Re: Genome of DNA Pioneer Is Deciphered (Digg)

Genome of DNA Pioneer Is Deciphered (Digg): Referencing a NY Times article of the same title. The article is essentially about what the title alludes. One interesting piece of the article is:

As is probably true for everyone, their genomes are likely to contain mutations that could lead to disease, revealing possibly unfavorable information about themselves and their relatives. Even though the interpretation of the human genome sequence has only just begun, they are, in principle, exposing all their imperfections to public view for the sake of advancing research.

On to Digg comments (none of the data below has been verified...these are just 'interesting'):

From studentpat:

"What can you do with someone's genetic info?"

For example - codeine doesn't work for about 10% of Caucasians. You have pain after surgery or something, you get prescribed codeine, but your liver can't turn it into morphine. Genetic info would show that you don't respond to codeine, because you don't have the right copy of the certain liver enzyme. Your doctor prescribes another painkiller.

Multiply the above example times everyone that takes any drug that people respond to differentially (all drugs). So genetic info would only be useful for everyone to have. Which means it would be very useful for everybody.

SolipsistD:

The pace of development here is impressive.

The original Human Genome Project started in 1990, cost $3 billion and was going to take 15 years, before Venter and Celera scared them into doing it in 10. Now you can sequence a genome in 2 months with a $1 million machine. At a guess there is some difference in the completeness, but even so, 50 times faster and over a 1000 times cheaper - that's something.

Do we have a Moore's Law for DNA sequencing yet?

There were also a couple of mentions of Rosalind Franklin.

Again: Greg Mankiw's Blog: Verbosity

Thinking more about this post: Re: Greg Mankiw's Blog: Verbosity

Conclusion: I want more studies. Adoption or twin studies to see if the degree of language immersion for children has an actual impact with genetics accounted for. Also, studies to see results of early education programs for children that do not have the genetics. The complaint is that the study fails to take into account 'nature' and stresses 'nurture'. The complaint is valid but most be followed through. It is not as though 'nurture' has nothing to do with intelligence...the question is how much. We should look for answering the questions rather than too quickly entirely dismissing first attempts.

Re: The Wisdom of the OECD

The Wisdom of the OECD: From Mankiw, excerpts of the OECD survey of the U.S. economy:

Substantial increases in the federal minimum wage are planned; however, increases in the Earned Income Tax Credit would achieve the same objectives more effectively and with less risk of job losses.

Why haven't I ran across that logic before? (That I have the expertise to assert soundness or validity to it...)

And:

consideration should also be given to shifting the tax burden from direct taxes to consumption based indirect taxes – such as a national sales tax or a value added tax. This would produce efficiency gains, including reducing disincentives to saving

Hmm...

Re: Let's Increase Poverty, Arnold Kling: Library of Economics and Liberty

Let's Increase Poverty, Arnold Kling: Library of Economics and Liberty:

We can argue about citizenship vs. work permits. But I think that labor mobility is a really good thing.

Labor mobility? Sounds good but isn't this what Europe started with?

• Expected costs?
• Invisible costs?
• Another way?
• What about work mobility? Job mobility?
• Import some for citizenship, export work for others?
• We definitely want immigrants but we can't let everyone immigrate, yet.
  
• The post links to Lant Pritchett saying:

  And because unskilled labor is the primary asset of the poor world, it is hard to even imagine a policy more directly inimical to a poverty reduction agenda or to “pro-poor growth” than one limiting the demand for unskilled labor (and inducing labor-saving innovations).

• If it is their primary asset: is taking it from them really helping them (as a whole), because we can't take them all.
  
• Where is the lesson on how to fish and the hand up?
• Free fish and handouts, while doing little to directly hurt us, definitely hurts the impoverished (and, round-about, everyone).
  

Re: Hospital ship preps for a novel mission

Hospital ship preps for a novel mission:

"People were saying, 'Why do they need the hospital ships? What purpose do they serve?'" said Navy Capt. Bruce R. Boynton, commander of the ship's 1,000-bed medical facility. "But what we've seen is they can be a very, very powerful platform for projecting America's goodwill."

"Obviously we're going to have an immediate effect on some people's lives, but I think the real impact will be measured after we leave, in six months to a year from now," Kapcio said. "Hopefully we'll be able to show that we're committed to the region and committed to lasting relationships in the region."

Re: Can the Iraq 'Surge' Be Salvaged?

Can the Iraq 'Surge' Be Salvaged?:

White House spokesman Tony Snow yesterday said Mr. Bush envisions an indefinite American military presence in Iraq that would resemble the one in South Korea, with the U.S. in a support role able to "react quickly to major challenges or crises." That presumes, though, that an Iraqi government would request or at least tolerate such a deployment, as the South Koreans have.

The question remains: when?
If that is the goal...are we truly transitioning towards it?
Is it the only goal? What others?
How would it resemble North Korea? How would it differ?

UPDATE:
Bush sees long-term role for troops:

The United States has 30,000 troops in South Korea.

And:

"It's important to defend this country on the extremists' 10-yard line and not our 10-yard line," Gates said this month.

I like that 'their 10-yard line' bit, but...lately I have been wondering how big we have to go to do that.
This is just tossing thoughts out but why didn't Bush say after 9/11: [for the world] "Let's hit Afghanistan" and [for the spooks and SpecOps] "This is really a GWOT, I'm cutting restraints - do your job"...eh?

$750,000 or half a life[or?]?

A story similar to that of the Mexican fisherman...? From Jeff Henshaw:

The scene: A diner full with the breakfast crowd. There are two stools left at the counter as a guy in a business suit, carrying the Wall Street Journal, and a biker wearing weathered denim and leather sit down elbow-to-elbow and order up coffee and the breakfast special. The guy in the suit looks up from his newspaper and sees the Harley-Davidson patch on the other guy’s vest.

Suit: Excuse me, do you own a Harley?

Biker: Yeah, Shovelhead.

Suit, wondering if the biker is calling him “Shovelhead”: Did you see the quarter they just announced? Amazing.

Biker, wondering if the U.S. mint is issuing a Harley commemorative quarter to go along with the state quarters, shakes his head.

Suit: Second-quarter earnings up 22 percent over last year. Revenue at $1.13 billion. Billion! That’s a lot of motorcycles to sell in three months. That’s 18 consecutive years of increased earnings and a new all-time high stock price yesterday. Our leisure products industry analyst has been saying for five years that the Harley bubble was going to burst, and the stock just keeps going up. You have a Harley, so tell me what it’s all about.

Biker: If I have to explain… (looks at the guy’s suit) Yeah, guess there’s a lot to explain.

Suit: I’ll say. The company was left for dead 20 years ago. Now it’s number 355 on the Fortune 500 list. But they say the customer base is aging. Do you have a new bike?

Biker: No, I’m old school. My Low Rider is a 1981.

Suit: (Digs a folder out of his briefcase.) How much did you pay for it?

Biker: I bought it from Skeeter on New Years Day, 1987. He hit a patch of ice and messed up his knee and his ol’ lady told him to get rid of it. It just had a few scratches. I gave him $4,000 for it.

Suit: Hmmm, $4,000 on January 1, 1987. (Examines a chart, punches some numbers into his calculator.) Do you know if you’d put that $4,000 in Harley stock on that date, and reinvested all your dividends, you’d now have about $750,000?

Biker: Really? Well Skeeter offered me $5,000 for it just the other day, now that his ol’ lady finally left him. And I’ve ridden it 80,000 miles since I bought it from him. What other bike is going to go up in value like that?

Suit: Well, that’s only a 25 percent return. And it doesn’t account for maintenance expenses. But it is better than the hit I took when I traded in my Mercedes. Still, wouldn’t you rather have three quarters of a million dollars? I mean, if I offered you $750,000 for your old, worn-out bike, wouldn’t you jump at it? You could go out now and buy a whole fleet of Harleys if you’d bought stock in 1987 instead of that bike.

Biker: (staring off into space, idly stroking his beard): Well, yeah, I guess if you gave me $750,000, I’d hand over the pink slip to the Low Rider in a hurry. But that’s not really the deal you’re talking about, is it? I’d have to give up everywhere I rode her over the last 17 and a half years. If I’d bought stock in ‘87, I wouldn’t have taken that ride over Lolo Pass when I almost got caught in a snowstorm in May. I would have missed eight Daytona Bike Weeks and three rides to Sturgis. I wouldn’t have seen Scott Parker come out of retirement and win the Springfield Mile. Don’t even want to think about all the friends I wouldn’t have got to know.

Suit: Hmm, I never thought of it that way.

Biker: Aw, I can’t tell you why the stock does this or that. That’s something you’ll have to figure out.

Suit: (Picking up his check and the biker’s) Actually, I think you just explained more than our analyst has in a year. Let me buy your breakfast and I’ll consider it a bargain. (walks out)

Biker to self: Well, if I have to explain… maybe I did.

Questions? Differences?
Again, I believe, both are wrong. This time by their irrationality rather than their desired means and ends.
What is there to say he would have invested in HOG?
Is this a little [healthy] synthetic happiness?
I like this:

Well, yeah, I guess if you gave me $750,000, I’d hand over the pink slip to the Low Rider in a hurry. But that’s not really the deal you’re talking about, is it?

One's reasoning capacity is greatly distorted when looking at 'what could have been':

For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: "It might have been!"
- John Greenleaf Whittier

I think the story is more potent as a reminder of the limitations of an analyst, especially in judging extrinsic value.