Sticks and Stones

Wednesday, March 4th, 2009

You used to hear parents tell their children, “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” That’s changed, Rory Miller (Meditations on Violence) says:

Now you hear: “Words can cut through you like a knife. Words can hold such venom or poison that they can damage, destroy or kill more effectively than a physical weapon.”

I can’t help but think that this person has never been cut by a knife, or seen anyone destroyed by a physical weapon. Maybe there’s a scale, or maybe more: people assume that the worst they’ve ever been hurt is at the very edge of what humans can feel. So if the worst pain you’ve ever felt is an unkind word, you think it must be worse that the third or fourth or fifth worst pain I’ve ever felt, which was probably lying on my back after a good fall unable to breathe trying pathetically to scream or at least squeek for help. Or maybe running on a broken leg. Or frostbite (no, recovering from frostbite was the worst or second worst).

Maybe it’s just me, but lying on a couch for a few days trying to wrap my mind around the fact that I might be blind in one eye was way worse than being embarassed or insulted or demeaned.

Why TV Lost

Wednesday, March 4th, 2009

Paul Graham explains why TV lost:

About twenty years ago people noticed computers and TV were on a collision course and started to speculate about what they’d produce when they converged. We now know the answer: computers. It’s clear now that even by using the word “convergence” we were giving TV too much credit. This won’t be convergence so much as replacement. People may still watch things they call “TV shows,” but they’ll watch them mostly on computers.

What decided the contest for computers? Four forces, three of which one could have predicted, and one that would have been harder to.

One predictable cause of victory is that the Internet is an open platform. Anyone can build whatever they want on it, and the market picks the winners. So innovation happens at hacker speeds instead of big company speeds.

The second is Moore’s Law, which has worked its usual magic on Internet bandwidth. [1]

The third reason computers won is piracy. Users prefer it not just because it’s free, but because it’s more convenient. Bittorrent and YouTube have already trained a new generation of viewers that the place to watch shows is on a computer screen. [2]

The somewhat more surprising force was one specific type of innovation: social applications. The average teenage kid has a pretty much infinite capacity for talking to their friends. But they can’t physically be with them all the time. When I was in high school the solution was the telephone. Now it’s social networks, multiplayer games, and various messaging applications. The way you reach them all is through a computer. [3] Which means every teenage kid (a) wants a computer with an Internet connection, (b) has an incentive to figure out how to use it, and (c) spends countless hours in front of it.

This was the most powerful force of all. This was what made everyone want computers. Nerds got computers because they liked them. Then gamers got them to play games on. But it was connecting to other people that got everyone else: that’s what made even grandmas and 14 year old girls want computers.

After decades of running an IV drip right into their audience, people in the entertainment business had understandably come to think of them as rather passive. They thought they’d be able to dictate the way shows reached audiences. But they underestimated the force of their desire to connect with one another.

Facebook killed TV. That is wildly oversimplified, of course, but probably as close to the truth as you can get in three words.

Amazon’s Kindle for iPhone hits the App Store

Wednesday, March 4th, 2009

Amazon’s Kindle for iPhone (iTunes) hits the App Store, and it uses Whispersync to synchronize your location between readers.

Modern America’s Founding Father

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009

Myron Magnet calls Alexander Hamilton modern America’s founding father — but first he summarizes Hamilton’s hard-to-believe beginnings, borrowing heavily from Chernow’s biography:

Hamilton, by contrast [to the other Founding Fathers], was a penniless immigrant from the West Indies; like so many New Yorkers, he had come here from elsewhere, seeking his fortune.

And he wasn’t just penniless. “My birth,” as he delicately put it, “is the subject of the most humiliating criticism” — for he was, in John Adams’s acidulous taunt, “the bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar.” Nevertheless, as a prime exemplar of that American opportunity and enterprise he so fervently promoted, he rose to be the country’s second most powerful man. As Ron Chernow puts it in his indispensable biography, he served in effect as George Washington’s prime minister and head of government, directing his administration’s policy and molding the enduring institutions it created.

It’s hard to exaggerate the moral squalor of the future Treasury secretary’s childhood. A much older man, flashy and feckless, wed his mother when she was 16 for her beauty and “snug fortune,” as Hamilton called it; she abandoned him and their baby five years later. The outraged husband had her jailed in St. Croix, as its law allowed, for purportedly “whoring with everyone.” Instead of returning to him chastened, as he expected, she fled, soon settling on the tiny British island of Nevis with James Hamilton, a dashing younger son of a Scottish laird. She bore two more sons, James, Jr. and, on January 11, 1755, Alexander. The couple lived as man and wife; though her husband finally got a divorce from her in 1759, its terms forbade her remarriage.

The black sheep of a well-off family, James Hamilton had come to the sugar isles in search of riches like so many hard-up adventurers, but he had “too much pride and too large a portion of indolence,” Hamilton recalled much later, so his “affairs at a very early day went to wreck” and he sank into the crowd of failures and lowlifes who overran the West Indies. When Hamilton was ten, James decamped, drifting until he washed up, old and dying, near the southern Caribbean speck where Defoe shipwrecked Robinson Crusoe.

Hamilton’s intelligent, enterprising mother, who’d returned to St. Croix, started a grocery store. But when Hamilton was 12, one of the tropical fevers that plagued European fortune hunters felled her, and a sea of troubles engulfed her two boys. The cousin who took them in killed himself two years later, leaving the boys destitute; their mother’s little estate — nine slaves, chiefly — had gone to her one legitimate son, who had swooped down to snatch it away from her two “obscene children.” All Hamilton had left were her 34 books, including the Plutarch and Pope that had been his childhood companions, which his cousin had kindly bought for him in the auction of her household effects.

Then, like Mr. Brownlow rescuing Oliver Twist from Fagin, fairy-tale magic descended. A rich St. Croix merchant, Thomas Stevens, took Hamilton into his nurturing household, where he became lifelong friends with Stevens’s son Ned, a year older and remarkably similar in tastes and talents. And why did Stevens take in Alexander, leaving his brother James, Jr. to become a carpenter’s apprentice? Years later, when Secretary of State Timothy Pickering first met Ned Stevens, he was flabbergasted by his “extraordinary similitude” to Hamilton. “I thought they must be brothers,” Pickering wrote — an observation that one of Ned’s relatives later told him “had been made a thousand times.” So was Hamilton doubly illegitimate? Pickering thought so; perhaps someday the DNA sleuths will say for sure.

Some months before the Stevenses took him in, Hamilton, without realizing it, had already linked up to the great world beyond his little island. Though remote, St. Croix was integral to the eighteenth century’s economic dynamo, the triangle trade that (to oversimplify) brought slaves from Africa to work the West Indian sugar estates, carried the sugar and molasses to New England to make into rum, and returned to Africa to trade rum for more slaves, generally with a stop in England to sell sugar and rum for manufactures. At 13, Hamilton had begun clerking for the island outpost of Beekman and Cruger, a New York trading firm owned by two of the city’s great Dutch mercantile families, key players in that business for generations. As he took his modest place in world commerce, he also launched himself onto a tributary that flowed into the heart of Gotham’s mainstream.

His stint at Beekman and Cruger, he later told his son John, was “the most useful part of his education,” teaching him the facts of global economic life, from commodity prices, cash flow, and exchange rates to bill collecting and smuggling. When his boss, Nicholas Cruger, fell ill and went home to Gotham (where his uncle was mayor), he left his luminously gifted 16-year-old clerk in charge. The adolescent took to management with gusto: his vivid letter to young Cruger about how he fattened up a cargo of starving mules from the firm’s sloop Thunderbolt is a marvel of self-confident energy.

On his countinghouse stool, Hamilton dreamt big. At 14, he wrote to Ned Stevens, in his earliest surviving letter, “my Ambition is prevalent that I contemn the grov’ling and condition of a Clerk or the like, to which my Fortune &c. condemns me and would willingly risk my life tho’ not my Character to exalt my Station. . . . I mean to prepare the way for futurity. . . . [I] may be jusly said to Build Castles in the Air . . . , yet Neddy we have seen such Schemes successful when the Projector is Constant I shall Conclude saying I wish there was a War.”

But the upheaval that first exalted Hamilton’s station wasn’t a war; it was a hurricane that ripped through St. Croix in August 1772. When Hamilton’s muscular account of the storm’s ferocity, its aftermath of death and desolation, and his own fears and religious hopes appeared in the local newspaper, its brio amazed readers, some of whom, led by Hamilton’s employers and a kindly clergyman, raised funds to send the teenage prodigy off to college in North America. When Princeton declined to let him plow through its B.A. requirements as fast as he could rather than take the usual three years, the young-man-in-a-hurry enrolled instead at King’s College (renamed Columbia after the Revolution) in late 1773 or early 1774 and became a Manhattanite.

HIV Mutates to Death With New Drug

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009

Mutagen KP-1461 looks like both thymine and cytosine — the T and C of the four-letter DNA alphabet — which means it might cause the ever-changing human immunodeficiency virus to mutate “to death”:

The results of the latest Phase Two clinical trial, completed last year with 13 patients, were mixed; some patients saw no drop in their viral load, while others saw a dramatic drop. The scientists are currently working to publish the study results.

What’s clear is that KP-1461 does eventually destroy HIV in some patients, unlike the current batch of antiretroviral drugs, which limit the reproduction of the virus but fail to destroy it.

KP-1461 doesn’t have any known side effects, but the worry from the Food and Drug Administration is that a drug that induces mutation in a virus could also cause dangerous mutations in the patient’s own DNA.

"We Just Disagree"

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009

People who live different lives, Rory Miller (Meditations on Violence) notes, see different results from the same things:

Why are college professors generally for relaxed immigration laws and for government aid and cops, in general are against both?

It’s because we see different outcomes. The college professor sees the students who worked hard, took advantage of what was offered and used it to create good and productive lives. Sometimes against great odds and defeating incredibly negative circumstances. They see the good that the programs do.

The cops deal, every day, with the people who took advantage of what was offered to increase their ability to harm or to evade responsibility for their actions.

The programs that allow a young man from Mexico who illegally crossed the border to find a job, get health care for his children, become an asset to his community, pay taxes and have children who go to colleges and make America stronger are exactly the same programs that allow cartels of drug dealers to pack their organizations with relatives from the home country and rule through fear and traditions that were imported right along with them.

The programs that allow a struggling single mother to care for her children and keep them fed and get them to school and give them a chance at a life are the exact same programs that enables teen age boys to have contests on who can father the most illegitimate children before graduating from high school, and do so with absolutely no responsibility or penalties.

This is important. Sometimes the argument arises because the friend has a colleague who really made it in life with a little help paid for by the government… and you have either just delivered or just buried a baby addicted two two drugs and underweight with no functioning parent and that, the birth or the burial, were also paid for by the government.

The Netbook Effect

Monday, March 2nd, 2009

The OLPC project inadvertently spawned the netbook effect, yet another example of Clayton Christensen’s Innovator’s Dilemma:

Inspired (or perhaps a bit scared) by the OLPC project, Asustek — Quanta’s archrival in Taiwan and the world’s seventh-largest notebook maker — began crafting its own inexpensive, low-performance computer. It, too, would be built cheaply using Linux, flash memory, and a tiny 7-inch screen. It had no DVD drive and wasn’t potent enough to run programs like Photoshop. Indeed, Asustek intended it mainly just for checking email and surfing the Web. Their customers, they figured, would be children, seniors, and the emerging middle class in India or China who can’t afford a full $1,000 laptop.

What happened was something entirely different. When Asustek launched the Eee PC in fall 2007, it sold out the entire 350,000-unit inventory in a few months. Eee PCs weren’t bought by people in poor countries but by middle-class consumers in western Europe and the US, people who wanted a second laptop to carry in a handbag for peeking at YouTube or Facebook wherever they were. Soon the major PC brands — Dell, HP, Lenovo — were scrambling to catch up; by fall 2008, nearly every US computermaker had rushed a teensy $400 netbook to market.

All of which is, when you think about it, incredibly weird. Netbooks violate all the laws of the computer hardware business. Traditionally, development trickles down from the high end to the mass market. PC makers target early adopters with new, ultrapowerful features. Years later, those innovations spread to lower-end models.

But Jepsen’s design trickled up. In the process of creating a laptop to satisfy the needs of poor people, she revealed something about traditional PC users. They didn’t want more out of a laptop — they wanted less.

The barometer of a society’s virtue

Monday, March 2nd, 2009

Watch money, Francisco d’Anconia warns, because money is the barometer of a society’s virtue:

When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.
[...]
When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, ‘Who is destroying the world? You are.

That is Francisco d’Anconia of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, which is a bit of a countercyclical asset:

Sales of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” have almost tripled over the first seven weeks of this year compared with sales for the same period in 2008. This continues a strong trend after bookstore sales reached an all-time annual high in 2008 of about 200,000 copies sold.

“Americans are flocking to buy and read ‘Atlas Shrugged’ because there are uncanny similarities between the plot-line of the book and the events of our day” said Yaron Brook, Executive Director at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “Americans are rightfully concerned about the economic crisis and government’s increasing intervention and attempts to control the economy. Ayn Rand understood and identified the deeper causes of the crisis we’re facing, and she offered, in ‘Atlas Shrugged,’ a principled and practical solution consistent with American values.”

Comandante Obama

Monday, March 2nd, 2009

Peter Robinson says that Comandante Obama has made America look like a banana republic:

“But you don’t understand,” the Colombian said. “We’ve seen this before.”

“He’s right, my good friend,” the Cuban said. “We Latin Americans know the pattern. Believe me we do.”

The American tried to shrug off the Latin Americans’ warning. To his consternation, he found that he couldn’t. Peron, Fidel, now Chavez, they insisted. The emergence of misrule, corruption and economic stagnation in Latin American nations follows a particular sequence or progression. Now the sequence was unfolding in the United States.

“It starts with a cult of personality,” the Cuban explained. “One man declares himself the jefe, the caudillo, the big leader.”

Had Obama attempted to instigate something like a cult of personality? The American found the charge impossible to refute. During the campaign, Obama had failed to advance a genuine agenda, instead campaigning on “hope” and “change.” In effect, he had asked Americans to turn the nation over to him on blind faith. He would, he promised, transcend racial and partisan divides in his very person.
[...]
“After the cult of personality,” the Colombian explained, “what comes next is nationalization.” Fidel had nationalized the Cuban sugar mills, Chavez the Banco de Venezuela, Morales the Bolivian oil and gas industries.
[...]
“The last step?” asked the Cuban. “Censorship. It won’t be obvious at first–they’re always too smart for that. But it will come.”

“Never,” replied the American. “We have the First Amendment.”

“And soon enough,” the Cuban said, smiling sadly, “you will also have the Fairness Doctrine.”

Books and Music That Make You Dumb

Monday, March 2nd, 2009

Virgil Griffith, the 25-year-old Caltech graduate student known for embarrassing numerous corporations with his WikiScanner, has aggregated Facebook data about the favorite bands and books of students from various colleges and plotted them against the average SAT scores at those schools, creating a tongue-in-cheek statistical look at books and music that make you dumb:

For example, the favorite musician of the smartest students was Beethoven, with an average SAT score of 1371. Also on the “smart” end of the scale were Sufjan Stevens (1260), Counting Crows (1247), and Radiohead (1220). And sadly for Lil Wayne, enjoying his music was associated with being the dumbest, with an average SAT score of 889.

On the book front, Lolita was favorite tome of the brightest students (a result which Griffith called “charming”), with an average SAT score of 1317. The lowest-scoring students liked the erotica author Zane, with an average score of 980. And strangely, the students who listed their favorite book as “The Bible” were smarter (1047) than those who said it was “The Holy Bible” (980).

Ironically, students who wrote “I don’t read” in the space for favorite books were only slots 14 from the bottom in terms of SAT scores, meaning that there were 13 other favorite books that theoretically made students “dumber” than not reading books at all.

Griffith came up with the idea as a way to show how to take two separate sets of data that were pretty straightforward on their own–in this case, the average SAT score and the favorite books among students at various universities–and combine them to become more interesting. Griffith says, “Their unity is hilarity incarnate. This is to inspire people to think creatively about the data sets that are on the Internet.”

Griffith’s favorite band is Daft Punk, which didn’t make it onto the list.

The two sites, by the way, are Booksthatmakeyoudumb.virgil.gr and Musicthatmakesyoudumb.virgil.gr, but they seem to be overwhelmed at the moment.

Activists

Monday, March 2nd, 2009

Rory Miller (Meditations on Violence) does not like or respect activists:

At some point in the last thirty years or so what the people labeled ‘activists’ do has changed. If memory serves, the activists used to go into the deep south and sign up voters. They used to form neighborhood watches and clean up litter and graffiti.

It seems that these days, the people who call themselves activists (the protestors and letter-writers and ‘research groups’) whine or scream or block traffic or sue all in the attempt to get someone else (usually the government) to fix what they see as a problem.

In case I’m going too fast here: you see a problem (even if I don’t agree that it’s a problem) and you put your time and sweat and blood and money into fixing it, you have my absolute respect. You see a problem and begin screaming or waving signs or orchestrating protests to force me (or the taxpayers in general) to fix the problem, you have my absolute contempt. Adults fix problems, children whine for adults to fix problems. That’s a basic difference.

Legendary Comics Writer Alan Moore is a Bitter, Old Hippy

Sunday, March 1st, 2009

Legendary comics writer Alan Moore is a bitter, old hippy:

But, like I say, it was the 1960s. Most of the comic fans I met at the time were 14- or 15-year-old proto-hippies, as was I. They were very interested in the progressive spirit of the time.

So, those were the agendas that we were following then. We thought it would be a great idea if comics could be recognized as the wonderful medium that we secretly knew them to be. And when I say “we,” I’m talking about the 50 actual people who turned up at those early conventions, which was pretty much the sum total of everybody in this country [England] who’d ever heard of American comics. But back then our agenda was this progressive notion that, wouldn’t it be terrific if people were to get involved with comics who could make them more adult, more grown up, to show the kind of themes they were capable of handling? So this was the agenda that, 20 years later, I was still following toward the end of my first DC run.

At the time I thought that a book like Watchmen would perhaps unlock a lot of potential creativity, that perhaps other writers and artists in the industry would see it and would think, “This is great, this shows what comics can do. We can now take our own ideas and thanks to the success of Watchmen we’ll have a better chance of editors giving us a shot at them.” I was hoping naively for a great rash of individual comic books that were exploring different storytelling ideas and trying to break new ground.

That isn’t really what happened. Instead it seemed that the existence of Watchmen had pretty much doomed the mainstream comic industry to about 20 years of very grim and often pretentious stories that seemed to be unable to get around the massive psychological stumbling block that Watchmen had turned out to be, although that had never been my intention with the work.

My Drug Problem

Sunday, March 1st, 2009

Virginia Postrel describes her drug problem — or what could have been a drug problem somewhere else:

If I lived in New Zealand, I’d be dead.

That’s the lead my editor wanted me to write, and I have to admit it’s great. Alas (for this column, at least), it’s not exactly true. But neither is it false. And the ways in which it’s partly true matter greatly, not just to me or to New Zealanders but to anyone who might get cancer or care about someone who does.

When Postrel found out she had cancer, it didn’t look bad. Then it did. The drug Herceptin took her chance of survival from 50 percent to 95 percent, and things currently look good:

The Herceptin treatments cost my insurer about $60,000. A year later, I have no evidence of disease and, though it’s still early, I have hope of staying that way indefinitely.

Not everyone in similarly rich countries is so lucky — something to remember the next time you hear a call to “tame runaway medical spending.” Consider New Zealand. There, a government agency called Pharmac evaluates the efficacy of new drugs, decides which drugs are cost-effective, and negotiates the prices to be paid by the national health-care system. These functions are separate in most countries, but thanks to this integrated approach, Pharmac has indeed tamed the national drug budget. New Zealand spent $303 per capita on drugs in 2006, compared with $843 in the United States. Unfortunately for patients, Pharmac gets those impressive results by saying no to new treatments. New Zealand “is a good tourist destination, but options for cancer treatment are not so attractive there right now,” Richard Isaacs, an oncologist in Palmerston North, on New Zealand’s North Island, told me in October.

A more centralized U.S. health-care system might reap some one-time administrative savings, but over the long term, cutting costs requires the kinds of controls that make Americans hate managed care. You have to deny patients some of the things they want, including cancer drugs that are promising but expensive. Policy wonks dream of objective technocrats (perhaps at the “independent institute to guide reviews and research on comparative effectiveness” proposed by Barack Obama) who will rationally “scrutinize new treatments for effectiveness,” as The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn puts it. But neither science nor liberal democracy works quite so neatly.

In New Zealand, for example, Herceptin is a high-profile public issue. Until July 2007, Pharmac wouldn’t fund the drug for early-stage breast cancer. (It has covered the drug for the advanced disease since 2002.) In protest, activists filed lawsuits and sent petitions to Parliament. Pink-clad motorcycle riders circled the North Island in a “Bikers for Boobs” publicity stunt that got widespread attention. To pay for treatments, women who could do so have mortgaged their homes, dipped into their retirement savings, and held fund-raisers among their neighbors. Many have cut their treatments short to save money. “It’s not easy to sit down every three weeks and write a check out for four and a half thousand dollars,” says Chris Walsh, a breast-cancer activist who mortgaged her house to buy the drug, stopping after 15 doses rather than the usual 17.

Eventually, Pharmac decided that Herceptin was worth paying for — but only for nine weeks, or three treatments.

You can err on the side of patient safety, Postrel points out, or on the side of cost. New Zealand chose the latter:

Looking at the crazy-quilt American system, you might imagine that someone somewhere has figured out how to deliver the best possible health care to everyone, at no charge to patients and minimal cost to the insurer or the public treasury. But nobody has. In a public system, trade-offs don’t go away; if anything, they get harder.

The good thing about a decentralized, largely private system like ours is that health care constantly gets weighed against everything else in the economy. No single authority has to decide whether 15 percent or 20 percent or 25 percent is the “right” amount of GDP to spend on health care, just as no single authority has to decide how much to spend on food or clothing or entertainment. Different individuals and organizations can make different trade-offs. Centralized systems, by contrast, have one health budget. This treatment gets funded, and that one doesn’t.

If I lived in New Zealand, I wouldn’t be dead, just a lot poorer. But if every place were like New Zealand, far fewer complex new drugs would get developed in the first place. And my odds of survival would be much, much lower.

Levels

Sunday, March 1st, 2009

Rory Miller (Meditations on Violence) notes that so much misunderstanding comes from refusing to recognize when someone is acting, fighting, or talking from a different level:

This is readily apparent at the confluence of my two worlds. On the one hand I deal every working day with people who believe it is stupid to accept a responsibility you can avoid; that people who feel that working for your livelihood is proof that you are stupid and should be exploited; that using force is natural and right and the only reason everyone doesn’t all the time is fear; that jail is a place to rest and take care of health problems.

These are not exagerations, not even slight exagerations. And these are not the super-predators. These are the attitudes of the day-to-day low level criminals — the addicts and pushers, the guy holding the sign saying “Will work for food” (who will turn you down if you actually offer him a job. Try it.)

This mindset is so alien to the other half of the people I know (the “citizens”) that many refuse to believe that it exists. It makes them uncomfortable when someone they know to have good judgment and wide experience makes a statement like this because it strikes them as impossible or wrong. But the mindset isn’t that alien — it’s adapted to its environment and reinforced in its own subculture.

People get uncomfortable with anything that strays too far from their strata, and they’ll do incredible mental gymnastics to justify and explain behaviors as “bad decisions” because they are more comfortable thinking that there is a connection, that under the right circumstances even “I” could be driven to kill a child and this poor criminal just happened to hit those conditions. This is more comfortable than believing that there are people who will kill a child because her crying might annoy a boyfriend who supplies drugs. Or might just not think of it as an event at all.

So we sit in our air conditioned, genteel, polite world and refuse to believe that there are people who will deliver a savage beating while deliberately planning how they will defend it in court.