Holy cow.

Oh well, life goes on. No team Discovery names on there. The Aussie Robby McCewen (sp) isn't on there. So this tour will not see hardly any of the heavyweights. Vino might or might not be there. One question: why did they wait until two days before the tour to do this? It's pretty much killed the tour; who has interest in seeing a bunch of also-rans? It's like replacement football or whatever.

Update: Bad news for the euro teams, means good news for Americans, including Team Disco. Heck they might even get someone on the podium this year. The race is certainly wide open right now. Vino is likely gone from the race, as 5 of his 8 teammates are disqualified. (And as team Disco has shown, unless you have a very strong team, your champion is dead).

Discovery Channel's Paolo Savoldelli and George Hincapie are both candidates for the prologue podium. Savoldelli won the more difficult TT opener at the Giro d'Italia in May, while Hincapie was second to Zabriskie in the recent Dauphiné prologue, conceding two seconds in 4.1km. But that was Hincapie's first race in two months following his rehab from a separated shoulder.

Also expect inspired rides from Hincapie's former teammates Floyd Landis (Phonak-iShares) and Levi Leipheimer (Gerolsteiner), although the prologue's 7.1km distance is somewhat on the short side for these two. Landis might not be able to make full use of his high-hands aero' position on a course that has nine right-angle turns and just as many curving bends. As for Leipheimer, he showed his resolve by rolling into Strasbourg on Wednesday half a day ahead of his teammates so he could go training on his TT bike for two hours.

So I got my 'first' interview call yesterday. Unsolicited. They found my resume on career builder. It was from American Income (this is the second life insurance company that wants me). Anyway, i found this blog about them, I won't be calling them back any time soon. This is certainly a scam company, and why would they need a biology phd person for their company?

White men can't clap. I've been told, repeatedly, by well meaning female friends and my wife, that I have zero sense of rythem. Oh well, we can do other things well. Just not, apparently, basketball and clapping.

He says things like this (at a guest post at the Porkbusters site):

So why has my party, the party of small government, lately adopted the practices of our opponents who believe the bigger the government the better? I'm afraid it's because at times we value our incumbency more than our principles. We came to office to reduce the size of government. Lately, we have increased the size of government in order to stay in office. The editors of National Review have argued -- and I agree with them -- that unless Republicans curb government spending by reforming the budget process, we may lose our majorities in the House and Senate. I will go one step further and say that if Republicans do not reform our budget process, we will deserve to lose our majorities.

He's doing alot of positioning lately, trying to distance himself from the republicans while reaching out to 'core constituants'. Here he is reaching out to the fiscal conservatives (are there any left?), and others who are just sick of the gluttony in congress. For people like me, the crisis is urgent. If congress does not choose to increase medical research funding, I will have to find another job, it's pretty simple. When only the top 5-10% of scientists in the world (since the world's best scientists are here in the U.S., and many or most are not citizens) are getting funding, I have just about a zero chance. America and politicians talk a good game about science education, and scientific research, but unless they actually support these with money, there is no way things will get better.

Seems like it. My brother is having trouble selling their house (Phoenix AZ), and housing prices where I live (Houston, TX) are stagnant. Importantly, time on market has increased, although I only have ancedotal evidence for Houston (my friend living in our complex sold their condo in a week), in Phoenix according to this report, the time on market in 2005 was one week, now it's close to 60 days. That's okay, markets fluctuate up and down, and real estate is no exception. Almost all homeowners have seen increasing values in the last few years, for us almost 100% increase in 5 years. It depends on the strength of the economy, the amount of new construction, the demand for homes, the amount of homes on the market, etc. Lots of factors. Around here there is some new construction, but those condos are extremely pricey (400k). So mostly when people look for a place it's an existing home. Anyway i expect some difficulty selling our place but it won't be too bad; the location is good and the unit is in good shape more or less (it's 22 years old).

Update: HAR says the real estate market is still very hot (as of May 2006)

Indications: Increased median sale price of single family house (5.6% over last year) (half of homes sold for more and half sold for less)

Increased average sale price (8.2%) (this tends to be scewed since many homes sell for cheap while a few homes are very expensive)

Decreased inventory (12.8%), meaning (essentially) that homes are selling faster than they were last year. It's really an indication of the amount of homes on the market and how long they stay on the market. Since the number of properties sold increased from last year (11.6%), this indicates that homes are selling quicker than they were last year.

The trend continues for condos, the median price is 120k, while the average is 152k (which is about as high as for real homes, which leads to the questino, why would you buy a 800 sf condo instead of a 2500 sf home? Answer: location location location.

Who knew. But the more interesting thing is that the world bank did a survey to study corruption in India, using the DMV as an indicator. The results are...as expected.

Malkin has a great pictoral round up of the secrets recently divulged by the NYT.

Saddam Hussein, who's hunger strike lasted all of one meal. Guess you can't get between a deposed dictator and his Dorittos.

By the lovely French paper La Monde. It claims that Lance admitted to doping in '96 to one of his cancer docs and his best friend, Frankie Andreu. But the doc who actually treated Lance disagered that anything like that occured. And we don't know which cancer doc the paper is referring to, because it doesn't say. Not to mention the huge huge ethical issue of disclosing a patients history. He was treated here at MDACC and all employees are rigourously trained every year in regards to patient confidentiality. So, yeah, i'm sceptical (that an American doc would tell a french newspaper about an american patients medical history). Anyway, it would certainly be in the patient history charts (its necessary medical info). Maybe, maybe Lance doped before his cancer, but he certainly didnt' dope afterwords (when he won 7 yellow jerseys).

Facts: He's been tested a zillion times, always clean. Also, he went through hell during chemo and almost died. Would he risk a repeat performance, knowing how close to death he came via chemo drugs?

There was a great (repeat) episode of House on this very topic; big name bike racer, collapses during bike ride, everyone thinks its b/c of doping, but instead he has a rare disease. At issue was the racer's confession of using various drugs (but not EPO) and the issue of medical confidentiatility.

There is a line somewhere between the ability of a free press to gather newsworthy info about what the govt is doing and passing it on to the public versus the need for national security. Nowadays that line has become blury, murky, difuse even.

Is the report by the NYT that international bank data has been mined for terrorist activity in the public interest or national security? How about the attempt by the National Security Archive to gain info on Taliban leaders from the CIA, only to be obstructed by said agency? Is this info greater utilized to protect the public or to be more news to keep us in the know (since the Bush admin doesn't tell us didly). The above article mentioned another example, that of Henry Kinsinger discussions with chinese leaders about the fate of vietnam in '72. That was 34 years ago and not so relevant to the national security. But the Taliban info request is very current and potentially impacting. Maybe caldistine operations and secret informatino should remain just that, secret.

Apparently documentaries are popular this year. Want to see: The War Tapes.

Plot Outline: Called up for service in Iraq, several members of the National Guard were given digital video cameras. This film, edited from their footage, provides a perspective on a complex and troubled conflict.

The movie website is here, btw.


Ever notice how top 10s of movie critics are those movies you never even heard of? This movie, released 3 weeks ago, isn't even playing in Houston, a major market (4th largest city in US). So how are we supposed to get these? I'll try downloading tonight but don't expect much luck. One of those, wait 6 months for the DVD, find it online on Amazon (maybe). Usually I just forget and never bother trying to see these supposedly great movies (which they probably are, my point is that the great movies don't have a wide enough distribution, while lousy movies staring Briney Spears and others are all over the place).

From Scrappleface, regarding Bill Gates steppind down from M$oft

Meanwhile, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation celebrated Mr. Gates’ announcement with a press release saying, “It will be good to have Bill’s complete attention at the Foundation. Thanks to Microsoft, he brings a wealth of expertise in preventing the spread of viruses.”

This seems pretty good to me. Who knows about the details, but I suspect it would be something like all new patients in Vanderbilt med center would get a cheek swab as part of admissions; that cheek swab would then be used to extract DNA. Then researchers can easily figure out what happened to the patient and map this to their genotype. It's something that cancer researchers have been doing for literally decades, but one issue is that the only way to get to the cancer is to biopsy it; then the tissue is parafin fixed, which greatly degenerates the DNA and impedes nucleic acid and protein extraction. For baseline work, to look at the status of 'normal cells' cheek swabs will work. But usually we're also interested in cancer cells. ANyway I work with a group that does this somewhat, but I don't do it myself, so I can comment in a general fashion.

Lots of tasty morsals. It's sponsored by a psych person (so there is something for everyone, so to speak).

Update: link fixed!

Big news for neuroscience. Important for people who are paralyzed or who have MS. Of course with the stem cell ban in place there is zero chance of this therapy happening in the U.S., when it becomes feasible to do so (in decades, likely)

Huh.

Heh. That's 5 minutes of my life i'm not going to get back. Seing Connie parade around in some sort of ballgown makes it almost worth it (but not). Is she on drugs at the time? Kinda seems that way. Thanks to Mike Straka (the Foxnews Grr guy) for the hat tip.

My birthday was pretty good, actually. Friday we celebrated it in lab, and Ho Shin (a Korean neurosurgeon working in the lab) got me a nice chocolate cake from central market. Tasty, even for those who don't like chocolate cake. Saturday I pretty much worked and went to a career fair, but sat night we went to a mexican place w/ J, IK, and a coworker of J. Then J, IK, and I went back home and watched Napoleon Dynamite. It's one of those films that everyone should know about (everyone who is my age anyway). It was a good film, i think.

Bling bling (gifts). I got this really cool bike tool set from J, so i can do my own repairs (although i need to get a bike stand and more space and a garage). It will hopefully be useful (and save money) for years to come. I got an amazon gift card from mom, with which I bought the new tool CD, Ellen's aforementioned book, and a game.
J's parents also got me a gift card for borders, i think it also works with amazon, so that is great too. I'll wait to use it though. Dad sent money, i guess i'll use that to pay student loans (i got the notice on my b-day, nice) or put aside for a new bike. Anyway, lots of fun!

I just noticed that a long time friend of mine Ellen (aka Caitlin) has a book out on bridge bidding. When I first started grad school (and had time) i learned how to play online, and Ellen was one of my mentors. She's a great person, so if you are interested in brige, buy her book! Bridge is alot like science in that it uses a logical method of play, and requires alot of deductive reasoning, and the ability to quickly process a huge rule set. So i think learning to play bridge was/is good scientific training (although I didn't realize it at the time).

(again)

It absolutely poured last night, I guess at least 5 inches here last night. No evidence of flooding though. Still raining a bit, but on radar there was a solid 20 mi x 40 mi of red (very active thunderstorms).

Update: Another news story from Foxnews. Commute was a challenge; i had to stuff my work clothes in a bag and peddle through the rain. At least bike (aka Trusty) doesn't die when it's getting wet (although i mourn the fact that it is all alone in the parking lot, getting soaked currently). My other bike's name is Speedy. :)

Update: Foxnews reports more rain on the way; including this key quote from Mayor Bill White (I really like this guy, i'm glad i voted for him). He said: "We live in Houston, Texas, and you can't be surprised at flooding in Houston." Heh, indeed!

The Chronicle has a reader photo gallery (among other things). Sorry, i can't figure out how to directly link to it.
Another chron article says that another 5-10 in. are expected in the next 24-48 hrs. So far it's not raining, so i'll choose this moment to ride home.

This isn't tropical storm allison levels of flooding (up to 40 inches in a few days), but not insignificant either (10 inches in 24 hours is nothing to sneeze at).

After 5 years...

From our govt.

Thomas Friedman has a post trumpeting his gas tax (which I can't link to because of the NYT 'wall of silence'). He says that a dollar per gallon tax will do everything including pay for social security and for new mass transit solutions.

So how much would the govt intake due to this gas tax? Average gas production is 9.19 million barrels per day, and there is ~19 gallons of gas per barrel. So that's 176 gallons of gas used daily. Doing the math, that's 65 billion dollars of income per year for the govt. But the total federal budget is 2.2 trillion dollars. And 21% of that is for social security (128 billion). So if you add 65 billion to SS, that's about half of their budget. Not bad! But i think the main idea is that really high gas prices will force people to stop using gas, which is somewhat of a bad arguement, since there are no alternatives in place for people to use. If we can't use cars, we must develop real mass transit, especially from suburbs ~20 mi away from the city. Then Texas would look more like NJ with cars, people, trains everywhere.

Truth is stranger than fiction

Seems like LEGO is all the rage. But check out this site, describing a LEGO printer. And check out what media it uses.

This video summerizes the work.

Who isn't sick of a zillion credit card offers? And have you noticed that when your available balance at the bank decreases or substantially increases, the credit offers differ? (They offer a gold card, for example, if your bank balance is >5k. Why would they know that?

Anyway here is a website to prevent the major credit reporting agencies from sending credit card company info used for solicitation.

Apparently no one does it. Sad. Anyway seaturtle.org is a great website, has lots of sea turtle info, picts, etc.


And in unrelated news, it's hot. Really, since our a/c broke yesterday. Got home and it was 90 in the house; the weasels were upset (but alive and not heatstroked). Went to sleep at 87 (F), got up and it was 84 in the house, about 70 outside (our home is an *excellent* insulator. Repair guy is coming today; wonder how many thousands it will cost.

I was talking to this guy last night at a random pub (J's colleague defended his MS yesterday, it's a tradition to celebrate afterwords). Anyway he was stationed in Iraq and was telling me about it briefly (it was noisey). He was doing alot of civil affairs stuff, building powerplants mostly. So he did some iraqis alot of good. But apparently it is true how hot it is there; 140 F in the day in peak summer (which probably lasts several months). Its ungodly that the human body can even survive that. Which got me thinking to the Iraqis, there they are, tons of oil, no power (or little, or not enough), so they have to endure the summers without A/C oftentimes. I don't think i could handle it, really. I don't do that well in the heat (like most); i tend to break out w/ atopic dermititis. Anyway i'm glad i'm here in houston. At least we can go to work where there is A/C (except J is home, waiting for the repair guy, she's a hero).

Some more clarification over at Townhall. 1) Haditha was(is) a terrorist hotbed. 2) The situation looked like Black Hawk Down all over again. 3) The Marines, after being attacked by an IED, received weapon fire from surrounding houses; meanwhile, four squads who were going to rescue them also received fire, in a well-coordinated attempt by insurgents to kill the squad hit by the IED. This seems closer to the truth, but who knows. I think what will come out is that the so called doctor who said that people were killed at close range with shots to the chest/head is in fact an insurgent/terrorist (or sympathizer). Further, the so called 'Hammurabi Human Rights Watch' is another ingenious terrorist PR front. Hard to tell what's going on when all we hear are lies.

Blogged by Advice goddess. Apparently there are alot of evolutionary psycology people out there. Who knew? HBES = Human Behavior and Evolution Society

So apparently Ann Coulter's new book has multiple chapters on Darwinian evolution and why it's a debunked theory. Man i wish I knew that before I taught it in class last week. Not surprisingly, apparently she got much of her info from ID people.

Actually all irony aside, if this is true (i haven't read the book, i'll have to get it from the library; no way would i pay money for it), it's pretty shocking. For one, evolution should not be covered by a political science junky with zero science education. For two, the fact that ID people were her major source of 'fact finding' is just bad journalism, you know, both sides of the coin? Besides the fact that she is hot, I found her previous book to be very shrilly on the right, meaning it was fiercley over-the-top conservative (the word is reactionary). I guess Amazon reviewers agree; her last book got 2.5 stars, her current book got 3 stars.

Found this interview w/ Coulter (CNS news). The evolution parts are interesting.

Cybercast News Service: Most people consider evolution to be a branch of science, or at least a scientific theory, yet in "Godless," you refer to it as a "cult" and a "fetish." What is your basis for calling it that?

Ann Coulter: There is no evidence that it is true. The fossil record contradicts it, and it is a theory that cannot be disproved. Whatever happens is said to "prove" evolution. This is the very definition of a pseudoscience, like astrology. (Of course, I would say that. I'm just a Capricorn, aren't I?)

Cybercast News Service: Creationism is not considered a science because it can't be observed or empirically tested. You assert in your book that the theory of evolution has the same problems. Why then has the U.S. public school system been willing to accept the theory of evolution, but snubbed creationism?

Ann Coulter: Because evolution is the official state religion. Although it is possible to believe in God and evolution, it is not possible to not believe in God without believing in evolution — otherwise, atheists have no explanation for why we are here. Thus, it's very important for the liberal clergy to force small school children to believe in a discredited mystery religion from the 19th century — evolution — in order to prepare them to believe in the nonexistence of God, one of the main goals of the American public education system.

Look, i'm all for people believing what they want to believe, the earth on the back of a giant turtle or what have you. But, wow. Okay, first Christianity is directly counter to evolution, with a specific statement about the origin of man and all life (see Genesis). Same goes for Judism and Islam (i think) since they use the same book. Second, Darwinian evolution is a scientific fact or theory, take your pick; meaning its a hypothesis backed by mounds of repeatable observations and no observations that run counter to it. That's the whole point about scientific theory, they can be disproved by one single fact that is counter to the theory.

Further, the fossil record was one of the building blocks of Darwin's theory, since it was noted (by Curier and others) that species deeper (older) in the fossil record tended to look less similiar to current species. This disproved essentialism, which is from Aristotle saying that all species were formed at the same time 6000 years ago (or so) and have been invariant since then (or the variation is not important).

So, just because you're a cute blond and republican, you can still be the worlds biggest whacko. Thanks for boosting the image of the GOP, Ann.

Found this at another ID site (the net is full of them)

She exposes the essential truth about Darwinian evolution that liberals refuse to confront: It is bogus science.

Writing with a keen appreciation for genuine science, Coulter reveals that the so-called "gaps" in the theory of evolution are all there is – Darwinism is nothing but a gap. After 150 years of dedicated searching into the fossil record, evolution's proponents have failed utterly to substantiate its claims. And a long line of supposed evidence, from the infamous Piltdown Man to the "evolving" peppered moths of England, has been exposed as hoaxes. Still, liberals treat those who question evolution as religious heretics and prohibit students from hearing about real science when it contradicts Darwinism. And these are the people who say they want to keep faith out of the classroom?

Liberals' absolute devotion to Darwinism, Coulter shows, has nothing to do with evolution's scientific validity and everything to do with its refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force. They will brook no challenges to the official religion.

The problem with ID people is that they wouldn't know science if it bit them on the behind! The problem with evolution is that its hard to measure. Yet in the lab and in the field, countless observations have occured, all of which support Darwin's theory. Further, Darwin was not completely right, he didn't understand the unit of heredity, the gene. Neo-Darwinism or the Modern Synthesis accounts for Medellian genetics as a mechanism of Darwinian evolution.

Further, with scientific theory, if the theory is disproven, another, stronger theory rises to take its place. Belief such as that of the ID community is essentially immutable, it changes with time. At first, God created the world 6000 years ago in 7 days. Now some ID people say the earth was created a long time ago (ie closer to the real age of 4.6 billion years). Then there was the speciation issue; if Gods creatures were put on the earth when it was 'born', there would be no new species. Yet we know speciation has occured (fossil record). Further, if all species were perfect as God intended, they wouldn't go extinct, nor morph into something else (as the fossil record and other data have shown). ID people keep moving the goalpost. Maybe someday they will accept that belief in God and evolution are not mutual exclusive.

This is something I was thinking about (emphasis past tense). The nation currently has a science education crisis; namely our students are dumber than dirt and getting worse, particularly in science. However, the U.S. has alot of PhD holders in critical areas, including biology.

But the route to teaching is difficult; you can get a job as a adjuct teaching community college and hope to gain enough experience, but you won't make enough to live on.

You can hope to get a 'real job' professorship at a university, but the number of applicants is vastly more than the number of positions.

You could go teach at public schools, but that requires a teaching degree and certification; the last thing a PhD holder wants to do is go back to school at the bachelors level.

Then there's the money; w/ a PhD you can expect to start earning 40k per year. That's nice, but postdoc stipend for first year, according to NIH guidelines, is about 35k. Not much difference, and don't forget the extra training required to be a public school teacher.

The article mentions that 0.8% of PhD holders are public school teachers, but the amount interested in teaching is much higher. So there is an issue; the certification barriers and the salary are probably the biggest challenges.

My thinking is that I personally could aspire to more than a public school teacher. I earned my degree and feel public school teaching to be a possible letdown.

Roger Friedman has a review, of sorts, of the premier. Key quote: "Do not miss this movie". I think my wife would kill me if that happened (kidding).

I want some.

Richard Florida, over at Cato Unbound, speculates:

Such remarkable job growth goes far beyond technology and engineering. While the U.S. economy will add 950,000 computer jobs and another 195,000 in engineering, the biggest gains by far will be in health care and education, which will add more than 3.5 million. Jobs for college professors alone are projected to increase by more than half a million. Arts, music, culture, and entertainment will contribute some 400,000 new jobs. That’s twice as many as engineering.

Right. So, 500,000 new college level (college!) professors in the next 25 years. Say there are 500 colleges and universities around the US that attract 90% of students (and 90% of professors). So in these, 450,000 new professorships will be created. That would, I am guessing, probably double the number of professorships in the U.S., in total. This from a profession that has been largely stagnent in the last several decades. I love to believe this, but it's not realistic. First, there would have to be a ton more students coming in, which census bureau stats don't indicate (no huge 'baby boomer' population). Second, the funding of the various agencies (NSF, NEA, NIH), would have to skyrocket to support these professors (since at top universities they are expected to bring in their entire income based on grants). I wonder what the numbers would be, but another doubling of the NIH would have to happen, or maybe 4x, or 10x, in 25 years. A lot could happen in 25 years, but does anyone see this happening?

Akamai University (what in the world?) reports that the total number of U.S. professors is 0.6 million (they reference Steven Brint, Schools and Societies, Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press, 1998). Akamai is referenced as 'intelligent' in Hawaiian. I thought the locals gave it a somewhat derogatory meaning (which i guess makes sense in the worldview of a poorly educated group which uses pidgeon Hawaiian).

Anyway, regarding the population numbers in 25 years (2030), according to census, there are about 40 million people of age 20-30, which I would define as college age. So, if this number doubled in 25 years, a foreseeable doubling in college professorships is reasonsable (supply=demand). Not so. The census projects 44 million in this bracket, an increase of 4 million or roughly 2.5%. Wow. So you better not count on those professorships just yet. If the NIH budget doubles again in 25 years, then it might be feasible, but this isn't likely, given that our population won't change too much (and thus the govt income in tax revenue won't be skyrocketing).

On the other hand, per capita GDP has increased substantially in the last 5 years (which is a measure of how productive/competitive the U.S. has become.

2000: per capita GDP was $34,700 (pop 282 million, GDP 9817 billion)
2005: per capita GDP was $42,000 (pop 296 million, GDP 12487 billion)
Source: US census and Bureau of Economic Analysis

Getting crazy here. I then extrapolated the rate of population growth (1% in last 5 years) and rate of GDP growth (5% in last 5 years, to 2030). The per capita GDP in 2030 is $123,000, which is triple the current pcGDP, which means that our tax base will approximately triple (depending on the taxes at the time), meaning we could easily afford to triple the NIH budget (if we didn't have to worry about social security, our huge national debt, etc). Which means, if the U.S. pcGDP keeps skyrocketing (it won't), we'll all be rich (yeah right).

Which means we could all afford to smoke whatever Mr. Florida is on.

The Haditha killings are tragic, no doubt. But a quote struck me; the $2500 in blood money the US govt paid for each victim was mocked this way by a relative: "Is American blood worth more than Iraqi blood?" (talking about the millions of dollars paid by Libya per victim of Pan Am 103. Well, yes, actually. Per capita GDP in US last year was $42,600 (est). In Iraq: $3,400 (est).

So, kill a Iraqi, the family loses $3400, kill an American (on average), the family loses 43000. That's per year. We produce about 10 fold more than Iraq in terms of goods and services. Harsh reality, but there it is. Of course all life is precious and we can't put a dollar sign on it. But if you were an insurance company, you'd have to figure out how much money the victim would have earned in their lifetime. Which is why life insurance in america is expensive.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I agree, I think what has been lost in all of this is that the soldiers do a incredibly dangerous job every day, and the civilians usually look the other way. They are at least complacent with the enemy who plants IEDs near their houses. My understanding, however, is that few such patrols are mounted any more, and only in the 'hottest' most active areas. As has been said by many, the Iraqi troops need to step up to the plate and put their ass on the line; many have already done so. But when an Iraqi patrol goes by and gets blown up by an IED, there will be a different reaction. First, we won't care if the civilians nearby 'accidently' get shot. Second, the bombers may be less inclined to throw the switch. Third, hopefully the bombers are more likely to be caught, since the population would (hopefully) be less likely to harbor the enemy against the national army. Against foreign occupiers, different story. Anyway I am wondering if it's time for our soldiers to leave Iraq.

Greyhawk has more commentary.