dwar0123

The issues aren't the same but certanly a bit of greener grass perspective influencing our point of views.

With so many of your generation so rich in nous and now experience, it is a wonder that any from your generation loses to anyone from another generation. The problem isn't a lack of capacity, it is a lack of interest.

This isn't a free speech issue, no one is questioning the senators right to say such things. Free speech doesn't grant him immunuty from ridicule and scorn from the press or others. It grants him immunity from imprisonment, loss of property or other government penalties. There isn't anything stopping a politician from saying such thing in any country, the only difference between here and, as an example, England, is that it would be political suicide for a politician to say such things. Not because he would be violating some speech law, but because the population is educated enough to realize that is utterly stupid and thus decide to vote for someone else. Really the only thing you are being proud of is how ignorant our population is.

The 'but' is being used as a negation, but in the 2nd one it is so nonsensical that it loses the negation meaning. So it becomes a semantically null word that you just ignore, hence the overall meaning becomes the same. :)

Source http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/10/congressman-draws-fire-for-calling-evolution-big-bang-lies-from-the-pit-of-hell/?hpt=hp_t2 Reminded me of this http://xkcd.com/154/ But it's worse

Fair enough, my assumptions were that any modern implementation of rand() would be so close to random as to be indiscernible to a semi-serious observer. Seeing the details sadly focused me on the flaws, no matter how indiscernible they might still have been. I wonder how much dealing the first 13 cards to player 1 increases the 0.0000003% for that player.

I imagine part of the reason is that if we explicitly allow new players to do that, then we have to allow anyone to do that. Which means grandma might have to deal with multi-2 diamonds in her little ole 299'r game. Which might cause grandma to just stay home. On the other hand, I suspect new players are implicitly allowed to do what ever crazy thing they want, so long as it doesn't work to well :) If it starts to work well, then they will probably be required to abide by the restrictions everyone is compelled to abide by.

Have to admit, that is surprisingly inefficient. But beyond that, if there is any tilt to rand()% implementation, the order and method of dealing cards is greatly magnifying it. Player 1 is getting the first 13 cards dealt and as such any tilt means that he is vastly more likely to get the more common rand results. Player 4 is in the exact opposite position. If you merely reversed the order of the w and c for loops, you would nullify the vast majority of this bias. This would effectively be equivalent to dealing around the table rather then taking 13 cards off the top and giving them to player 1. Of course, if rand()% is effectively random and unbiased, then everything is fine. But a lot of literature says that this can be very problematic.

Deleted a lot of stuff with which I agree strongly, well said. I am not sure I would put it so strongly, some of the eastern religions, Buddhism as an example, don't strike me as following this trait.

Let me translate that for you. "I just meant the extremists!" "I meant them all(at least in these countries)!"

My understanding was that hand-dealing actually results in flatter hands. Regardless he was comparing BBO dealt hands to other computer dealt hands and in both cases while computer pseudo random number generation is not truly random(hence the pseudo) the difference is utterly indistinguishable to humans*. Pseudo random number generation has been a solved problem for over a decade and it is very unlikely either bbo or another computer dealing program is screwing it up. Possible, but here I would wager pretty heavily on your intuition being wrong. *without taking a lot of actual unbiased samples and pouring over them with some math.

Perhaps you didn't mean to say it, but perhaps you should look again at how these quotes come off. and than the article quoted directly after. You are at best unclear who 'they' are and your quoted article makes it very clear that you have a strong bias against Muslims in addition to making readers believe that by 'they' you mean Muslim's in general.

No, that is by your definition. My only definition is related to time. Islam is not new in this context(as opposed to the context being the age of the Universe) I am utterly indifferent to the degree of the cult of personality; as all religions are essentially a cult of personality. However, using the word cult in this sense lacks an objective distinguishing feature from religion and would thus be at best a loaded subjective insult and hence fairly pointless.

The rest of the world moving on doesn't retroactively make the Christian theology a cult throughout all of its history. I think all religions are essentially a cult of personality, the only difference is that in religions the personality is dead and historical. Of course, as cult is used to distinguish something apart from religion, the only useful distinguishing characteristic in my mind is time. Thus scientology is a cult bordering on being a religion(the founder is dead and we are not long from anyone the founder knew personally also being dead) and Islam is a full on religion with a long history. Using apostasy and blasphemy to distinguish between cults and religion is a misuse of the word cult.

I wonder if an elo style ranking system such as the one Europe recently adopted might help attract newer players. The current ranking system does favor longevity over skill.

Having scriptural basis has never been much of a requirement for any religious based atrocity. I would bet that the Muslim protesters are in violation of local laws just as much as those that slay abortion doctors. The state turning a blind eye and often participating and even egging on the protests is a valid difference, that said, advocating the genocide of 2.1 billion people is not an appropriate response and makes you just as vile, at least in words, as those that we both condemn.

This is a far more interesting topic then trying to talk to luke wall. I don't see much difference between Islam's inability to accept criticism than Christians inability to accept criticism during the middle ages through to almost modern times. There are still Christians that would like to execute all blasphemers, they just don't have the weight of law behind them anymore. On the other hand, I don't see much difference between cults and religions other than religions have more history. So to sum up, disagree that the inability to accept criticism articulates any difference between a cult and a religion other than the casual relationship between being new and being more defensive; a relationship which can't be applied to Islam. Personally believe the inability to accept criticism is mostly a method for religious leaders to exert control over the local population by creating a common enemy. Distracting the local population from the actual local problems for which they would be annoyed with the leaders if not for the distracting protests against the west. P.S. Completely agree with the comparison to those who shoot doctors.

Agreements trump everything, without I think taking this to play is best. Still, I think there will be a lot of hands where notrump is the right contract and giving up any way of getting there may not be best long term.

I was trying to find a pithy way of accusing you of having a double standard.

Blind to irony; I weep for humanity.

With 4♦ being forcing and 4♥ being very forcing, I would take it as to play.

Thanks, 3-1 for double. In the actual hand I bid nt and lho bid 2♥ passed back to me. I doubled and it got passed out. Down 1 for a zero when we make 3 spades. Partner had 4 spades but thought they were in a 5-2 fit, figuring I had better hearts and thought we could set them two.

Oh conflicting opinions, now I must have more input!

Your post seems to have two main thrusts. 1. Has gib been surpassed. No one will argue that the work of innovators can't be surpassed and this is the wrong forum to discuss if it has been surpassed. 2. Is Ginsberg a shameless self promoter. Discussing this probably violates the terms of services and as he doesn't post here and thus can't defend himself, seems tawdry and pointless.

I am not sure I see any point to this thread that isn't self-serving and not a little bitter. You concede that you have been taking cheap shots at gib and its creator. Yet you want to float a topic that you think someone you have never met is super smart and also a hyperbolic self-promoter, the latter trait something you personally find off-putting. Ok, you find it off-putting, as you have never met the man this shouldn't really be a big deal for you. Move on. If you really want to have this conversation about renaissance men, you shouldn't use as examples individuals with which you have a contentious history.