I have been spending the last few years helping a friend out with trying to proselytizing the use of video conferencing in non-profits. Yes, I do some other things in life. This I have been watching from the trenches as video usage has begun to explode. I just read a note on Monday Note which gives some interesting numbers.
Filoux states:
Here are the key numbers :
- Global IP traffic will quadruple between 2009 to 2014 as the number of internet users will grow from 1.7 billion today to 4 billion in 2020.
- In 2014, the Internet will be four times larger than it was in 2009. By year-end 2014, the equivalent of 12 billion DVDs will cross the Internet each month.
- It would take over two years to watch the amount of video that will cross global IP networks every second in 2014.
In fact we see at Harvard and MIT the video traffic hitting 70% of the total load by the end of this year! I find that interesting. I have used my video somewhat, I would use it all the time, but the folks on the other side are not there yet. One of my associates is in Russia and we use it all them time. Not just using the Internet, and I2, but the video allows for a here now presence.
I suspect that the real change will be in video apps. Right not for friends I have an open door policy, if I know you, just drop into my "office". I suspect we are in Internet video where we were in telephony in 1877...just starting.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Yield Curves: December 2010
We keep coming back to the yield curves because they give some measure of what people think of the economy. Despite the FEDs intervention they are going up again. We review this year herein. Here is a comparison of the curves for selected dates in 2010. The curve is beginning to come back up on the high end. Despite the FED's intention and actions in buying Treasury debt it seems to have had little if any effect.
A more detailed look is as follows:
Now we can look at the 30 day to 30 year spread itself as follows:
It has started up from the low point in early fall and seems to be targeting a much higher level. We reiterate some of these in a different form below. This gives spread and actual rates.
We show below the rates for 2009:
Note that they were flat across the year despite how bad a year it was. Now look at 2010:
This shows the FEDs attempted intervention and now it appears that the effects have been minimized. There was a drop in later spring and the rise has been much faster. It is worth looking at 2009 versus 2010 which is why we have presented the data.
One may speculate what is going to happen but the FED generally tries to fight inflation but doing so in light of high unemployment is difficult. It is not clear what effect the Fall election may also have had on these rates. We anticipate an increasing rise, yet that is speculative at best.
It has started up from the low point in early fall and seems to be targeting a much higher level. We reiterate some of these in a different form below. This gives spread and actual rates.
We show below the rates for 2009:
Note that they were flat across the year despite how bad a year it was. Now look at 2010:
This shows the FEDs attempted intervention and now it appears that the effects have been minimized. There was a drop in later spring and the rise has been much faster. It is worth looking at 2009 versus 2010 which is why we have presented the data.
One may speculate what is going to happen but the FED generally tries to fight inflation but doing so in light of high unemployment is difficult. It is not clear what effect the Fall election may also have had on these rates. We anticipate an increasing rise, yet that is speculative at best.
Friday, December 17, 2010
The Internet, the UN, and the Dumbest People in the World
Vin Cerf had a piece today on Google Policy. Vint states:
The beauty of the Internet is that it’s not controlled by any one group. Its governance is bottoms-up—with academics, non-profits, companies and governments all working to improve this technological wonder of the modern world. This model has not only made the Internet very open—a testbed for innovation by anyone, anywhere—it's also prevented vested interests from taking control.
But last week the UN Committee on Science and Technology announced that only governments would be able to sit on a working group set up to examine improvements to the IGF—one of the Internet’s most important discussion forums. This move has been condemned by the Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC), the International Chamber of Commerce and numerous other organizations—who have published a joint letter (PDF) and launched an online petition to mobilize opposition. Today, I have signed that petition on Google’s behalf because we don’t believe governments should be allowed to grant themselves a monopoly on Internet governance. The current bottoms-up, open approach works—protecting users from vested interests and enabling rapid innovation. Let’s fight to keep it that way.
Now, simply stated, the morons at the UN want their political hacks to oversee the Internet. Why, for the most part, these characters cannot even start their own PCs. For those of us in New York who have had to deal with these parking scoff laws for the past 65 years, why don't they just go away! And what has the US erstwhile Ambassador to the UN done or said? Why, well what did you expect, nothing.
If the Net Neutrality wing nuts don't see a problem here, wow!
Well, Merry Christmas....from New York....
The beauty of the Internet is that it’s not controlled by any one group. Its governance is bottoms-up—with academics, non-profits, companies and governments all working to improve this technological wonder of the modern world. This model has not only made the Internet very open—a testbed for innovation by anyone, anywhere—it's also prevented vested interests from taking control.
But last week the UN Committee on Science and Technology announced that only governments would be able to sit on a working group set up to examine improvements to the IGF—one of the Internet’s most important discussion forums. This move has been condemned by the Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC), the International Chamber of Commerce and numerous other organizations—who have published a joint letter (PDF) and launched an online petition to mobilize opposition. Today, I have signed that petition on Google’s behalf because we don’t believe governments should be allowed to grant themselves a monopoly on Internet governance. The current bottoms-up, open approach works—protecting users from vested interests and enabling rapid innovation. Let’s fight to keep it that way.
Now, simply stated, the morons at the UN want their political hacks to oversee the Internet. Why, for the most part, these characters cannot even start their own PCs. For those of us in New York who have had to deal with these parking scoff laws for the past 65 years, why don't they just go away! And what has the US erstwhile Ambassador to the UN done or said? Why, well what did you expect, nothing.
If the Net Neutrality wing nuts don't see a problem here, wow!
Well, Merry Christmas....from New York....
Thursday, December 16, 2010
New Thoughts on the PSA Test
In an article in Science they discuss some recent work on looking more deeply into the PSA test. We also recently did an analysis of PSA in a time series basis but the key was understanding certain growth constants.
The Science article states:
In cancer research, one never-ending quest is the hunt for biomarkers, proteins in the blood that reveal tumors deep in the body. The goal is to find a reliable predictor that enables early diagnosis and better treatment of disease. Most biomarkers identified so far have been disappointing, but millions of men are tested for one of them: PSA, or prostate-specific antigen, which cells in the prostate gland churn out at higher levels when cancer is present.
But some men with high PSA levels don't have the disease, leading to unnecessary biopsies, and some with low PSA levels do. PSA testing is routine in some places, yet large clinical trials in the United States and Europe are questioning how big an impact it has on reducing cancer deaths. This week, a group in Iceland suggests a new way to assess PSA results: Acknowledge that under normal circumstances some men produce more (and some produce less) PSA, and individualize healthy and high levels for each man tested by focusing on genetic variants that affect PSA levels.
However these researchers found certain sections of DNA, SNPs, which allowed for significantly improved classification. They state:
The researchers on the PSA study, led by geneticists Julius Gudmundsson and Kari Stefansson of deCODE Genetics in Reykjavik, began by scanning the genomes of about 16,000 men to identify places in the genome that modify the PSA level in blood. They found six, including three that were previously identified. Then the group compared more than 5000 men with prostate cancer and 41,000 without. They assessed whether variants at the six sites modified PSA and prostate cancer risk.
Last year in The New England Journal of Medicine, the U.S. study reported no difference in mortality between the group that had regular PSA screening and the one that did not. The European team, led by Schröder, found that those who got PSA screening were 20% more likely to survive prostate cancer. Schröder attributes the contrasting results to different study designs; both groups are continuing to follow the men.
We still consider their results flawed because of two factors. First they held to a PSA of 4.0 which we now know is in error and second the testing was sporadic and not periodic, as well as having a duration too long between samples. We also argued that they failed to look at the data time series, namely the velocity issues, and the % Free PSA, a critical element.
The Science article states:
In cancer research, one never-ending quest is the hunt for biomarkers, proteins in the blood that reveal tumors deep in the body. The goal is to find a reliable predictor that enables early diagnosis and better treatment of disease. Most biomarkers identified so far have been disappointing, but millions of men are tested for one of them: PSA, or prostate-specific antigen, which cells in the prostate gland churn out at higher levels when cancer is present.
But some men with high PSA levels don't have the disease, leading to unnecessary biopsies, and some with low PSA levels do. PSA testing is routine in some places, yet large clinical trials in the United States and Europe are questioning how big an impact it has on reducing cancer deaths. This week, a group in Iceland suggests a new way to assess PSA results: Acknowledge that under normal circumstances some men produce more (and some produce less) PSA, and individualize healthy and high levels for each man tested by focusing on genetic variants that affect PSA levels.
However these researchers found certain sections of DNA, SNPs, which allowed for significantly improved classification. They state:
The researchers on the PSA study, led by geneticists Julius Gudmundsson and Kari Stefansson of deCODE Genetics in Reykjavik, began by scanning the genomes of about 16,000 men to identify places in the genome that modify the PSA level in blood. They found six, including three that were previously identified. Then the group compared more than 5000 men with prostate cancer and 41,000 without. They assessed whether variants at the six sites modified PSA and prostate cancer risk.
Yet they also look back at what we consider an erroneous result (see our analysis on PSA Testing), the NEJM European study, where they state:
Last year in The New England Journal of Medicine, the U.S. study reported no difference in mortality between the group that had regular PSA screening and the one that did not. The European team, led by Schröder, found that those who got PSA screening were 20% more likely to survive prostate cancer. Schröder attributes the contrasting results to different study designs; both groups are continuing to follow the men.
We still consider their results flawed because of two factors. First they held to a PSA of 4.0 which we now know is in error and second the testing was sporadic and not periodic, as well as having a duration too long between samples. We also argued that they failed to look at the data time series, namely the velocity issues, and the % Free PSA, a critical element.
Now using the SNP data we can use the model we developed which is a birth-death model for cells and then uses maximum likelihood estimates to get the most powerful test. Using the SNP data from this study it is possible to improve the tightness of fit and better represent the actual B-D constants. Worth a thought.
The analysis of PSA data will as a necessity include a better understanding of the cell dynamics for both benign and cancerous cells. That will go to the heart of any worthwhile measurement. Static measurements will always have a fatal flaw as has been discussed by Dougherty.
The analysis of PSA data will as a necessity include a better understanding of the cell dynamics for both benign and cancerous cells. That will go to the heart of any worthwhile measurement. Static measurements will always have a fatal flaw as has been discussed by Dougherty.
Fat Kids, Blame the Seller
When did parental control get neutralized? When did parents stop saying no? Today in the Financial Times there is the story of a suit filed against McDonalds for selling food.
The problem is simple, don't bring your children there. If you do, be aware that a large fries, shake and some one of those cardboard flavored burgers with 900 kcal are not good for the child. At what point does the parent take responsibility.
Now again is the time for a "carb tax". Why the shake alone would produce enough nationwide to pay off the national debt if the problem is as big as one suspects. Or how about a "Just say NO" campaign.
A US consumer advocacy group....(Center for Science in the Public Interest) ... has filed a lawsuit against McDonald’s, accusing the fast-food chain of using deceptive advertising practices to lure children to the .... restaurants...The lawsuit .....accuses McDonald’s of using the promotional toys ... to get children to pester their parents into bringing them to its restaurants.
The problem is simple, don't bring your children there. If you do, be aware that a large fries, shake and some one of those cardboard flavored burgers with 900 kcal are not good for the child. At what point does the parent take responsibility.
Now again is the time for a "carb tax". Why the shake alone would produce enough nationwide to pay off the national debt if the problem is as big as one suspects. Or how about a "Just say NO" campaign.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Fat Genes Again: Blame Them!
In a recent article in Reuters reported on MSNBC they report:
Looking beyond obvious causes of obesity like overeating, scientists said on Wednesday they may have found a gene that also plays a role, one that helped our ancestors survive famines.
Targeting this thrifty gene and others with diagnostic tests and drugs offers another way to fight the global epidemic of obesity, the researchers said.
Mice bred to lack this gene, known as CRTC3, can eat a high-fat diet without gaining weight, while normal mice on the same diet grow plump, the researchers found.
And Mexican Americans who have an especially potent version of this gene are more likely to be obese than others, Dr. Marc Montminy of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in California and colleagues reported in the journal Nature.
This is again a rather silly way to say that humans and mice are the same, both have no free will. So blame the genes. There must be someway that the basis of mass balance is understood combined with the fact that humans make choices!
Looking beyond obvious causes of obesity like overeating, scientists said on Wednesday they may have found a gene that also plays a role, one that helped our ancestors survive famines.
Targeting this thrifty gene and others with diagnostic tests and drugs offers another way to fight the global epidemic of obesity, the researchers said.
Mice bred to lack this gene, known as CRTC3, can eat a high-fat diet without gaining weight, while normal mice on the same diet grow plump, the researchers found.
And Mexican Americans who have an especially potent version of this gene are more likely to be obese than others, Dr. Marc Montminy of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in California and colleagues reported in the journal Nature.
This is again a rather silly way to say that humans and mice are the same, both have no free will. So blame the genes. There must be someway that the basis of mass balance is understood combined with the fact that humans make choices!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
