In appreciation of RealClimate

I don't know how the RealClimate crew is able to keep fighting for Reason, but I sure appreciate them.

Today they respond to yet another burst of Reason-free denialism....

RealClimate

.... Some parts of the blogosphere, headed up by CEI ('CO2: They call it pollution, we call it life!'), are all a-twitter over an apparently 'suppressed' document that supposedly undermines the EPA Endangerment finding about human emissions of carbon dioxide and a basket of other greenhouse gases. Well a draft of this 'suppressed' document has been released and we can now all read this allegedly devastating critique of the EPA science...

It's a devastating takedown, but imagine how boring it must be to read this drivel, and how painful it is to regurgitate the same old facts.

We owe these stout warriors a great debt. Beverages are on me if the RealClimate crew should happen to visit the Twin Cities.

Alas, despite their diligence, Reason is losing this battle. Most Americans have checked out on both health care revision and dealing with global climate change.

Sprint while you commute?

If you're under 25 and in reasonably good shape, I suppose you could try this exercise regimen ...

Can You Get Fit in Six Minutes a Week? - Well Blog - NYTimes.com

... In one of the group’s recent studies, Gibala and his colleagues had a group of college students, who were healthy but not athletes, ride a stationary bike at a sustainable pace for between 90 and 120 minutes. Another set of students grunted through a series of short, strenuous intervals: 20 to 30 seconds of cycling at the highest intensity the riders could stand. After resting for four minutes, the students pedaled hard again for another 20 to 30 seconds, repeating the cycle four to six times (depending on how much each person could stand), “for a total of two to three minutes of very intense exercise per training session,” Gibala says.

Each of the two groups exercised three times a week. After two weeks, both groups showed almost identical increases in their endurance (as measured in a stationary bicycle time trial), even though the one group had exercised for six to nine minutes per week, and the other about five hours. Additionally, molecular changes that signal increased fitness were evident equally in both groups. ... In other words, six minutes or so a week of hard exercise (plus the time spent warming up, cooling down, and resting between the bouts of intense work) had proven to be as good as multiple hours of working out for achieving fitness. The short, intense workouts aided in weight loss, too, although Gibala hadn’t been studying that effect.

The response has been found in rat studies, so it's a little bit plausible.

If you're not under 25 several caveats apply

• The study results need to be replicated with larger groups and older participants.
• The news article didn't mention gender. Maybe this only works for young men with lots of testosterone on board.
• The risk of injury with extremely intense workouts is high.
• This is a good way to die if you're over 25 and aren't accustomed to repeated levels of intense exertion.
• I suspect when they say "intense" they mean an intensity level that most older people can't reach (short of death).
• Most Americans are exercising for weight loss.
• Maybe we'll find out it causes accelerate atherosclerosis (you never know ...)

That said, if you're young, healthy and reasonably fit, it would be easy to work this kind of routine into a commonplace 30 minute bicycle commute. Just don't do it on a 10 mph bicycle trail!

Facebook observations

I've been enjoying Facebook, though the iPhone client is overdue for an overhaul. My conclusions about what's interesting with FB are a bit different from what I usually read, so, inevitably, I'm compelled to share:

1. Internal identity - no anonymity. This means control over communications, which means spam is manageable. The FB equivalent of spam is metastatic "apps", but, for the moment, you can opt out of those. Spam free communication environments are worth much more these days than they were 7 years ago.
2. It's AOL 2.0. I remember when AOL was interesting, back when it was a Mac only spinoff of one of Apple's many failed online communities. I'll call that AOL 1.0. Of course in those days there was no spam, no phishing, no viruses -- essentially the proto-Net was risk free. That meant AOL didn't have an enormous amount to offer, but it still did quite well. Now the Net is extremely risky, especially for XP users. AOL 2.0 has a much bigger value proposition than AOL 1.0.
3. I love pub/sub, especially as implemented in feeds and readers. Unfortunately, this technology was a bridge too far for the vast majority of humanity. Only the uber-geeks knowingly use feed readers like Google Reader; all the good desktop XP feed readers have died. Facebook is all about pub/sub, but they've made the technology feel natural to their base. That's a real accomplishment.
4. Facebook has shown (sigh) that logic and usability are not all that important for a social application.

I've never paid much attention to the alleged role Facebook played in electoral politics. I'm still unsure how much of that is real, but there is some potential to gradually encourage specific memes in one's FB network. It has to be done judiciously. I actually streamed my Google Reader "notes/shares" into FB for a while and I think I about vaporized my friends. Now I restrict the meme injections to 1-2 a week.

The dark side of FB, of course, is data lock. (Privacy you say? Surely you've given up on that 20th century dream.) They're providing more APIs and sharing more identity information than they have, but I would never put my photo library on FB. It's a place to put things that are intentionally transient.

Kristof points out the AMA doesn’t represent physicians! (At last)

Congratulations to one of my favorite columnists. He’s the first commentator I’ve read to point out that the AMA doesn’t represent physicians!

Nicholas Kristof The Prescription From Obama’s Own Doctor - NYTimes.com

… the A.M.A. now represents only 19 percent of practicing physicians (that’s my calculation, which the A.M.A. neither confirms nor contests). Its membership has declined in part because of its embarrassing historical record: the A.M.A. supported segregation, opposed President Harry Truman’s plans for national health insurance, backed tobacco, denounced Medicare and opposed President Bill Clinton’s health reform plan…

He only gets partial credit for the explanation however. Membership fell because the AMA was more or less created to represent surgeons in their negotiations for procedural reimbursement. Non-proceduralists have a direct economic conflict with the AMA.

Kristoff continues …

… when the A.M.A. uses its lobbying muscle to oppose major health reform — yet again! — that feels like a betrayal…

… most physicians expect better as well, which is why the A.M.A. is on the decline.

“It’s what has led to the decline of the A.M.A. over the last half century,” said Dr. David Himmelstein, a Massachusetts physician who also teaches at Harvard Medical School. “At this point only one in five practicing doctors are in the A.M.A., and even among its members about half disagree with its policies.” To back that last point, Dr. Himmelstein pointed to surveys showing a surprising number of A.M.A. members who support a single-payer system.

For his part, Dr. Himmelstein co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program, which now has more than 16,000 members. The far larger American College of Physicians, which is composed of internists and is the second-largest organization of doctors, is also open to a single-payer system and a public insurance option. It also quite rightly calls for emphasizing primary care…

Physicians know that real health reform will be a mixed bag for them. Some things will get better, some things will get worse. Proceduralists will lose income, but primary care physicians might disappear. Or they might do relatively well. All physicians know is that the transition is going to hurt like hell.

I think if we could poll physicians (which is very hard to do) we’d find a majority do support major change – even though they’re going to get hurt in the process. Even many of the physicians who are likely to lose income (which translates to losing things like homes) may be more supportive than logic would dictate – especially if the transitions can be staged.

If I’m right, that’s worth of praise.

As for the AMA, please stop paying them so much attention.

Pro wrestling and celebrity tweets

Remember when pro wrestling was big? Some folks really seemed to believe it was all spontaneous.

Reminds me of the belief that wealthy celebrities and politicians actually "tweet" ...

Gail Collins - The Love Party - NYTimes.com

... it is highly unlikely that anybody actually gives a fig about Mark Sanford. (Including, perhaps, his beleaguered staff, which spent the last week fending off calls from the lieutenant governor and diligently filing Sanford’s daily Twitter.)

Tough times are good times for LinkedIn

I just received 40 LinkedIn updates in 24 hours (via Feed) distributed across a fair number of my connections.

I used to get 0-1 a day.

The update volume has been growing exponentially as my friends and colleagues scramble for new jobs.

It’s tough times for many, but good times, so far, for LinkedIn.

Don't forget Iran, but worry about China

Five years ago Iran's government was like that of China of 2006, Putin's Russia or Castro's Cuba. It was a tyranny, but a popular tyranny. It was not East Germany under Soviet occupation.

Now Iran's government is an unpopular tyranny. It's starting to resemble East Germany, but with more public unrest. Truly unpopular tyrannies can endure for ten or fifteen years in isolated nations, but Iran is a highly educated and moderately well informed nation.

Iran's current tyrant will fall within the next four years. He will most likely be replaced by a more popular tyrant, but there's a chance of something better. Tyrants are often surprisingly sensitive to foreign opinion, so we should keep the light on Iran and keep the BBC's Farsi service funded. There's not much else to do though. The Iranian people will have to fix this one.

So don't forget Iran, but we have something much bigger to worry about.

We need to worry about China.

We know world economic output is falling as quickly as in the Great Depression, but America isn't (yet) reliving GD I. So if the mean is bad, and we're above the mean, who's big enough to bring it down?

China.

I've commented on some signs of fear in China's government. Today brings another sign ...

China blocks Google services for an hour | World news | guardian.co.uk

Google suffered intensive disruption in China tonight just days after it was warned by the authorities to scale back its search operations.

Search functions and Gmail were inaccessible for more than an hour in a move seen by web watchers as a warning shot across the bows by China's censors...

This is desperation. China's tyrants are afraid of what China's economic upheaval is going to mean. Their worried about North Korea collapsing, they're worried about the Iranian example and they're trying to turn off news from the world. It's craziness born of panic.

The desperation of China's tyrants is probably not something to celebrate. China's people will eventually demand representative government, but it would be best to have that happen in a setting of economic prosperity -- not depression.

We need to get more Americans buying more Chinese stuff. Now.

The paradox of Amazon's negative reviews: Best material, lowest ratings

Sometimes I despair of mere humanity.

Take Amazon reviews, for example.

I write a fair number of 'em, enough to qualify as a "Vine" candidate. A lot of my reviews are quite positive, but I think some of my most valuable reviews are the negative ones. Curiously, my positive reviews are always well rated, but my negative reviews often receive few and mixed reader ratings.

Of course some of this is fraud -- employees pretending to be customers. I don't think that's all of it though. Humans love to acquire, and they want their acquisitive impulses to be reinforced. A negative review is a buzz kill.

It's not just me. Consider the Hasbro Nerf N-Strike Longshot CS-6. This nerf weapon has a 4+ star review, with lots of keen reviews. It is astonishingly cool looking, and my son yearned for it. He earned it through accomplishing a challenging and important task; it came while I was away on a (infrequent) business trip.

Within a minute of walking in the door I was handed the gun and asked to fix it. The front gun component wouldn't fire its foam dart.

It took a bit of playing around, but I eventually figured out the plastic handgrip interlock was defective. It wasn't a random manufacturing error, the mold was obviously incorrect. With a bit of work with a Dremel and a razor I was able to trim the plastic tabs and allow the grip to lock. At that point the firing tab engaged and my son was quietly pleased.

He was not impressed mind you. He expected that I'd fix it.

Ok, I'm getting to the point.

I returned to Amazon to warn of this manufacturing problem, and this time I read the negative reviews. Most of them mentioned that the pistol grip didn't mount, and most of them were rated "unhelpful" -- if they were rated at all.

The negative reviews have been warning for months of a significant manufacturing error -- one that I'm certain Hasbro knows about even as they continue to sell the unfixed toy. Despite their fundamental value they go unread.

Remember Cassandra? Do you remember that nobody liked her predictions of doom? Most people don't remember she was right.

There's a reason that story resonates.

It's not just the rest of humanity. Even I didn't read the negative reviews -- though I usually do. In my defense, I didn't read any of the reviews. It looks cool, my son wanted it, it was a reward for a task completed, it doesn't cost much -- I didn't do a lot of research.

Sigh.

Happily, in this case, there is a candle you can light. The next time you buy something from Amazon; read the negative reviews. Reward those that describe negative experiences and concrete issues. It's not hard to filter out the nonsensical rants. Strike a blow for Reason!

World industrial output – tracking the first Great Depression

Almost as an aside, Krugman delivers the bad news at the end of a blog post …

Green shoots, 1930 - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

…I thought everyone paying attention to this stuff was familiar with the Eichengreen-O’Rourke work. EO point out that the original Great Depression was most severe in America, while this one is more severe in a number of other countries. So you want to do a world comparison — and if you do, we’re actually tracking the first year of the GD quite closely. Here’s world industrial production …

Nicely is an understatement. By this chart world output is cloning the first 12 months of the first Great Depression. I really don’t think we’re appreciating how bad things are getting in China.

We should all be very, very nice to China.

It took 3 years for world industrial output to bottom out in GD I, falling about 40% during that time. We’re down about 13% judging from the graph Krugman provides.

I don’t think we should be worrying about the stimulus package being too big. (Not that anyone paying attention is worrying about that.)

The interesting aspects of Steve Job’s alleged liver transplant

A surgeon expresses the thoughts on the mind of every physician who’s heard that Steve Jobs received a liver transplant (per WSJ) for a metastatic neuroendocrine tumor …

What's wrong with Steve Jobs, revisited : Respectful Insolence

… How many people are capable of getting themselves listed for transplant in a state nearly 2,000 miles away from their home? When a liver becomes available, there isn't much time to get to the hospital. That means a person seeking a transplant in another state either has to stay in that state for as long as it takes to get an organ or be within a distance to be able to fly there within a very short period of time. Moreover, organs eligibility and availability are determined by the United Network for Organ Sharing, which maintains the donor lists. When an donor is identified, regional and state organizations (in my home state, for example, Gift of Life, where one of my relatives works), obtain consent, arrange for organ harvest, and decide, based on fairly strict criteria published by UNOS regarding medical need and practical matters like how long it will take to get the organs out and to the hospitals where they are needed, which people on the waiting list for the state will receive each of the organs harvested. If this story is true, what Jobs did is not illegal, but it sure does leave an unpleasant stench of the rich and powerful taking advantage of regional differences in organ availability, perhaps at the expense of a lifelong Tennessee resident who needs a liver…

… Worse, the indication is somewhat shaky. For one thing, as was pointed out in the article, neuroendocrine tumors are generally very slow growing and take a long time to metastasize. One of the more "common" subtypes of the rare neuroendocrine tumor in particular, a carcinoid of the appendix or the rectum, is particularly prone to metastasize to the liver and is notorious for causing carcinoid syndrome, which is due to serotonin secretion by these tumors and causes flushing, diarrhea and other unpleasant symptoms…

In the United States organs are gifts from the dead to strangers. Most of the donors are not wealthy. In this country we don’t, yet, seem to have much of a commercial market in organs – though the organ trade is growing in much of the world (the sale of sperm and eggs, by contrast, is a very active US market, sure to be increasingly global).

The story of Jobs liver transplant has two interesting aspects. Both demonstrate what power can achieve.

One aspect is that it was kept pretty much out of the media, though clearly thousands must have known the details. In this regard it resembles the seven month media silence about the imprisonment of a senior NYT journalist in Taliban-occupied Pakistan . The modern world is better at keeping secrets than many imagine.

The second aspect is that it shows that we need to talk more about organ distribution. The rich will always have access to more health care options – though, as in this case, it may lead them to make medically sub-optimal choices. On the other hand, organs are a gift from people who are usually not themselves powerful. Given two equally appropriate candidates, one powerful and one not, I’d rather my liver go to the less privileged. It’s my way of spitting in the face of a fundamentally unjust universe.

We should be talking about the organ trade.

Neda Soltani - an Iranian student

Neda Soltani - Wikipedia and Facebook.

The Wikipedia article states that her family donated her organs.

Why do we tolerate so many Apple bugs?

It's not hard to find bugs in OS X. Just spend a few minutes with Parental Controls for example. If Apple offered a bounty for bugs they'd go broke.

So why don't Apple's customers bitch more?

Is it because ...

1. They don't experience the bugs.
2. They run into problems, but don't realize they're bugs. (Users think they've done something wrong).
3. They run into the bugs, but don't care.
4. They've given up hope.

I'm guessing it's all of the above.

Unfortunately those bugs aren't going anywhere unless customers (that's us) get much more demanding.

It's like French Pastries in Minneapolis. There are a few that aren't terrible, but there are none half as good as those sold in the English suburbs of Montreal (much less downtown!). The difference is the standards of the consumers.

Please software buyers, please, please, please be more demanding!!

Hell frozen: a GOP columnist says something non-raving about health care

Ross Douthat is the NYT’s latest attempt to find a GOP-friendly columnist who’s not a raving loon.

He writes of health care today, and he’s only lightly raving …

Ross Douthat - The Hard Part - NYTimes.com

…. In a world without political constraints, it wouldn’t be hard to create a fiscally responsible alternative. Conservatives would encourage people to self-ration, by putting a certain number of health care dollars directly in their hands and leaving the rest to market forces. Liberals would ration more directly, by slow-walking Americans into a public health care system, whose cost-conscious, evidence-weighing bureaucracy would pay for procedure X but not procedure Y, surgery P but not prescription drug Q.

But of course Americans want their health care system to bankroll the entire alphabet — and they definitely don’t want to think about “market forces” when they’re going to the doctor. They might be willing to pay slightly higher taxes to bankroll a reform, but their ideas about what “reform” should mean are far more expensive than what health care experts have in mind. Indeed, as William Galston noted recently, the best way to satisfy the public’s health care preferences would be to start with whatever the experts — right and left alike — say is required to keep the system solvent and do exactly the opposite…

Of course the choices are not as stark as Douthat pretends. He is a GOP voice, after all. On the other hand, my champion, Paul Krugman, isn’t as forthcoming as he might be. Krugman is very careful to skirt the reality of how health care services will be delivered -- if we actually win this one.

I’m 95% sure Krugman understands that what we will eventually guarantee every American is a ticket on the Manhattan subway, not the keys to a new Lexus. Everyone will get at least Quebec-quality healthcare, which is what I like to call “crummy care”. People with money will get what my family enjoys today, people without money get the Spartan version, and nobody gets “crappy care”. (As an aside, Subway Care may have better outcomes than Lexus Care, but that’s another post.)

Douthat is right that the average American’s ideas of “reform” are a delusion. Right wingers won’t mention that because they fear Obama will succeed – and maybe they hate that more than they love America. The good guys won’t talk about it because they suspect informed voters will freeze in the headlights -- and get squashed.

I’m not running for office though, so I can mention it.

Isn't the NYT's Roger Cohen a bit old for this?

The NYT's Roger Cohen was criticized a few month's for a relatively positive spin on Iranian culture and politics, particularly claims that Iran was not predictably anti-semitic. He was portrayed by some as naive, removed from the realities of the Iranian street.

Now he's dodging tear gas and bullets on those streets ...

Roger Cohen - A Supreme Leader Loses His Aura as Iranians Flock to the Streets - NYTimes.com

... Just off Revolution Street, I walked into a pall of tear gas...

... I did what I could and he said, “We are with you” in English and with my colleague we tumbled into a dead end — Tehran is full of them — running from the searing gas and police. I gasped and fell through a door into an apartment building where somebody had lit a small fire in a dish to relieve the stinging.

There were about 20 of us gathered there, eyes running, hearts racing. A 19-year-old student was nursing his left leg, struck by a militiaman with an electric-shock-delivering baton. “No way we are turning back,” said a friend of his as he massaged that wounded leg."...

Cohen is no youngster. Who the heck sent him to Iran?!

Apple's iPhone Calendar makes me miss my parents' anniversary

I blogged about this four months ago, but it's the Apple gift that keeps on giving.

For the seven or more years that I used various versions of Gorilla Haven's DateBk on my Palm, I got 2-3 week warnings of birthdays, anniversaries on the like.

It was great. I rarely missed a card or an event

Then I got my 21st century iPhone, with a locked down, no API, Apple authored Calendar.app. A calendar that allows a maximum 2 day reminder of events.

Events like my parents' anniversary, now 2 days away.

Two $!#$#$ days!

That's the problem with devices built by children. In their world, 2 days is a long time.

Nettie, how many days warning does the Pre calendar allow you?

Update: It's unchanged in iPhone 3.0.

Update 6/20: The Pre isn't all that much better - suprisingly!
Via Nettie:

... for all-day events in the Pre calendar you can remind 1/2/3/7 days before. For meeting-type events you can remind 5/10/15 mins and 1 day...

It must be something in Cupertino water supply.