USViking

In a simuilar vein, and more likely to be a true story, we have the "Barometer Problem": Determine height of building using barometer The author of this piece was a Washington University Physics professor and advisor on examination contruction and evaluation. He relates the story without qualification as to its truth. Modrn Urban Legend has it that Niels Bohr was the student, but that is sure to be incorrect.

I noticed NASA's speedy disavowal of the paper, and to be fair I should have posted about it here. However, it is also fair to point out that NASA culture lacks detachment and objectivity where astrobiology is concerned, and this has led them to promote two questionable studies that I know of, namely the "microbe-bearing" martian metiorite, and the Mono Lake CA microbe with "arsenic-bearing" DNA. I guess NASA is never going to give up on the meteorite, as long as it has been around now. The Mono Lake bug should be another matter. If the NASA team is as good as its word it ought by now to be handing out samples of the bug to other scientists. I predict a null result for all attempts at replication. I wish I could predict how NASA will handle the disappointment.

Sigh. More bugs from the NASA astrobio hype machine. Here is the entire paper: http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html Here is an early rebuttal: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/did_scientists_discover_bacter.php (from link, emphasis added): I notice the word "peer review" cropping up again in its usual modern form as sort of an incantation meant to enchant the gullible general reader into thinking well, this must be a scientific done deal. What is a done deal is that NASA is off its astrobio rocker again, this time not only publishing substandard science, but also publishing it in a substandard jounrnal. I would really like to see budget-cutters of the right, left and center get to work on the NASA astrobio/(S)ETI department, as in pull the plug on the damn thing, and let the venture continue under private funding, if it is to continue at all.

I thought you were pulling my leg until I googled the quote, and it checks out. I did not realize that the routine "Who's on First?" was an Abbott and Costello production. Getting back to the question I posed, the St. Louis Cardinals' Enos Slaughter was on first base with two out and the score tied in the bottom of the 8th inning in Game 7 of the 1946 World Series vs the Boston Red Sox. He took off with the pitch on a hit and run play. The batter made a hit to the outfield. The outfielder who handled the ball bobbled it slightly and then made a weak throw to the shortstop, who had to go to the shallow outfield to take the throw. Most runners in Slaughter's postion whould have been content to stop at 3rd, especially with the 3rd base coach singalling them to stop. Instead, Slaughter ignored the coach, rounded the base, and headed for home. The shortstop, astounded by Slaughter's action, made a poor, short throw to the catcher, and Slaughter scored what proved to be the winning run of the game and Series.

Son of a gun I garbled the story. I got Bill Buckner right and also the teams, the year and the Series game number, but I got the inning wrong (it was the 10th) and the score wrong (it was tied) and the result of the error wrong (it let in the winning run). Here is another famous World Series name from a generation before Bill Buckner, also involving the Red Sox: Who is Enos Slaughter, and describe the play which made him famous.

Is this the same Buckner who was playing 1B for the Boston Red Sox with two out in the bottom of the 9th of the 6th game of the 1986 World Series? If so he let a ground ball get past him on what would have been the final out of series, since the Red Sox had a 3-2 lead in games. The error allowed the NY Mets to first tie the game and then win it. The Mets followed up by winning the final game the next day, and the Curse of Babe Ruth remained in effect for another 18 years. Red Sox manager John McNamara was criticized for leaving Buckner, a poor fielder, in the game when a better fielder was available to substitute.

There are two different events being weighed here. This one from the OP: A. "(A player is) at a table, make(s) a call, and leave(s)" And this one from my post #4: B. "(A) player, usually but not always the host, will not do anything, thus inactivating the table" I agree both A and B occur. Without having kept any records I believe A takes place significantly less than B, maybe half as often for me. I do not believe it would be exaggerating to say that B is a daily experience for me. I do not think there should be any possibility of penalzing someone who leaves a table under those circumstances. With 100s thousand users per month (per week? daily?) different users may have different experiences due to their playing habits. Someone like me who usually plays pick-up with three strangers should have experiences similar to mine. Perhaps you usually play with 1-2 who you know well enough to know they are reliable, and won't freeze the table.

It seems you mean to be taken literally. I provided foundation for my point of view. You have not: All you are doing is saying "I object!". Can you please try to do a bit better than that?

I am not sure how to take this, but will amend as follows: The OP suggestion would be sure to punish the innocent as often as it punished the guilty.

Please let us not implement anything like this. IMO by far the biggest problem at BBO is having to leave after taking part in auction and/or play because some other player, usually but not always the host, will not do anything, thus inactivating the table. This probably happens 1000s of times a day (certainly 100s of times a year for me) and the OP suggestion would be as likely to punish the innocent as it would be to punish the guilty.

NASA appears to me to have been accused by several qualified authorities of non-conformance with scientific standards, or, to put it another way, of unprofessional behavior. In my opinion this serious charge needs to be addressed transparently and immediately, and there are sure to be acceptable means available other than exchange in peer reviewed scientific journals. Also, besides being too slow to accomodate the needs of this issue, typical peer review is unacceptable due to the anonymity of the reviewers: the point has been reached where both the defendants and the public deserve to know who the judges are. I also think there is some validity to the objection that with all its garish tease and hype NASA itself stepped outside the peer review process which it is now trying to use to hide behind.

Thanks for the blurb, here's a CBC link to comments by the critic: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/12/06/arsenic-microbe-dna-nasa-wolfe-simon.html?ref=rss#ixzz17P6UT100 Some quotes:

I see you are the kind of person who is inclined to turn any thread on any subject into one of your favorite soap-box shrills. I have been through this particular subject to the tune of probably 100s of posts on several political boards. I am tired of it, and I will not take the bait to go into any more here. Briefly though, I am not sure how much else besides drone attacks I would approve of, or under what circumstances I might limit disclosure, but counterterror is the area where I would place the fewest restaints on our operations.

Glad we are on the same page here. We really do need to ensure ourselves a large supply of drone missiles available for use against the Taliban and Al-Quaeda of the world. If NASA wants to spend $476k (and not much more) on its not particularly useful search for ET, then let that money be spent where ET is actually supposed to reside- on such places as Mars.

According to the following links the annoucement will concern discovery of a microbe in Lake Mono CA "...which lives with levels of arsenic in its biology that were hitherto believed impossible (and) significantly broaden(s) the possibility of what life may be possible on other planets with different environments" http://www.slashgear.com/nasa-find-new-lifeform-arsenic-microbe-widens-likelihood-of-extraterrestrial-life-02117300/ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/eureka/article7040864.ece I do not think NASA should be budgeted to search for new life forms on Earth. It has plenty of work to do making sure its next Mars Rover doesn't roll over or get stuck in some sand dune, and there are plenty of Earth-bound biologists and biology departments who can perform such work as NASA is now conducting at Mono Lake. Unfortunately so many people are in love with the notion of Martian and other bugs, shrubs, ETs, Little Green Men, etc etc etc that NASA sees an opportunity for PR tease and hype, with consequent budgetary support. Well, I am all in favor of the hard science of space exploration, but I have a serious aversion to tease and hype, and I hope this source of tease and hype at Mono Lake gets the plug pulled on it if Congress ever goes on a real budget-cutting spree.

I think Washington was nevertheless among the non-employees. He presided over the Constitutional Convention 25 May-17 Sept. 1787. I have not been able to nail down precise biographical month-to-month details, but I believe he went back home and stayed there until after election, which took place 7 Jan. 1789, more than one year and three months later. If anyone knows of a site where Washinton Irving's 5-volume biography is available for free perusal that should provide a definitive answer.

I have not read anything here past the opening post; apologies to those who answered before me. Without looking anything up' date=' here are those I am quite sure of: 1980 Reagan 1968 Nixon 1952 Eisenhower 1860 Lincoln 1788 Washington I also believe Carter 1976 was no longer a governor. I want to say Clinton 1992 was not either, and it is embarrasing to be uncertain about such a relatively recent candidate. I also think it is likely several who had become famous as generals besides Washington (farmer) and Eisenhower (President of Columbia University) had retired from the military before their election. I am quite sure of these: Mondale 1984 T. Roosevelt 1912 (3rd party Progressive, but 2nd in popular vote) McClellan 1864 And there are bound to be others.

The Windows version has a "Scoring" column which displays the type for each table.

Thanks! I noticed the yellow, but had no idea what it was or that it was clickable.

If partner thinks we have a shot a slam after my 1NT I will assume he knows what he is doing and go along. I have several questions about the auction, though (sorry if answers are clear to better players- I am intermediate skill level at best): (1) How has partner indicated 4441 shape? (2) Could specific suit lenghts be other than 4441, for example 4144? (3) If the answer to (2) is "Yes" how do you know which are partner's 4-card suits? (4) If 2 Spades and 3 Diamonds indicate 4-card suits then how can you tell whether Hearts or Clubs is the third 4-card suit? (5) What does 2 Spades mean? I do not see how it can be cuebid of Ace given the next bid: (6) What does 2 Diamonds mean? It cannot be cuebid of Ace. (7) What does 3 Hearts mean? If it means 1st or 2nd round control I guess that might also explain the 2S and 2D bids. (8) What does 3 Spades mean?

Here are some I like: GD MF SOB They can be combined into one grand acronym: GDMFSOB

Giving the reason for booting you would make you feel worse, not better.

Folger's "Classic Roast" Instant has my vote!

The PC has taken my reading down >90% in recent years. I go months without reading anything other than what is on the monitor now in front of me. That is not good, and really does need to change, because the good old-fashion book has been a giant carrying human beings on shoulder now for Millennia, and I wish and I hope that goes on forever and ever, world without end, Amen. I did just recently finish a real, honest non-paperback, actual book. The book was a biography of Paul Dirac, whose personal theology, I learned, entailed that Mother Nature (my term, not Dirac's) would ensure that human beings, as a species, possess everlasting life (my theology as well as Dirac's). I already knew Dirac held out no hope for individual immortality as envisioned by the Judeo-Christian-Islamic mainstream. Dirac was such an extreme and outspoken atheist that he incited another great scientist (Wolfgang Pauli, who did believe in God) to joke: There is no God, and Dirac is His Prophet Dirac may have had the most mathematical ability of any scientist of the last 100 years (even Feynman said: "I am no Dirac") and that is saying a hell of a lot. Dirac's approach was to search for and follow mathematical beauty, under the assumption that therein lay Truth.

Pardon me, I did in fact misattribute to luke warm a quote from Winstonm. The quotation function here is different here from all other boards I have ever posted to, and lends itself to a confusing series of quotes within quotes within quotes.