Just a quick note on Micheal Critchon's "meticulous research": it was BS. He gave the impression of having carefully researched things, but in fact he was apparently making it up. I know lots of scientists who are experts in various areas that his books impinged on. They enjoy his books like everyone else, but laugh at his "science".

I unplug the ethernet cable for my office computer when it is time to get serious work done. Sometimes I even put it in a drawer. Just the added step of having to get up and plug it back prevents me from most web surfing that I would otherwise do.

If I am working in a coffee shop with the laptop, I often disable the internet. This doesn't work as well as removing the cable, but it helps a lot. I just need some small obstacle to remind me that I have more important things to do.

I am a statistical geneticist - that is, I am specialist in the methodology for extracting the information from the DNA data. I spend my days trying to develop new and better ways to make the link between genotype and phenotype. I believe that this is a worthy goal, but I also know that we are still a long way from understanding the genetics of any complex trait. We are making rapid progress right now, but it is questionable whether we will ever get to the point of truly understanding the genetics of most common disease - the problem is that most of them are just really damn complex. I hope to be proven wrong, but I would not buy stock in any company that makes any time specific claims about when personal medical genetics will be here.

I remember in about 2000 watching an executive from a well known biotech company giving a speech in which he told us "in ten years everyone will have a personal DNA card that will give their DNA sequence and their doctors will be able to tell their risk for any common disease and be able to specially tailor medicine for their particular genome." Well, here it is nine years later and we are nowhere close to that goal in any meaningful way.

Yes, we do know some genes that impact risk for some diseases. However, for most common diseases no single gene contributes more than a small amount of the risk. For example, Navigenics says on their website that genetics accounts for 42% of the risk for prostate cancer. However, they do not tell how much of the risk is accounted for by the genes that they test. Who the hell cares if they have e.g. a 10% higher risk for some disease? What possible use is that information?

We may get to a point where we do understand the genetics well enough to make meaningful predictions of risk. However, we are not there yet for most diseases and companies like Navigenics are, in my opinion, engaging in borderline fraud.

Putting your money in CDs with 25 years to retirement is very foolish. Your stocks will come back in a few years and then keep on growing. Those CDs are guaranteed to not do much of anything ever. Do the calculations - money put in CDs will not grow sufficiently to provide a comfortable retirement. Your money in the stock marker will, assuming that you are doing things well. This stock market drop is actually a good thing on your timeline - it will give you a chance to buy low.

Stay the course. Keep plowing money in. You are doing the right thing. Your husband is not. Really.

It is not just a matter of asthetics, female gymnasts really do peak very young. The simple fact is that girls tend to gain a lot of weight between the ages of 14 and 18 and it is very difficult for their strength to keep up.

I was friends with a girl in high school who was the state all-around champion in gymnastics as a freshman. Everyone assumed that she would go on to be a superstar. However, she instead went through a steady decline - third in the state her sophmore year, seventh her junior year, and failed to place at all as a senior. She was working very hard all this time. However, the problem was that she grew from being a very petite 14 year old to being a nicely filled out 18 year old. In fact, she was much hotter at 18 by the prevailing asthetic, but she was also twenty pounds heavier. You need to have a very high strength-to-weight ratio to do gymnastics.

I used to coach high school track, and the same thing often happens with female distance runners. It was quite common to have girls peak as freshman. I can remember several instances of girls being state champions as freshman and then steadily declining as they got older (and bigger). This is not to say that all female distance runners peak at 14 - obviously, the elite runners peak much later. However, many girls reach their peak strength-to-weight ratio very young.

MPSherwin:

I strongly agree with you that good admin people are as valuable to the company as good people in any other position. However, you are being arrogant and clueless when you make statements like "the assistants know the most about how the company actually works" and "I know more about the nitty gritty of marketing than most of the people that make three times my salary". It is true that you know many things that other people don't. However, it is also true that they know many things that you don't. That 20 year director that you skewer doesn't know a lot of things that you know. However, he does know a whole lot of other things that you have no clue about. As a near-universal principal, you are wrong any time that you think you know more than everyone around you.