irdoz

1. Conspiracy theories are always fun to read. 2. We've been through flu season here (Australia). H1N1 wasn't particularly nastier than a normal flu season - but the lack of 'herd' immunity in people under 50 means the potential for H1N1 to recombine with more virulent flu viruses is always there. Population wide vaccines were offered and promoted 'free' here (after flu season was over) and and as far as I know an evaluation of the vaccination program hasn't been published yet. 3. There's a myth promulgated in the opening post that vaccines make 'billions of dollars'. In fact it is hard to get capital investment in vaccine development because usually prevention vaccines do not make billions of dollars (unlike pharmaceutical treatments for chronic illnesses - which may increasingly include therapeutic vaccines). Successful vaccines tend to be only used once or repeated years apart. There is also a quite reasonable expectation that successful vaccines for important communicable diseases will be implemented worldwide - and such programs tend to cost billions rather than make billions. A lot of vaccine development occurs in big government scientific organisations because there is often a lack of private enterprise interest. If it wasn't for organisations like the Gates Foundation (abbrev.) then there would be currently a lot less vaccine development than there is. 4. When I started medicine the era we were in was described as 'the age of molecular biology and the discovery of the human genome'. So far, it has resulted in a huge explosion of knowledge but not all that much in terms of useful therapies. There's a lot of informed guessing that suggests that's about to change - with a reasonable chance for broad spectrum antivirals and big improvements in cancer treatment over the next decade(s). Here's a link from New Scientist discussing the prospects for broad spectrum antivirals - http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2032....html?full=true. (grr which you now have to subscribe to and I guess I'd be breaching copywrite if I posted it here). The company that looks like having the first broad spectrum antiviral to market received a huge chunk of funding from the US Department of Defense because of the potential use of viruses as agents of biological warfare... . Anyway it's quite possible that fears about flu pandemics may recede over the next decade.

There are studies which show a very small but significant decline in the birth rate of boys including in the USA, Canada and the Netherlands. The journal article in the AMA which reviewed the international studies theorised that it was caused by 'sex hormone pollutants'. Dioxin pollution causes a more significant drop in the male birth rate. This has been observed in one Russian city and in some parts of SE Asia. There's a small community in Canada where the male birth rate has gone from 52% in 1993 to 33% some years later. It is located near a large industrial area and the exact reason is unknown.

This is not the best thread that's ever graced the forums here. As I understand it 1♣ when played as 2+ requires an alert. No argument and good reason as opponents may choose to play a 2♣ overcall not as showing 2 suits. 1M-2♣ when 2♣ is just an artificial game force commencing some conventional sequences requires an alert. No argument as double of 2♣ will take on a different meaning. 1M-2♣ when 2♣ is natural game force required no alert. No dispute. 1M-2♣ when holding a 2443 hand, say, where you've simply exercised judgment because of suit quality and your usual bid with this shape would be 2♦ then no alert is required. Very little or no argument (although some seem to think there is but I don't think they are understanding the different positions being put). 1M-2♣ when 2♣ is GF with clubs or any balanced hand denying an unbid 5-card suit then there is dispute. In my opinion it should be alerted as clubs or balanced. For example, if the auction went 1M-2c-3nt all pass and the opening leader held KJ9xx clubs then the alert might make a difference to their lead decision. I think theres is a fair bit of posturing in this thread - usual internet messageboard stuff. There's also a lot of legal type obfuscation and sometimes it's not clear (to me) precisely what people mean. For example JDonn said 'he would make this bid 17000% of the time'. You can take this 2 ways though - either he bids all hands with this shape 2cl OR he sometimes exercises judgement and in this case the judgement is totally clear and 17000% is just an expression of how clear he thinks that judgement is. (There is no criticism here - just from reading the thread it's clear people took this statement as quite important in forming a judgement.) Why did I bother to post? I usually just read the forums without ever logging on - I find them useful and mostly entertaining. One partner and I are playing 1M-2c as 'clubs or balanced' online and we alert it - but my partner argues that it is not necessary. I referred her to this thread. Her comment was 'lawyers who play bridge are the same the world over - males who are clear as mud and always 34000% right. It's like watching parliament.'.

It probably has - but only in the particular conditions that exist in the labatory does the change confer a survival advantage leading to its persistence. (Note ; I think all the AAA's should be ABC's). This sequential point mutations model of evolution perhaps predicated at some point on simultaneous mutations is probably less significant than larger genetic mistakes (such as genome duplication) in evolution. 15000 human genes are thought to have resulted from duplication errors. There is controversy about how significant genome duplication is but to illustrate how it works using your example... The problem with ABC->ABc->Abc ... -> abc by many different pathways etc is that you lose the functionality of ABC which is often essential. If instead ABC becomes ABCABC - two genomes instead of one - then ABC can persist and its copy can mutate freely without necessarily losing any functionality and might ultimately produce an abc - and the 'survivability-functionality' of the mutations in the copy may not be so significant provided you have the original ABC. There is a well documented case of genome duplication in monkeys (http://www.umich.edu/~zhanglab/publications/2002/Zhang_2002_NatGenet_30_411.pdf) where the duplication is thought to have occurred millions of years ago. I have no idea what molecular processes are happenng here in the E.Coli - but the stored generational samples may unlock a lot of clues.

I think the change that occurred was a 'potentiating' mutation - rather than a mutation which conferred the cit+ ability but where the expression was delayed. Rather than the change being some single point mutations or a simultaneous rare combination of point mutations that led to a survival advantage it's more likley to have been some phenomenum like genome duplication where a whole genome gets duplicated during replication (this is still a 'mutation' of course). These sort of phenomena are thought to be more significant in evolution than single point mutations. Let's say there are 2 food sources in the medium but e.coli only have an enzyme for breaking down one - but this enzyme is close in shape and configuration to the enzyme that would be needed to break down the other food source. If the genome for this enzyme got duplicated then the 'potential' arises for 2 different enzymes - but only e.coli with the duplicate genomes have this potential. What's significant about these stored generations is the potential to understand the sequences of events at a molecular level that led to such a large change. Im not a mathematician or population biologist/geneticist either. My understnading is that a phenomenum known as genetic drift occurs in small populations where the population loses a lot of genetic variability and and mutational changes are likely to become population wide quickly. In large sexually reproducing populations however, the increasing population wide incidence of mutations which confer a small survival advantage can take a huge number of generations to be seen - and can often die out if the survival advantage is not significant enough.

The 'visualize' thing is interesting... In chess I can play without a board - and can picture what the board will look like a number of moves ahead. I used to catch the train to school and play chess against a friend with no pieces or board - much to the amusement of others on the train. In bridge I can't visualise a thing - the missing cards somehow make it impossible - you not only have to picture different possible hands but then diffierent possible plays. And Im really bad at using inferences to help make a picture of the missing cards. In chess everything is known - in bridge there are a lot of unkmowns. I also think the difference between my chess skill is I started playing at 6 - but didnt play bridge till I was much older. In chess I had access to top players and listening to them was the best way to learn - the stuff you don't get from books. I dont have the same access in bridge - and often there would be not a lot of point me going over the hands because when I can see all 4 hands I can (sometimes) see the errors but the conditions dont replicate the problem i was facing.

There was a well supported hypohesis that the development of oral polio vaccine (OPV) could have played a role in the early propagation of the HIV epidemic. However, when supporting evidence was sought, it was not found. Now it is generally not thought to have played any role in the HIV epidemic. The most accepted theory is that the precursor to HIV is a virus known as SIV that occurs in monkeys. HIV closer to that seen in humans has been documented in a particular (protected) chimpanzee population that feeds on SIV-infected monkeys. There are two common strains of SIV and it is believed they recombined within chimpanzees to form a virus closer to HIV. (It is possible that colonization and destruction of habitat caused migration of the chimpanzees and exposure to monkeys with different sorts of SIV) It is likely that human hunters became infected with HIV from hunting chimpanzees. By estimating the changes in genetic patterns between the HIV found in chimpanzees and the first HIV infections in humans it is thought that HIV first crossed into humans somewhere betweeen 1915 and 1945. The first confirmed cases (from stored samples) were in West Africa in the late 1950s, USA in a teenager in the late 1960s and in Norway in the mid-70s. Recently another retrovirus (SFV or simian foamy virus) has been shown to have spread from non-human primates to human hunters. (SFV doesnt cause serious illness in humans). This confirms that cross species transmission of retroviruses occurs.

It feels to me that the 'global food crisis' as it is being called is the firestorm of global warming. International rice prices are projected to increase by another 100% in the next two months. As I understand it the reasons for the current shotage are: i) decrease in arable land (global warming? and use of land for housing i.e. overpopulation) ii) a run of 'bad' years for crops (global warming? and usual variance) iii) overpopulation (increased demand) iv) and probably the biggest reason why this suddenly became a 'crisis' - traditional food crops being used to make biofuels (and to supply Bransons mad idea to run his planes on biofuels would take 66% of the UKs agriculture) Possible things to do about it: i) make farming practices more efficient (inefficent farming is massively subsidised in the US, Japan and Europe) ii) a liitle more sense on biofuels (mostly they seem like a bad idea) - it seems to me that the current redirection of food to biofuels penalises the poorest who did the least to contribute to global warming.

In Australia, a country which does not have a large 'gun culture' and has tough gun control laws, one of the state governments went to an election with a platform that included tougher gun control. It became the main election issue, the state government was wiped out and members of the 'shooters party' were elected to the states' upper house. Research after the election showed that gun laws were one of those issues where close to 10% of people (those who oppose gun control) were prepared to change their vote regardless of other issues. I have no idea how Obama's comments will play out in American politics, but being perceived to attack 'guns', judging by the impact it had here, could be very costly. I imagine McCain is celebrating and there is a high chance that guns will now feature hugely in an Obama vs McCain election.

These are the non-competitive bidding sequences I know about which are commonly used as splinters i) double jump shift over a major 1h - 3s/4c/4d 1s - 4c/4d/4h (The use of 4h here has been known to cause disasters...) or 1d-1h-4c ii) jump reverses 1c-1M-3d 1c-1s-3h 1d-1s-3h (double jump reverses can also be used to show shortage - I use these to show voids - not sure what's 'standard') iii) double jump in the 4th suit eg. 1c-1d-1h-3s iv) some jumps in 2/1 auctions 1h-2c-3d (= 4+ clubs and diamond shortage) v) double jump shift over 1 minor 1c-3d/3h/3s 1d-3h/3s vi) also a number play over 1nt followed by a transfer to a mnior then a new suit as shortage (but this is definitely an agreement thing) Then theres conventional uses eg. a) Jacoby 2nt 1M-2nt then 3 new suit shows shortage :blink: 1nt-3M shows shortage (this is part of BBO advanced I think) Splinters can also be shown in competition i) jump cue of a 2 level overcall 1h-2c(overcall)-4c ii) jump in a suit shown by a michaels cue bid or unusual nt eg 1h-2nt(UNt minors)-4c(shortage)

This is being given a run by the NY times because of this story... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/science/...nyt&oref=slogin It looks like some of the original key research on monkeys and cognitive dissonance was just restricted choice and not 'dissonance'

I made the 'wtp' bids (4s and pass) - 4h made (4s didnt) and double worked out better on the 2nd hand... a few pairs including the winners found 4h, quite a few scrambled to 3h on the 2nd one.

My bdding decisions on these 2 hands cost us 1st place. What would you bid? Hand 1 [hv=v=n&s=sk10xxhj109xxxxdxcx]133|100|Scoring: MP 1c-1s-pass-?[/hv] Hand 2 [hv=v=n&s=sk10xxhj109xxxxdxcx]133|100|Scoring: MP 1c-1s-pass-?[/hv]

the code is rumsfeld

The only precision version I've played was based on Rigal's book precision in the 90s. The methods he recommended after 1c-1M positive were :- 4M = min balanced no slam interest 3M = balanced slam try with good trump support Double jump shift = min splinter 2M = trump ask after which the asker could show a max with splinter Alternatively as an option instead of double jump shift as splinter he suggested you could use 3M as 19+ with 4 trumps and a splinter/void 3M+1 as min with undisclosed splinter higher than 3M+1 as min with void

I can't remember a time when 'should of' (though it usually means should've, it sounds like should of) and 'shoulda' weren't often used by Australians of all ages - so I don't think this is an 'only in North America' thing.

I have a fantasy that I could morph into a cartoon character like Bart Simpson carrying a megaphone scream 'STOP!' and a 'reality' beam would boom down from the skies, making people wonder what the point is any more in participating in this thread and would magically stop. Back to reality... When this thread questions were 'was my censorship appropriate' and 'do we have standards?' there was a point. When it becomes 'did so and so behave well', and accusations about appropriate behaviour from all over the pace there no longer seems to be a point and the 'argument' is unwinnable and unimportant (its probably a metaphor for something else). I say this as an outsider. This is the best bridge message board on the net by kilometres. I like jillybeans posts - they often turn out to be very instructive. I like Hans posts and problems for the same reason. And I love the energy that a number of genuine expert bridge players give to their replies (awm, mikeh, jdonn, jlall, fredg etc etc etc etc - sorry I cant be exhaustive). And in general though everyone doesnt get along there is acceptance of diversity and difference as there should be. I've seen other messageboards degenerate at times into factionalism, personal attacks that to an observer are just tedium and usually lead to less participation. That rarely happens here. This thread now has the feel it could head in that direction now - and frankly there has been some 'not perfectly appropriate' behaviour from a number of people in the last 30 or so posts. If this is a discussion you need to have then go at it but if there is no longer a clear reason then there are times tactical withdrawal is a good idea. So slap me instead.

lol chill - I have a brother doing his post-grad in Canada. He says 'anyways' and 'anywho' and 'aboot' quite often now. The reference reminded me of him - nothing else.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=anyways - I like definition 4

This argument reminds me of a now defunct online bridge site. When they were setting up they did a survey of potential subscribers and the #1 thing people wanted was measures to prevent online messenger programs. A number of people said i) it wouldnt stop cheating and ii) it would mean decreasing the enjoyment for many people for whom being able to chat while online is a major part of what they like to do while playing bridge Sure enough they implemented software to make using messenger more difficult, it did nothing to diminish the rate of actual cheating as far as I know and I know of a whole lot of people who chose not to play or stay there because of the difficulty in using messenger. Making cellphones unavailable will not diminish actual cheating (Joshs posts demonstrate this) but they will increase the perception that it is harder to cheat and get the approval of a whole lot of members as a result (despite actually achieving nothing). The unintended impact is that a whole lot of people (and most likely more younger members) will choose not to go to these events at all - which seems unwise. (BTW I totally loathe mobile phones - having experienced being on call 24/7 - but they have become a necessary part of the way I live unfortunately)

I would have said 0/10 myself... but which one is not 'not'?

1. Not 100 2. Not Panama 3. Not cats (though there is more than one animal...) 4. Not October (though depends on what calandar you're using) 5. Not camels 6. Not canaries 7. Not George 8. Not purple (though the males and females have different colours) 9. Not China 10. Not black Do I win? (I think I actually know 6 but Ive seen some before... I know approximately no 1 but Im not sure if you count the no. of years between the start and end where there was no war...)

This is a hand 11 declarers played in 4s. According to GIB it's cold for 11 tricks. 4 declarers made due to a defense error after taking the same line as the declarers who went off. The rest (including a few 'stars') went off. (Im not sure the 'making' line is necessarily the best line though which is sort of why Im posting the hand). [hv=d=n&v=n&n=skj82h94da762ca83&s=sq753hakq763d85ck]133|200|Scoring: IMP 1d-1h-1s-4s[/hv] First five tricks were usually.. Q♣ taken by king Small♦ to A♦ Ace of ♣ discarding diamond Heart (both defenders following) Spade to K or J holding (both defenders following) Your play?

A long time ago I found these three articles on doubles useful... http://www.prairienet.org/bridge/BB/b_dbl1.htm http://www.prairienet.org/bridge/BB/b_dbl2.htm http://www.prairienet.org/bridge/BB/b_dbl3.htm

How I play these bids would be: 5+/5+ clubs and hearts Unbid suits I play this as 5+/5+ hearts and clubs too - with a bigger than 1nt hand I x Unbid suits or very strong hand