly constant share of global GDP ever since. With the brief exception of the late 1940s and 1950s, when the rest of the industrialized world had been destroyed and its share rose to 50 percent, the United States has accounted for roughly a quarter of world output for over a century (32 percent in 1913, 26 percent in 1960, 22 percent in 1980, 27 percent in 2000, and 26 percent in 2007). It is likely to slip, but not significantly, in the next two decades. Most estimates suggest that in 2025 the United States’ economy will still be twice the size of China’s in terms of nominal GDP.

This difference between the United States and Britain is reflected in the burden of their military budgets. Britannia ruled the seas but never the land. The British army was sufficiently small that Otto von Bismarck once quipped that were the British ever to invade Germany, he would simply have the local police force arrest them. Meanwhile, London’s advantage over the seas — it had more tonnage than the next two navies put together — came at ruinous cost. The U.S. military, in contrast, dominates at every level — land, sea, air, space — and spends more than the next 14 countries combined, accounting for almost 50 percent of global defense spending. The United States also spends more on defense research and development than the rest of the world put together. And crucially, it does all this without breaking the bank. U.S. defense expenditure as a percent of GDP is now 4.1 percent, lower than it was for most of the Cold War (under Dwight Eisenhower, it rose to ten percent). As U.S. GDP has grown larger and larger, expenditures that would have been backbreaking have become affordable. The Iraq war may be a tragedy or a noble endeavor, but either way, it will not bankrupt the United States. The price tag for Iraq and Afghanistan together — $125 billion a year — represents less than one percent of GDP. The war in Vietnam, by comparison, cost the equivalent of 1.6 percent of U.S. GDP in 1970, a large difference. (Neither of these percentages includes second- or third-order costs of war, which allows for a fair comparison even if one disputes the exact figures.)

U.S. military power is not the cause of its strength but the consequence. The fuel is the United States’ economic and technological base, which remains extremely strong.

I love that Bismarck line that were the British ever to invade Germany, he would simply have the local police force arrest them. Anyway, I recommend the whole article.

China experts identify gene for yield, height in rice

Monday, May 5th, 2008

Get ready for another, larger Green Revolution. China experts identify gene for yield, height in rice:

Scientists in China have identified a single gene that appears to control rice yield, as well as its height and flowering time, taking what may be a crucial step in global efforts to increase crop productivity.

In an article published in Nature Genetics, the researchers said they were able to pinpoint a single gene, Ghd7, which appears to determine all three traits.

Previous studies identified a region on chromosome 7 which seemed to be responsible, but they were not able to zero in on any specific gene.

“Our study shows that a single gene can control several traits with major effects. It can double the yield, determine flowering time and plant height,” said Zhang Qifa of the Huazhong Agricultural University in Wuhan province in China.

Study links child’s autism, parents’ mental illness

Monday, May 5th, 2008

Study links child's autism, parents' mental illness:

“Our research shows that mothers and fathers diagnosed with schizophrenia were about twice as likely to have a child diagnosed with autism,” said Julie Daniels of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, who worked on the study.

“We also saw higher rates of depression and personality disorders among mothers, but not fathers,” she said in a statement.

The study of families in Sweden with children born between 1977 and 2003 involved 1,227 children diagnosed with autism. They were compared with families of nearly 31,000 children who did not have autism. Sweden’s detailed health registry provides a wealth of data for such studies.

Night club drug could ease depression

Monday, May 5th, 2008

Another study shows that ketamine — a disassociative anesthetic known on the street as “Special K” — could ease depression — in a jiffy:

Their study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, found ketamine restores to normal the orbifrontal cortex, an area of the brain located above the eyes that is overactive in depressed people.

The area is believed to be responsible for feelings of guilt, dread, apprehension and physical reactions such as a racing heart, said Bill Deakin, who led the study.

“The study results have given us a completely novel way of treating depression and a new avenue of understanding depression,” said Deakin, a neuroscientist at the University of Manchester.
[...]
In their study, Deakin and his team gave intravenous ketamine to 33 healthy male volunteers and took minute-by-minute brain scans to see what was happening as the drug took effect.

Images from the scans showed that the drug — also used as a battlefield anesthetic — worked quickly, Deakin said.

The results were surprising because the researchers had expected that the ketamine would instead affect the part of the brain that controls psychosis, he added.

“There was some activity there but more striking was the switching off of the depression centre,” Deakin said.

Previous research had shown that ketamine improved symptoms in depressed people after just 24 hours — far faster than the month it can take for Prozac to kick in — but until now they did not know exactly how.

Friends May Be the Best Guide Through the Noise

Sunday, May 4th, 2008

Friends May Be the Best Guide Through the Noise on the Net:

Following the feeds of people you like and admire, these companies say, allows the serendipitous discovery of needles in the information haystack. “Friends are likely to have some similar interests and tastes. Just the fact that your friends find it interesting should make it more interesting to you,” said Paul Buchheit, one of FriendFeed’s four founders, all of them former Google engineers.

Last week, for example, Mr. Buchheit’s followers on FriendFeed were treated to what he himself had discovered and found valuable online: links to interviews with the investor Peter Thiel in Reason magazine and the Google co-founder Larry Page in Fortune, an article about Justice Antonin Scalia’s views on torture on a political Web site, and a YouTube video of nine kittens moving their heads in rhythm to a song, among other Internet ephemera.

I must admit to a double-take when I read “links to interviews with the investor Peter Thiel in Reason magazine and the Google co-founder Larry Page in Fortune” — since I just cited each of those (here and here).