Oracle’s surprising takeover of Sun

Friday, April 24th, 2009

Oracle's surprising takeover of Sun isn’t so surprising when you realize what Oracle will be able to offer:

Mr Ellison is keen on two bits of Sun’s software portfolio in particular. One is Java, a programming language that is the underlying technology both for many business applications and for software that runs on mobile phones. Sun never managed to make much money from it, in part because it wanted Java to be an open standard. But Mr Ellison may have different ideas. To him, it is “the single most important software asset we have ever acquired.” Sun’s other crown jewel is Solaris, its highly reliable operating system, which is often used as the platform for Oracle’s databases. More Oracle databases run on Solaris than on any other operating system, Mr Ellison notes. With control over both pieces of software, Oracle will be able to make them work together better.

This ability to integrate hitherto disparate pieces of technology, and thus make life easier for companies, provides further justification for the merger. For some time, Mr Ellison’s vision for Oracle has been to become the Apple of the enterprise, hiding complexity from customers, just as Apple does with its powerful but easy-to-use consumer products. Taking over Sun, he said this week, provides Oracle with all the pieces to put together systems that reach from “application to disk”. Oracle’s engineers are already brainstorming about how to build “industries in a box”—complete computer systems that come fine-tuned for, say, banking or retailing.

Oh, and there’s one more thing — which Ellison prefers not to mention:

By buying Sun, Oracle becomes the world’s largest open-source company, prompting much debate among developers and users. There is particular concern about the fate of MySQL, a firm Sun bought for $1 billion in January 2008. It sells database software which is also available in a free, widely used, open-source version.

The revolution that wasn’t

Friday, April 24th, 2009

The Economist calls the DVR revolution the revolution that wasn’t, because advertising-supported television hasn’t suffered as predicted:

On one point the Cassandras were correct. As prices fell and cable and satellite firms began to bundle DVRs with other services, their popularity soared. According to Nielsen, a media-research outfit, 29% of American homes now have one. The boxes are in a higher proportion of the households advertisers most care about. Jack Wakshlag of Turner Broadcasting, a cable company, calculates that DVR-owning households earn about $20,000 more than average. Yet those households do not use them nearly as much as one might expect. Families with DVRs seem to spend 15-20% of their viewing time watching pre-recorded shows, and skip only about half of all advertisements. This means only about 5% of television is time-shifted and less than 3% of all advertisements are skipped. Mitigating that loss, people with DVRs watch more television.

Once again I’m reminded what an outlier I am, as I must spend 99 percent of my viewing time watching pre-recorded shows, and I skip perhaps 90 percent of the ads. I even skip large portions of the program sometimes. (A two-hour MMA program might have a half-hour of fighting.)

I do watch much more TV now that I have a DVR though. I went from close to zero — I watched DVDs then — to, well, far from zero.

Far from being revolutionary, in some ways DVR has made television more stable. With the exception of live events it is broadly true that the most popular programmes are recorded the most. Mr Wakshlag describes it as “a hit-saving machine”. Broadcast television receives a bigger boost from DVR playback than cable television. The device has made it harder to introduce a new television programme, particularly at 10pm when people are likely to be playing back shows they recorded at 8pm or 9pm.

Again, I’m an outlier. I’ve found the DVR remarkably useful for taking in the “long tail” of programming from obscure channels at inconvenient times.

Can Billions of Parents Be Wrong?

Thursday, April 23rd, 2009

Can billions of parents be wrong? Yes, Bryan Caplan says, they can falsely believe that they have to break their backs to raise decent human beings, even though the private cost of that belief is quite high:

The nature-nurture question is intrinsically hard. Until twin and adoption studies came along, there was really no way to even start to resolve it. What’s more, with the benefit of twin and adoption studies we have discovered that intrinsic difficulty is only the first stumbling block. For the nature-nurture question first-hand observation actually turns out to be directly misleading.

How so? One of the big lessons of twin and adoption studies is that the short-run effects of parenting are much bigger than the long-run effects. So when a parent nags a kid and sees immediate improvement, his first-hand observation confirms that nagging works. It’s very tempting to infer that the difference between an average kid and a great kid is several thousand hours of nagging.

What twin and adoption studies have taught us, though, is that nagging isn’t cumulative. It’s not like trying to hold back the ocean by building a sea wall brick by brick until it’s high enough to get the job done. It’s more like building a sea wall out of sand — you have to keep building just to stay in place. And once your kids grow up and start making their own decisions, the tide comes in whether you like it or not.

The glass is half-full though:

You have little effect on your kid’s long-run prospects, but most kids’ long-run prospects are still bright. If you’re the kind of parent who reads econ blogs, your kids’ prospects are probably very bright indeed, because they’re going to painlessly inherit your brains, charm, good looks, and modesty.

American Stonehenge

Thursday, April 23rd, 2009

Built to survive the apocalypse, the Georgia Guidestones are not merely instructions for the future — the massive granite slabs also function as a clock, calendar, and compass:

  1. The monument sits at the highest point in Elbert County and is oriented to track the sun’s east-west migration year-round.
  2. On an equinox or solstice, visitors who stand at the west side of the “mail slot” are positioned to see the sun rise on the horizon.
  3. An eye-level hole drilled into the center support stone allows stargazers on the south side to locate Polaris, the North Star.
  4. A 7/8-inch hole drilled through the capstone focuses a sunbeam on the center column and at noon pinpoints the day of the year.

There’s more:

The main feature of the monument, though, would be the 10 dictates carved into both faces of the outer stones, in eight languages: English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Arabic, Hebrew, Hindi, and Swahili. A mission statement of sorts (LET THESE BE GUIDESTONES TO AN AGE OF REASON) was also to be engraved on the sides of the capstone in Egyptian hieroglyphics, classical Greek, Sanskrit, and Babylonian cuneiform. The United Nations provided some of the translations (including those for the dead languages), which were stenciled onto the stones and etched with a sandblaster.
[...]
But many who read what was written on the stones were unsettled. Guide number one was, of course, the real stopper: MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000 IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE. There were already 4.5 billion people on the planet, meaning eight out of nine had to go (today it would be closer to 12 out of 13). This instruction was echoed and expanded by tenet number two: GUIDE REPRODUCTION WISELY—IMPROVING FITNESS AND DIVERSITY. It didn’t take a great deal of imagination to draw an analogy to the practices of, among others, the Nazis. Guide number three instructed readers to unite humanity with a living new language. This sent a shiver up the spine of local ministers who knew that the Book of Revelations warned of a common tongue and a one-world government as the accomplishments of the Antichrist. Guide number four—RULE PASSION—FAITH—TRADITION—AND ALL THINGS WITH TEMPERED REASON—was similarly threatening to Christians committed to the primacy of faith over all. The last six guides were homiletic by comparison. PROTECT PEOPLE AND NATIONS WITH FAIR LAWS AND JUST COURTS. LET ALL NATIONS RULE INTERNALLY RESOLVING EXTERNAL DISPUTES IN A WORLD COURT. AVOID PETTY LAWS AND USELESS OFFICIALS. BALANCE PERSONAL RIGHTS WITH SOCIAL DUTIES. PRIZE TRUTH—BEAUTY—LOVE—SEEKING HARMONY WITH THE INFINITE. BE NOT A CANCER ON THE EARTH—LEAVE ROOM FOR NATURE—LEAVE ROOM FOR NATURE.

The whole project was paid for by one “R.C. Christian” and “a small group of loyal Americans”:

Jay Weidner, a former Seattle radio commentator turned erudite conspiracy hunter, has heavily invested time and energy into one of the most popular hypotheses. He argues that Christian and his associates were Rosicrucians, followers of the Order of the Rosy Cross, a secret society of mystics that originated in late medieval Germany and claim understanding of esoteric truths about nature, the universe, and the spiritual realm that have been concealed from ordinary people. Weidner considers the name R. C. Christian an homage to the legendary 14th-century founder of the Rosicrucians, a man first identified as Frater C.R.C. and later as Christian Rosenkreuz. Secrecy, Weidner notes, has been a hallmark of the Rosicrucians, a group that announced itself to the world in the early 17th century with a pair of anonymous manifestos that created a huge stir across Europe, despite the fact that no one was ever able to identify a single member. While the guides on the Georgia stones fly in the face of orthodox Christian eschatology, they conform quite well to the tenets of Rosicrucianism, which stress reason and endorse a harmonic relationship with nature.

Weidner also has a theory about the purpose of the Guidestones. An authority on the hermetic and alchemical traditions that spawned the Rosicrucians, he believes that for generations the group has been passing down knowledge of a solar cycle that climaxes every 13,000 years. During this culmination, outsize coronal mass ejections are supposed to devastate Earth. Meanwhile, the shadowy organization behind the Guidestones is now orchestrating a “planetary chaos,” Weidner believes, that began with the recent collapse of the US financial system and will result eventually in major disruptions of oil and food supplies, mass riots, and ethnic wars worldwide, all leading up to the Big Event on December 21, 2012. “They want to get the population down,” Weidner says, “and this is what they think will do it. The Guidestones are there to instruct the survivors.”

Killing Innovation with Corner Cases and Consensus

Thursday, April 23rd, 2009

Steve Blank (The Four Steps to the Epiphany) discusses killing innovation with corner cases and consensus:

I was visiting a friend whose company teaches executives how to communicate effectively. He had just filmed the second of a series of videos called, Speaking to the Big Dogs: How mid-level managers can communicate effectively with C-level executives (CEO, VP’s, General Managers, etc.) As we were plotting marketing strategy, I mentioned that the phrase “Speaking to the Big Dogs” might end up as his corporate brand. And that he might want to think about aligning all his video and Internet products under that name.
We were happily brainstorming when one of his managers spoke up and said, “Well, the phrase ‘Big Dogs’ might not work because it might not translate well in our Mexican and Spanish markets.” Hmm, that’s a fair comment, I thought, surprised they even had international locations. “How big are your Mexican and Spanish markets,” I asked? “Well, we’re not in those markets today… but we might be some day.” I took a deep breath and asked, “Ok, if you were, what percentage of your sales do you think these markets would be in 5 years?” “I guess less than 5%,” was the answer.
Now I mention this conversation not because the objection was dumb, but because objections like these happen all the time when you’re brainstorming. And when you are brainstorming you really do want to hear all ideas and all possible pitfalls. But entrepreneurial leaders sometimes forget that in startups, you can’t allow a “corner case” to derail fearless decision making.

A corner case, Blank explains, is technically reasonable and has some probability of occurring, but its probability of occurring is less than your probability of running out of money.

The True Cost of Amazon’s New Kindle

Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009


A teardown analysis by market research firm iSuppli estimates the cost to build Amazon’s Kindle 2 at $185.49, or about 52% of its retail price of $359:

The research firm believes the most costly component in the Kindle 2 is its display. Designed by the privately held E Ink, based in Cambridge, Mass., the display was integrated into a final module by Taiwan’s Prime View International. ISuppli analyst Andrew Rassweiler, who supervised iSuppli’s teardown, pegged the cost of the display at $60, or about 42% of the cost of materials.

New Gene Switch Sows Epigenetic Doubts

Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009

Once upon a time, Brandon Keim notes, researchers knew that DNA contained four nucleotides. Then they found a fifth. And now they’ve found a sixth:

Called 5-hydroxymethylcytosine, it’s a form of the fifth nucleotide, technically known as 5-methylcytosine. Like its forerunner, it helps turn genes on and off, but in ways that researchers didn’t expect.
[...]
Epigenetics, or the study of gene activation, has blossomed since the Human Genome Project’s completion in 2004. Controlled by a secondary layer of biochemical information — “epi” means “outside” — genes are turned on and off at different times and places in the body. That helps explain why, despite considerable genetic overlap, species take such different forms. (Humans and chimpanzees famously share 96 percent of their DNA.)

One powerful epigenetic mechanism is methylation, in which 5-methylcytosine replaces cytosine — the letter C — in a gene, telling the cellular machinery that turns genetic code into proteins to leave it unread. Heintz made his findings almost accidentally while developing new methods for studying methylation in mouse neurons.

According to Heintz, methylation performed by 5-hydroxymethylcytosine doesn’t behave in the same way as that produced by old-fashioned 5-methylcytosine. And just to make the situation trickier, standard methods of methylation detection can’t distinguish between the two forms.

It’s a Real Car

Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009

Chuck Squatriglia of Wired has driven the three-wheel, two-seat, electric Aptera and says it’s a real car:

The 2e is about the size of a Honda Civic on the outside and a Honda CRX on the inside. It seats two people in relative comfort and has enough room to haul three sets of golf clubs or 22 bags of groceries. Wilbur [the president and CEO of Aptera Motors] knows this because he loaded that many in there himself.

Downtown San Francisco is no place to see what a car can do, especially when a nervous chief marketing officer keeps telling you you’re driving a $1 million prototype. But the 2e reminded us a lot of a Civic in terms of acceleration and handling. The accelerator pedal has a lot of travel and it takes getting used to, but once you punch it, the car moves with authority. The ride was a bit stiff and there’s no power steering, but the 1,700-pound car was nimble in traffic.

The 2e doesn’t have a transmission; power flows from the motor directly to the front wheels. A knob on the dash lets you select from three driving modes. D1 limits output to maximize range. D2 is for normal driving. D3 offers brisker acceleration. Wilbur says the 2e will do zero to 60 in “under 10 seconds,” which is on par with the Civic and Toyota Yaris, and says it tops out at 90 mph. He claims the car “handles like a bat out of hell.”
“It’s got no lean,” Wilbur said. “It’s completely flat.”

Wilbur was coy about the 2e’s specs because they’re still working on the car, so all we can tell you is it has a 13-kilowatt-hour lithium ion battery. Plug it in to a standard 110-volt, 10-ampere outlet and it’ll recharge “overnight.” Up that to a 220-volt, 30-ampere outlet and you’re good to go in four hours. Wilbur says the battery is good for 100 miles with two people, 250 pounds of stuff and the AC going full blast.

“We’re guaranteeing 100 miles of range,” he said. He figures the battery has a useful life of six years, at which point Aptera may offer them to solar- and wind-power generators for energy storage.

As for the looks, well, you’ll either love it or hate it. The 2e doesn’t place form over function, form is function. Everything about it was designed to maximize efficiency and squeeze every mile possible from the battery. Aerodynamics is key to that, Wilbur said, because 50 percent of the power a car uses at 55 mph is needed to push the air aside. Reduce drag and you reduce your energy needs.

Wilbur says the engineers considered making the 2e a conventional four-wheeler but scrapped the idea because the added weight and rolling resistance killed efficiency. “We lost 34 percent,” he said. “To recover that, the car would need a battery 50 percent bigger.”

That slick body is made of a proprietary honeycomb composite material, and Wilbur claims it’s six times stronger than steel. The 2e is currently undergoing crash testing, but Wilbur says it exceeds federal side-impact and roof-crush standards.

We won’t see a production model for another couple of months. It will be a little more square when viewed from the front, a concession made to increase interior room and allow the windows to roll down. That’s a smart move, because the car we drove could be called “cozy” and the windows don’t open.

The engineers have reworked the battery pack, which is located in a sealed compartment under the seats, to move it forward and shift the center of gravity toward the front. Wilbur says the production car carries 70 percent of its weight on the front wheels, which “is excellent for traction and handling.” They also brought the front wheels eight inches closer to the body and raised the ride height a bit.

Despite the tweaks, the car became more aerodynamic, and Wilbur says the production car will have a drag coefficient of 0.15. That will make the 2e the most aerodynamic production car in history, topping even the General Motors EV1.

Aptera plans to start production by the fourth quarter and says the car will have a list price between $25,000 and “the low 40s.” Something more specific will be nailed down once the company gets closer to the launch date, Wilbur says. As for what it’ll cost to drive, Wilbur says you’re looking at about a 1.5 cents a mile.

A list price between $25,000 and “the low 40s”? That’s quite a confidence interval.

Democracy: The God That Failed

Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009

There is near-universal agreement that democracy represents an advance over monarchy and is the cause of economic and moral progress — but only near-universal. Hans-Hermann Hoppe disagrees:

Theoretically speaking, the transition from monarchy to democracy involves no more or less than a hereditary monopoly “owner” — the prince or king — being replaced by temporary and interchangeable monopoly “caretakers” — presidents, prime ministers, and members of parliament. Both kings and presidents will produce bads, yet a king, because he “owns” the monopoly and may sell or bequeath it, will care about the repercussions of his actions on capital values. As the owner of the capital stock on “his” territory, the king will be comparatively future-oriented. In order to preserve or enhance the value of his property, he will exploit only moderately and calculatingly. In contrast, a temporary and interchangeable democratic caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his advantage. He owns its current use but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. Instead, it makes exploitation shortsighted (present-oriented) and uncalculated, i.e., carried out without regard for the value of the capital stock.

Nor is it an advantage of democracy that free entry into every state position exists (whereas under monarchy entry is restricted by the king’s discretion). To the contrary, only competition in the production of goods is a good thing. Competition in the production of bads is not good; in fact, it is sheer evil. Kings, coming into their position by virtue of birth, might be harmless dilettantes or decent men (and if they are “madmen,” they will be quickly restrained or if need be, killed, by close relatives concerned with the possessions of the dynasty). In sharp contrast, the selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it essentially impossible for a harmless or decent person to ever rise to the top. Presidents and prime ministers come into their position as a result of their efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Hence, democracy virtually assures that only dangerous men will rise to the top of government.

This is not too different from Mancur Olson‘s notion of the roving bandit vs. the stationary bandit presented in Power and Prosperity.

Competitive Government vs. Democratic Government

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009

Arnold Kling looks at competitive government vs. democratic government:

In democratic government, people take jurisdictions as given, and they elect leaders. In competitive government, people take leaders as given, and they select jurisdictions.

Albert Hirschman sees it as the difference between exit and voice, Spencer Heath calls it the difference between proprietorship and politics:

Heath evidently was influenced by the single-tax movement of Henry George. The idea of the single tax is to use a tax on land to finance all of government’s functions.

Heath reasoned that a land tax was analogous to rent. One can think of government as a landlord, supplying public amenities in exchange for rent. From that perspective, a profit-maximizing landlord might serve just as well as an elected government.

Today, two-thirds of Americans own their own homes, including the land underneath. Public goods are supplied by governments. In Heath’s model, everyone would lease their land, and public goods would be supplied by the landlord. Within any given area, there would be many landlords competing for tenants. Each subdivision might have a different landlord. The landlord would decide on rent, amenities, and rules. Tenants would lease the land. Heath’s grandson, Spencer Heath MacCallum (1997, 2004), describes this as manorialism. He sees manorialism as a voluntary relationship between tenants and landlord, whereas feudalism is a system where the tenant/serf cannot leave without the landlord’s permission.

Historically, Kling notes, Americans have viewed tenancy with disdain:

We associate home ownership with freedom and equality. We associate tenancy with serfdom. Thomas Jefferson wanted a nation of yeoman farmers.

In Jefferson’s time, land was the primary source of wealth. Today, a tenant is no longer necessarily poor and dependent. In fact, modern shopping malls and office buildings come close to the Heath model.

Beyond Folk Activism

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009

Patri Friedman — son of David and grandson of Milton — wants libertarians to move beyond folk activism, to stop proposing plans to our tribe:

Unfortunately, the problem is not that our legislators lack for good ideas, but that democracy is a flawed method for choosing among them, because politicians respond to incentives too. So while we could argue for weeks about the most effective way to stimulate the economy, effectiveness is not the primary criterion by which lawmakers evaluate policies.

Libertarians pour much of our resources into dissecting policy and proposing alternatives. But agitating for a specific policy is like complaining about a price — and forgetting that it’s set by supply and demand. While policy analysis is certainly an interesting field, as a method for improving political performance it is about as useful as price-fixing is for improving economic performance. And while not without benefit, policy debates feel far more important than they actually are. Our cognitive bias is to assume that we have a voice equivalent to an individual in a Dunbarian hunter-gatherer tribe, and so we comment on nationwide events with a passion to match — even when no one is listening. (Now you understand blogs and bar conversations!) These debates function as a mirage which distracts us from the more fundamental structural reforms that would actually achieve liberty in our lifetimes.

His father is less pessimistic on winning the war of ideas:

I see democracy as equipped, like a microscope, with a coarse control and a fine control. The fine control is special interest lobbying, the coarse control is majority voting. It is coarse because of rational ignorance. Voters know their vote has a negligible effect on outcomes and so have no incentive to acquire the information they would need in order to do a good job of making sure that governments do good things instead of bad things. The result is that how they vote and the outcome of their voting are largely driven by free information — what everyone knows, whether or not it is true.

Consider a few examples. At the moment, “everyone knows” that recent financial troubles threaten economic catastrophe on the scale of the Great Depression. It probably isn’t true — my guess is that the current cure is considerably more likely to create economic catastrophe than the disease it is supposed to be curing — but, true or false, a lot of people believe it. The result is that it has been politically possible for Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress, with some help from the Republican minority, to engage in a program of vastly expanded government spending financed mostly by an enormous increase in the national debt — a program that would not have been politically viable five or ten years ago.

Or consider the longstanding issue of free trade vs protectionism. All economists know that tariffs, as a general rule with perhaps some exceptions, injure the country that imposes them as well as its trading partners. Everyone who isn’t an economist “knows” that tariffs help the country that imposes them by protecting its industries from the threat of foreign competition and are bad only because other countries are likely to retaliate with tariffs of their own.

Part of the reason people believe that may be the same hard-wired hunter/gatherer mindset that Patri discusses in a different context, this time taking the form of a view of almost all issues as us against them. But another and perhaps more important part is that the wrong analysis of foreign trade is easy to understand, the right analysis is hard to understand, which is why the right analysis was not discovered until the early 19th century when David Ricardo worked out the theory of comparative advantage. One result of the mistaken popular understanding is to lower the political cost of passing tariffs and so to lower the cost to industries of buying such legislation.

Since political outcomes are in part driven by the free information that affects the political cost of alternative policies, one way of influencing outcomes is by influencing that free information. Patri’s grandfather provides a striking example. His writing, speaking, and television programs had a substantial effect on what very large numbers of people believed, and so affected political outcomes. Other examples, working in the opposite direction, would be George Bernard Shaw and John Kenneth Galbraith. A still more important example, two centuries earlier, is Adam Smith.

In that realm, David Friedman is still proud of his growing Hondas analogy:

There are two ways we can produce automobiles. We can build them in Detroit or we can grow them in Iowa. Everyone knows how we build automobiles. To grow automobiles, we begin by growing the raw material from which they are made — wheat. We put the wheat on ships and send the ships out into the Pacific. They come back with Hondas on them.

From our standpoint, “growing Hondas” is just as much a form of production — using American farm workers instead of American auto workers — as building them. What happens on the other side of the Pacific is irrelevant; the effect would be just the same for us if there really were a gigantic machine sitting somewhere between Hawaii and Japan turning wheat into automobiles.

He concludes, Tariffs are indeed a way of protecting American workers — from other American workers.

Latin America does not have a drug problem

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009

Latin America does not have a drug problem, Fred Reed explains:

It has a United States problem. The problem is that Americans want drugs. The US is a huge, voracious, insatiable market for drugs. Americans very much want their brain candy. They will pay whatever they need to pay to get it. All the world knows this.

Why, Mexicans wonder, is America’s drug habit Mexico’s problem? If Americans don’t want drugs, they can stop buying them. Nobody forces anyone to use the stuff.

Ah, the rub is that Washington doesn’t want Americans to have drugs. All right, say Mexicans, that is a problem between the American government and the American people. Let America solve it.

Why, Mexican’s ask — read this sentence carefully — should Mexico tear itself in pieces, lose thousands of dead annyally, and turn into a war zone to solve a problem that America refuses to solve?

Think. Why doesn’t the American government run sting operations at, say, Berkeley and Stanford, and Rice and George Washington U., and put those students caught using drugs in the slam for two years per? How about a sting at your daughter’s high school, with a year in some nasty reformatory, which is to say any reformatory, for those caught? It could be a family sort of thing. You could visit her and hear what fascinating things she had learned about compulsory Lesbian sex.

The reason of course is that any effort to punish large classes of politically influential people would result in a revolution. You can’t jail Harvard. So Washington doesn’t. Instead it expects Mexico to do something about drugs.

Now, on the off-chance that you live in an impermeable bubble, and don’t know who uses drugs, I will tell you. I note that I am not speculating about this. I spent eight years working as a police reporter from Anacostia to South Central, and know whereof I speak.

Blue-collar people use drugs — crack, for example. I’ve spent whole days arresting down-scale beauticians in rattletrap Chevys as they bought the stuff from black dealers in the grubby satellite towns outside Chicago. High rollers in Houston use as much powder as they ski in (and it happens to my certain knowledge on Capitol Hill). White professionals have bags of grass in the garage. So, most likely, do their children: In the suburban high schools of metro Washington, e.g., Yorktown and Washington and Lee, kids have easy access to Mary Jane, acid, shrooms, nitrous, Ecstasy, crystal. Good ol’ boys in Texas make, grow, and use drugs. Country kids in Virginia have a few plants out in the woods. And so on.
[...]
Which is to say, as Mexicans know, drugs are about as illegal in the US as is the downloading of music. It is punished by very light sentences for first-time users (which of course means first-time caughters). High-school kids get a week of “community service,” perhaps, which they regard as both amusing and a badge of honor. In general, little real effort is made to apprehend respectable white transgressors.

In short, the WOD is a fraud. In America the drug racket is a mildly disreputable business, tightly integrated into the economy, running smoothly, employing countless federal cops, prison guards, ineffectual rehab centers and equally ineffectual psychotherapists, and providing bribes to officials and huge deposits of laundered money to banks. Narcos in the US do not engage in pitched battles with the army because they have no reason to. The government barely inconveniences them.

So why should Mexico fight this war for Washington?

This group is smarter

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009

“People are perfectly willing to admit that some people are taller or some people are shorter,” Gregory Cochran said. “But no one wants to say This group is smarter“:

The biological basis for intelligence can be a thankless arena of inquiry. The authors of “The Bell Curve” were vilified 15 years ago for suggesting genes played a role in IQ differences among racial groups.

But Cochran, 55, and Harpending, 65, say there’s no question that as a whole, Ashkenazi Jews — those of European descent — have an abundance of brain power. (Neither man is Jewish.)

Psychologists and educational researchers have pegged their average IQ at 107.5 to 115. That’s only modestly higher than the overall European average of 100, but the gap is large enough to produce a huge difference in the proportion of geniuses. When a group’s average IQ is 100, the percentage of people above 140 is 0.4%; when the average is 110, the genius rate is 2.3%.

Though Jews make up less than 3% of the U.S. population, they have won more than 25% of the Nobel Prizes awarded to American scientists since 1950, account for 20% of this country’s chief executives and make up 22% of Ivy League students, the pair write.

Cochran’s an interesting fellow, a Ph.D. physicist who started in aerospace before becoming interested in biology:

He worked for a while with evolutionary biologist Paul Ewald on theories that germs cause common disorders like heart disease and Alzheimer’s. The pair courted controversy by postulating that some unidentified pathogen prompts a hormonal imbalance that makes babies more likely to become gay.

Cochran read more than 15 genetics textbooks and became intrigued by the deadly diseases that disproportionately afflict Ashkenazi Jews: Tay-Sachs, a neurological disorder that debilitates children before killing them, usually by age 4. Canavan disease, which turns the brain into spongy tissue and typically claims its victims before they can start kindergarten. Niemann-Pick disease Type A, in which babies accumulate dangerous amounts of fats in various organs and suffer profound brain damage and death before their second birthday.

He was struck by the fact that so many of the diseases involved problems with processing sphingolipids, the fat molecules that transmit nerve signals.

This seemed an unlikely coincidence. Genetically isolated groups often have higher rates of certain diseases. But of the more than 20,000 human genes, only 108 are known to be involved in sphingolipid metabolism. The odds of Ashkenazi Jews having four sphingolipid storage disorders by random chance are less than 1 in 100,000, he calculated.

He talked it over with Harpending, an expert in human population genetics. They came to believe this was an example of heterozygote advantage — where having two copies of a mutated gene can mean disaster but one copy is helpful.

Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009

Well-kept gardens die by pacifism, Eliezer Yudkowsky says:

Good online communities die primarily by refusing to defend themselves.

Somewhere in the vastness of the Internet, it is happening even now. It was once a well-kept garden of intelligent discussion, where knowledgeable and interested folk came, attracted by the high quality of speech they saw ongoing. But into this garden comes a fool, and the level of discussion drops a little — or more than a little, if the fool is very prolific in their posting. (It is worse if the fool is just articulate enough that the former inhabitants of the garden feel obliged to respond, and correct misapprehensions — for then the fool dominates conversations.)

So the garden is tainted now, and it is less fun to play in; the old inhabitants, already invested there, will stay, but they are that much less likely to attract new blood. Or if there are new members, their quality also has gone down.

Then another fool joins, and the two fools begin talking to each other, and at that point some of the old members, those with the highest standards and the best opportunities elsewhere, leave…

I am old enough to remember the USENET that is forgotten, though I was very young. Unlike the first Internet that died so long ago in the Eternal September, in these days there is always some way to delete unwanted content. We can thank spam for that — so egregious that no one defends it, so prolific that no one can just ignore it, there must be a banhammer somewhere.

But when the fools begin their invasion, some communities think themselves too good to use their banhammer for — gasp! — censorship.

After all — anyone acculturated by academia knows that censorship is a very grave sin… in their walled gardens where it costs thousands and thousands of dollars to enter, and students fear their professors’ grading, and heaven forbid the janitors should speak up in the middle of a colloquium.

It is easy to be naive about the evils of censorship when you already live in a carefully kept garden. Just like it is easy to be naive about the universal virtue of unconditional nonviolent pacifism, when your country already has armed soldiers on the borders, and your city already has police. It costs you nothing to be righteous, so long as the police stay on their jobs.
[...]
I confess, for a while I didn’t even understand why communities had such trouble defending themselves — I thought it was pure naivete. It didn’t occur to me that it was an egalitarian instinct to prevent chieftains from getting too much power. “None of us are bigger than one another, all of us are men and can fight; I am going to get my arrows”, was the saying in one hunter-gatherer tribe whose name I forget.

Maybe it’s because I grew up on the Internet in places where there was always a sysop, and so I take for granted that whoever runs the server has certain responsibilities. Maybe I understand on a gut level that the opposite of censorship is not academia but 4chan (which probably still has mechanisms to prevent spam). Maybe because I grew up in that wide open space where the freedom that mattered was the freedom to choose a well-kept garden that you liked and that liked you, as if you actually could find a country with good laws. Maybe because I take it for granted that if you don’t like the archwizard, the thing to do is walk away (this did happen to me once, and I did indeed just walk away).

And maybe because I, myself, have often been the one running the server. But I am consistent, usually being first in line to support moderators — even when they’re on the other side from me of the internal politics. I know what happens when an online community starts questioning its moderators. Any political enemy I have on a mailing list who’s popular enough to be dangerous is probably not someone who would abuse that particular power of censorship, and when they put on their moderator’s hat, I vocally support them — they need urging on, not restraining. People who’ve grown up in academia simply don’t realize how strong are the walls of exclusion that keep the trolls out of their lovely garden of “free speech”.

Slime Molds Show Surprising Degree of Intelligence

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009

Slime molds show a surprising degree of intelligence:

In their experiment, biophysicist Toshiyuki Nakagaki of Hokkaido University and colleagues manipulated the environment of Physarum slime-mold amoebas (near right). As the cells crawled across an agar plate, the researchers subjected them to cold, dry conditions for the first 10 minutes of every hour. During these cool spells, the cells slowed down their motion. After three cold snaps the scientists stopped changing the temperature and humidity and watched to see whether the amoebas had learned the pattern. Sure enough, many of the cells throttled back right on the hour in anticipation of another bout of cold weather. When conditions stayed stable for a while, the slime-mold amoebas gave up on their hourly braking, but when another single jolt of cold was applied, they resumed the behavior and correctly recalled the 60-minute interval. The amoebas were also able to respond to other intervals, ranging from 30 to 90 minutes.