jonottawa

Grats.

I stopped pretending to understand economics when we started projecting trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see while mortgage rates were hitting historic lows. I'm surprised anyone is still pretending, tbh.

I'm sorry, you're right, you only said that the meat industry had been destroyed.

You're right, they're not honest, fair and balanced. They under-report issues like this because they don't want to alienate their advertisers. But if you want to think that the poor little food industry was 'destroyed' by the big bad media, whatever floats your boat. Americans are unhealthy in large part because of their diet. And they eat what they do because of the food industry.

Food Inc If only there were a way that people who want to eat wholesome food could fight for and win the right to do so while preserving the right of those like OP to continue eating pink slime.

Finally a police video where I'm 100% behind the actions taken by the police officer.

As to the off-topic discussion (to which I have no objection, fwiw) I mostly agree except to the extent that it creates a false equivalency between the relative culpability of the two parties. (It's also worth noting that similar thinking from Ralph Nader voters in 2000 got us into this mess in the first place.) Republicans represent the 1% and have saturated the airwaves (FoxNews, talk radio) to spread their lies and propaganda. They celebrate ignorance. They celebrate religious extremism. When they're not lying, they're demagoguing. They are morally bankrupt. In 8 short years they brought America from 'sole superpower' to broke banana republic. Democrats mean well, but are beholden to certain interest groups in a manner typical of virtually all major parties in all democracies. I think that many Democrats would LIKE to engage in constructive problem solving, but they know from experience that any attempt to candidly address the serious issues facing the country gets met by charges of 'death panels' or 'Willie Horton' or 'stealing $700B from medicare' or 'reefer madness' or 'weakening the military' or 'betraying Israel'. So the can gets kicked down the road. That being said, I'm for Gary Johnson this go round. That would be a more difficult decision if I lived in a swing state. If America is going to hell in a handbasket, it's only right that it be under a Republican.

I'm saying that women (like Karen Santorum) who have kids at 48 without being prepared to terminate the pregnancy if testing indicates severe genetic abnormalities are just as reckless and worthy of scorn as any young unwed mother is. Bella

The 'problem' as I see it is insoluble because the 'problem' is that people who are in no position to financially or emotionally care for their offspring are producing offspring in great numbers. And there is no societal or legal impediment to doing so or prospect of creating one that most people would be okay with. And there is no way to 'punish' such behavior without negatively affecting the innocent offspring. (And for the record, I was born to an unwed teen mother, so hopefully I can speak to the issue without being demonized. And I'm referring not only to young unwed poor people but also to older married people (many quite financially successful) like the Santorums.)

Austin American-Statesman

"Is Bridge next?" Next? I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least one cheating pair in every national event ever held. That's why the sooner we move to electronic play (I wonder if they'll allow revokes and leads out of turn when that happens) the better. I found this article really interesting. I even learned a new word, "patzer". I'm surprised I've never heard it before.

I'd never heard of Khan, but it's pretty cool. Brushed up a little on my calculus last night and even learned a couple of new tricks. (Are there only quizzes for math or am I doing it wrong?) One criticism I have would be that the narrator of the videos I saw was 'graduate assistant at state school' level and not 'oh my god best professor ever' level. As to fast clicking and not learning, I'd think that could be easily fixed if it was set up to penalize errors more harshly. I just wish something like that had been around 30 years ago.

Do they have an Internet?

If the conventional wisdom is 80% but the people putting their money on the line have it at 60%, I'd tend to think the true number is actually less than 60%. Look at it this way: You've got lots of people like Justin who are betting on Nate being right and yet the Intrade number is barely moving, even though it's WAY off from Nate's prediction. That's a lot of people betting on 'Buster' Douglas, maybe they know something I don't. This reminds me of: "When I was a young man about to go out into the world, my father says to me a very valuable thing. He says to me like this... "Son," the old guy says, "I am sorry that I am not able to bank roll you to a very large start, but not having any potatoes which to give you, I am now going to stake you to some very valuable advice. One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to come to you and show you a nice, brand new deck of cards on which the seal has not yet been broken. This man is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of that deck and squirt cider in your ear. Now son, you do not take this bet, for as sure as you stand there, you are going to wind up with an earful of cider."

I agree that this (or something like it) is where the solution to the education problem lies. Classes taught on video by the best teachers in America. Multiple choice tests after each lecture. For those students who achieve a high enough score on the test, they get to play some sort of educational game (giving the students an incentive to pay attention and do well) while the teacher spends time going over the test with the students who didn't do well enough.

I spent a little time looking at the individual swing states on Intrade, too. The 5 closest states (with Obama win%) are Colorado (64.8), Florida (47), Iowa (59.7), Ohio (61.9) and Virginia (58.9). If everything else breaks as it's supposed to, Romney has to win Florida, Ohio and Virginia as well as either Colorado or Iowa. (If Obama wins only Virginia of these, he wins 270-268.) I'm surprised that Ohio has a higher win% than Obama. It's a virtual lock that if Dems win Ohio, Obama wins. And he might even win without it. (Though that would break Ohio's streak of getting it right. The last time they picked a loser was 1960.)

I'm trying very hard to have any sympathy for these folks. FWIU they're the highest paid teachers in the country and they're getting a huge pay raise and they're going on strike anyway because they've got certain performance standards to live up to and are expected to put in a full day's work? Am I missing something? Is there a pro-teachers person in here who can maybe clarify things for me?

Intrade has it a little less than 60-40. Wow, I typed that before I checked (it's been there for a long time), but as I type this it's just over 60-40. Barring a huge game-changer Romney can't win unless voter suppression efforts by the Repugs reach new levels in Ohio and Florida. I think the 80-85% numbers ignore the SuperPAC $ and underestimate the gullibility (and amnesia) of the American people. FDR weighs in on Mitt Romney (this is classic.)

I maintain that the CC is wrong because GIB doesn't cater its bidding to what the opps bids actually mean, but only to what the bids would mean if GIB made them. GIB plays sys on over dbl/2C when it opens 1N. That brings up a very valid point though, that since GIB assumes that its opps all play the same system it does that highly artificial/unusual systems would doubtless have a tremendous advantage (like if there were a tournament where people (partnerships) competed to score the highest against 2 GIBs.) Kind of like how people who play unusual systems have an inherent advantage against weaker players. That brings this hand to mind. If GIB (E) thinks I have 25-30 HCP it partially explains its defense on the hand.

Ah kk, ty sir. ... Wait a minute, GIB is smart enough to know whether the human who bid 2♣ showed an unspecified single-suited hand or not and can change his bids accordingly?

It looks like GIB plays sys on / dbl & 2C when we open 1N. Is that correct? The GIB CC says only sys on/dbl. Here's the hand. (Disclaimer: No little old ladies were harmed in the course of our misadventures.) tl;dr Pard opened 1N and I (after looking at GIB CC) tried to sign off in LHO's AKQT8x suit, but because the CC is wrong, transferred into RHO's KQT9xx suit. Now LHO came to my rescue and rather than let us play in our 3-2 fit decided his 3-3 fit looked better and I promptly led a trump through dummy's qxx into pard's akjx.

I can't tell if we're supposed to make note of extremely egregious GIB bidding mistakes or not. If we're not, let me know. Anyway, here's your hand: 763 J86 98753 73 Pard opens 2♣ and RHO bids 3♥ and you pass and pard backs in with 3♠ and you bid ... 4♥???????????? I cuebid on what? ________________________________ So you're dealt a 10-top trick MONSTER J AKQJ9764 A9 A7 And you go low and open 1♥, pard bids 1N and you rebid ... 3♥???

I think determining what someone who has perpetrated the given auction thus far perceives as a 'logical alternative' is quite tricky. If the hand had been qxx xx qtxxxx xx I'd be willing to concede that 3N was the only logical alternative for this player. On the actual hand, I'm not so sure. It's analogous to the first case that Debbie R. presented recently, imo.

I'm not sure that last bit is true.

Oops. Oscar Pistorius loses 200 Paralympic in stunning upset, then complains about winner’s blades. http://l.yimg.com/os/en/blogs/sptusolyexperts/c0904oscar.jpg