Antrax

Good one. By then W should know everyone's hands down to pips.

You don't seem to get it. This isn't a snark contest. It doesn't matter how much wit you use to coat ignorance, you still end up being wrong.

Reality is silly, what can I say. You can synthesize amino acids. That means you can create proteins. That means you can manufacture whatever you want, or at least eventually will be able to. A good link about the technology was provided before.

I'm not an expert, but the alert on 1♠ says "weak raise" and I guess it was meant for partner's subsequent bid.

You're getting lost in the analogy. "Political strife in third world countries" is exactly "but people don't work together without social networks". That was the point, to show that technology does enable things even if they weren't impossible before. So, the argument "if it were possible we'd have taken this possible route to it, ergo a new route won't help" doesn't hold. I was trying to avoid a well-trodden side discussion. Suffice to say if you believe increasing the supply won't lower prices, then it's your position that's not grounded in data and economic history.

Oh well. I was trying to warn you that I'm predisposed to a certain kind of thinking. That being said, do you find fault with my reasoning?

I don't see how the conclusion follows from the premise. If people worked together you could do a lot of the things you do today with social networking, so in that sense social networking doesn't enable anything, yet it's responsible for quite a lot.

Due diligence, I'm a filthy capitalist. So, I do believe in trickling down. If only the rich get to print foie gras and purple caviar, they'll still eat less of other foods, which will lower demand for them, which will allow poor people access to more food. It only fails when rich people don't need the product, like medicine for third-world diseases. Since even the rich need to subsist on calories, we seem to be in the clear.

Damn, Mbodell stole my counter :( But what is "moving slowly"? Can you think of technology that was in the prototype stage and took more than 20 years to reach mass production? If we already have a prohibitively expensive implementation of a concept, it's a pretty sure thing we'll have the working version in our lifetimes. So yeah, it's crazy but I believe I'll have a Star Trek replicator in my home during my life, and it probably won't have any issue with Earl Grey tea too. Furthermore, I believe I'll live in a house that was 3D printed. I saw 3D printers when they were new and all they could do is create brittle artwork. It took them five years and they're already useful of cost-effective printing of useful products. To imagine it would take much longer to start creating the really crazy things is baseless pessimism. I can be plenty pessimistic about our future when it comes to privacy and the ability to resist government oppression. But as far as hunger is concerned, I think we have that sucker on the ropes.

Not me, but yes, exactly that in fact.

7♣?

Wealth inequality isn't going anywhere. Hunger and the lack of shelter are. To counter gwnn's pessimism (which is old school and boring, people have been worrying about running out of oil for as long as we've had oil, and Malthus complained about population explosion in the 1800s or so), I believe 3D printing will turn us (the western world) into a society where no-one goes hungry again. Not that we'll be too happy about it, we always have and always will measure our wealth relatively, it seems to be hardwired in the primate brain.

At the risk of naming names again, he won the Cavendish pairs two years ago, among other achievements. I thought that was sufficient for brand recognition :(

Oh, actually it was the other way around, since people criticized the player's skill level based on this one action, so I wanted to show I don't just toss the "expert" label around :)

Barry edited one of my posts: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/66856-mi-case-from-another-forum/page__view__findpost__p__799035 I'm mostly curious to know why it broke the forum rule of not naming names. I thought the goal was to avoid lynches, so to speak, but that post didn't let any BBFer find that person on BBO and didn't really say anything defamatory about the player, it just stated Bridge facts, i.e. this was the bidding, that was the ruling.

Nope, you're thinking I reloaded the "new post" form, but I reloaded the "edit post" form, which shouldn't post anything new. It's not a huge issue, but from a security perspective any time your code does something surprising, even if completely benign, you need to patch it.

Editing a post can create a new post with the updated content. To reproduce: a) Edit an existing post and submit the changes. b) Go back using your browser's "back" function (you will see the unupdated contents of the post, suspect that's the root issue) c) Modify and save again. Your new edit will appear as a new post rather than replacing the content of the previous one. Nothing really earth-shattering, I know.

Woohoo I broke the forum in a silly way.

I am post D

I am post B

This is post A

Why? He doesn't play on BBO (okay, he does, but I didn't give his username), the hand is a matter of public record and no negative comments were made regarding him.

double somehow

I miss daveharty :(

Thanks, my personal sentiments were along similar lines. The director awarded a split score, so EW got 620 and NS kept their 1400. BTW, south the plumber was XXXXX XXXXXX. Thanks everyone.