Lobowolf

How about objective measures like infant death rates? Is there any disagreement about what "better" means? Clearly not, with respect to that one factor.

Yeah, for that to be a definitive end of discussion answer, we'd all have to agree on what "better" meant, on balance, and we'd have to assume that a lot of other things are equal between countries.

If I'm understanding your post, you're questioning that apparently a disproportionately large percentage of hands are removed, when the 1.8% drops down to 0.4%? His numbers seem plausible to me, without doing the math. If you get rid of all 0-11 point hands, all 15-17 point hands, and all 22+ point hands, I think you could lose about 75-80% of the hands (1.4% of the 1.8%). Edit: Was only considering what he was presenting, which, as Helene points out, is a different question that he purports to answer. This all would suggest that 0.4% of hands would be 4-4-3-2 and open 1♦ , but not that a given 1♦ opener has a 0.4% change of being 4-4-3-2.

Enjoy it!

2♣. I can't stomach finding spades.

No, most regular posters are easy to identify. Just go by the photo. That's how I picked out Phil.

Do you think there's reason to believe that a government-run system would have dramatically less waste, fraud, and abuse?

Edit!

In one of the big affirmative action cases that pertained to college admissions, it was posited, similarly, that it's desirable to have a diverse student body. The position advanced was to the effect that it was good for the other students to have wider exposure to differerent viewpoints and backgrounds in the classroom discussions. If you don't agree that a school has an interest in promoting a racially diverse student body, then it probably is a poor analogy.

UCLA is almost full. Room for only one more. There's always a last one accepted, and a first one rejected.

The Quiz Kid! And former youngest life master ever. That's too bad. I wonder what happens now with Nickell?! Has Rosenberg committed to anything, post-Zia? I wonder if we're looking at Meckwell + Zia/Rosenberg + Hamman/Nickell.

My turn. Let's say a particular campus (UCLA, for example) would like to have a more diverse campus. And let's say that Asian-American students are "overrepresented" in the school's demographics. If two applicants are being considered for the last admissions spot, and an Asian-American student is regarded as slightly better than an African-American candiate by objective criteria (LSAT, grades), and even by color-blind subjective criteria (reading their essays without knowing the races of the applicants), and they grew up in the same socio-economic stratum and attended the same schools, would you favor a public school's being able to reject the Asian-American student solely on the basis of race, to create a more diverse campus?

Yes, I don't believe that the employer's desired racial makeup of the workforce as a whole is enough of a justification for racial discrimination against a particular applicant.

I agree with it to remedy past discrimination by the entity in question (which is one case in which it's constitutionally permissible). For instance, if all promotions are based on seniority, and certain groups have less senority because they weren't hired until 1985. I also don't mind class-based affirmative action, to some extent. With respect to, for instance, public university admissions. What happens with race-based affirmative action is that to some extent, race is used as a proxy for wealth or income (as evidenced by some of the arguments in its favor). So, say a high school in a diverse district has only white non-Hispanic teachers. Would you agree with the school looking specifically for Hispanic or Black teachers? Or is that unfair preference against white teachers with equal qualification? If you mean as a hiring preference, then I'd be opposed to it. I'm not opposed to outreach/job fair type of stuff where you try to attract more applicants from underrepresented groups, or make them aware of opportunities, but I'm opposed to preferring one candidate to another based on race.

It only takes one. "It was FUBAR before we got here."

http://mystateline.com/content/fulltext/?cid=79622 12 distraught MJ fans have committed suicide?! Yikes.

Used to play at Chess Palace in southern California in a chouette that included Dan Harrington, who went on to win the World Series of Poker main event (and made the final table another year). Hell of a backgammon player.

I agree with it to remedy past discrimination by the entity in question (which is one case in which it's constitutionally permissible). For instance, if all promotions are based on seniority, and certain groups have less senority because they weren't hired until 1985. I also don't mind class-based affirmative action, to some extent. With respect to, for instance, public university admissions. What happens with race-based affirmative action is that to some extent, race is used as a proxy for wealth or income (as evidenced by some of the arguments in its favor).

That'll be the next step. The decision not to certify the results was a preemptive move. Now things will proceed in the more traditional manner of these types of cases - the test results will be certified, and challenged by the underrepresented minorities. Because of the results, there will be a presumption of disparate impact, and then the burden of proof will shift to the city and the analysis will hinge on the business necessity of the test (i.e. how "job-related" it is). Based on the evidence presented in the original case, this should be an easy showing, which will shift the burden back to the (new) plaintiffs, who will have to show that alternatives which met the city's interest (the job-relatedness) would have less of an adverse impact. The whole case will hinge on this analysis, as everything else is pretty straightforward. Since the City didn't want to certify the test results in the first place, though, it's unclear how zealously they'll defend the test.

I don't doubt it at all.

Yup, great game.

No, but he probably thought that the decades he'd spend as a millionaire tens of times over would be worth it.

Indeed. Reversed by SCOTUS today on a 5-4 decision. Somewhat interestingly, the decision was written by Kennedy, probably the swing vote. It's short & sweet, but there's at least one concurrence (Scalia) and I'm sure at least one dissent. I'll be looking at all of them, but I haven't read anything but Kennedy's opinion yet.

And LA County for me (for the food anyway). In Orange County: 1 good Indian place (for my money anyway): 0 Chinese 0 Peruvian Lots of sushi and Mexican, but so what :( What's your Indian place in the OC?

I think it absolutely calls for a particular type of lead, namely an aggressive lead. Dummy has a source of tricks, and your doubleton queen is going to pop out on the second round in front of dummy, which isn't going to hurt declarer if there's work to be done. I think if this were a BW problem, half a dozen panelists would predict a unanimous panel for a low spade. Of course, they'd no doubt be wrong about the unanimity, but I think the lead is still 110% indicated.