So, are you making that up, or simply quoting someone else who did?
I will note that estimating the size of "the closet" is like estimating the number of *nix installs. Some people will estimate way too high, and others will estimate way too low, depending on what their conflicting interests are. (And you don't attempt to measure and estimate something like this unless you have some kind of conflict of interest.)
30 years is actually an extreme version of a very common form of "things that are quite clearly permanent". If someone innocent spends 6 months in jail, it is just as permanent, equally unjust, only less damaging. They will never regain that time.
Similarly, someone who spends untold hours over several years fighting off a frivolous lawsuit (and earning the money to pay the lawyer's fees) has permanently lost time from their lives that they will never get back. It doesn't take criminal law to cause irreparable damage. Civil law does so regularly. (just less spectacularly)
Perhaps it would be better not to sentence innocent people in the first place. It's pretty hard to argue about punishments as long as you can't even trust the system with that.
Ok, you invent the technique that only allows the conviction of guilty parties. The only one that currently exists is to have no law, therefore no guilt and no convictions. Total anarchy sounds like a pretty bad idea to me.
That doesn't mean that our system is perfect, or even that it doesn't have a few major problems. It will always have some innocent people punished for crimes they didn't commit. It will take a truly significant "advancement" to change that. (some of those possible advancements would make Orwell cringe.)
... Not that there's anything wrong with asking Google or Slashdot, but the first place I would go is to their teachers....
Yes, but where do good teachers get their "additional tools"? There are a couple of places. (1) They go online. If they can do it, you can too. (2) They watch and see what their students and parents come up with. When they recognize a good idea, they'll perpetuate it. For this to work, some students and parents need to do independent research. (3) They use what they were taught with. (4) They receive teacher oriented marketing. Most of it is junk (as with all marketing), but there are nuggets there. (5) They come up with something radical on their own.
In short, asking the teacher is really a good idea. Asking the teacher, though, should not be the last and only step in searching for learning tools.
It's called self sustainability. Foreign goods and services can be a good source of variety and ideas in the market place (driving innovation, keeping prices reasonable). Yet every nation should be able to supply the essential goods and services to sustain its own population. That includes the functioning of their government.
When you're discussing government contracts, there's always the issue of loyalty, sabotage, and espionage. I don't envy any government that weighs contracts towards those less likely to turn around and bite them. How many undercover CIA agents have infiltrated Microsoft? It could be zero. How does Munich know? I don't. I doubt Microsoft does.
As far as "imaginary borders" goes, well, you're just flat wrong. Borders are indeed artificial. That's indisputable. The effects are certainly not imaginary. Borders are a way of saying: Fine - do whatever you like - just do it over there - You have your space, I have mine. Unfortunately, our governments are still like 5 year olds in the back of any car. "Mom! He's touching me again!" Until the "developed" nations grow up, we can't even begin to discuss how silly and imaginary those lines seem. As long as there are homicidal tyrants, locales with rampant disease, and unreasonable, unmitigated arbitrage between national laws, borders will have a positive role on the international stage.
Why do you say that? If you interpreted khasim's statement as implying that Germany can and should hire German programmers out of some kind of nationalism..., then that's offensive no matter which government we're talking about. ["besides myself"] I hardly ever hear people... saying that things like "Buy American-Made" is offensive...
I'm sure you haven't thought it through, but I find what you said highly distasteful. Faulty logic like that allows greedy sociopaths to destroy the American economy (and others). Let me tell you the dirty little secret of free trade.
In the USA, we've legislated a minimum level of ethics: Minimum wages, child labor laws, work condition laws, environmental laws, etc. These laws are very good things (generally). Many countries around the world have implemented these (and better), but many have not. Businesses very rarely outsource work to places where labor is more expensive. They'll pick places where labor is cheep, places that have no decency in their employment practices. Some of these places work children at slave wages under inhumane conditions for almost every waking hour of every day.
The bosses of such shops claim that working for foreign (1st world) companies is a boon to their employees. Sometimes that's true. Sometimes it's just a very sweet lie. I'm going to set this aside for a moment, and come back to it.
Where does that leave 1st world countries like the USA? Our work force cannot compete within our own markets with cheep imports from places with unethical labor practices. It's an insult to common sense to believe otherwise. As a result, we have a greatly reduced industrial/manufacturing sector. Our spending on imports leads to a trade deficit and debt (on several levels). It is only a matter of time before this house of cards falls apart. (This is only one of the problems that is leading us to economic collapse.)
I propose a reasonable accommodation. Companies that opt in and follow USA federal law can import without tariff. Companies that don't, get charged. Yeah, it is a bit protectionist, but not unreasonably so. It's sad that it's necessary, but that's life. The upswing for foreign employees? They get to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Even without employment through American shell companies, their markets will continue to "emerge" if their efforts and their governments are properly focused. (Both are really required, and both are their responsibility.)
Does that mean that all imports are evil? No. It does mean, though, that there is value in favoring "Made in USA". That will be true whenever an import has an unfair advantage. (Better skilled artisans and smaller bureaucracies don't constitute unfair advantages.) "Free trade" sounds good. It is a desirable ideal. Unfortunately it has become a code-phrase for "Let us skirt around these inconvenient laws." Until that is dealt with, true free trade will forever be elusive.
I haven't tried Arch yet, but I have tried Gentoo. Installation took days, and upgrades took hours*. I know it's cliche at this point, but there really is a lot of truth to the accusations. I'm given to understand that Gentoo is optimal in offices and labs that rely on distcc because it greatly decreases compile time.
*(It was years ago, and I haven't really looked back. Maybe I will eventually. Maybe things have improved. I have been quite happy with Debian, though. I just wish that Sun would get a clue.)
I think this was back when OOo 3 came out, and it wasn't in the Debian repository yet (not even in sid). Using the repository wasn't an option, and I was looking forward to exploring the new features.
I'm given to understand that Debian and Ubuntu historically maintained package parity. I don't know about currently, but I hope the compatibility will last. I think it's healthy.
I wish I could merely stick with the default repository. It just doesn't seem to work out that way for me (but then, I'm not most people).
Sorry. What I'm really complaining about, I guess, is that the last time I installed the.deb files from openoffice.org it was a real pain to install due to a circular dependency. The common recommendation? Install from the distro repository and then upgrade to the downloaded.deb file. That's just ridiculous. They should have no more than N+1 packages, and no circular dependencies.
... perhaps specifically those who are arrogant enough to think that what man wrote in a book is more important that the intentions that an omniscient God should be fully aware of...
Ah, but an Orthodox Jew would tell you that man did not author the book. God himself did. Men just recorded it for him. Every word must therefore be perfect. It's how they get themselves twisted up in their silly little tangles - a great many Christian religions do too, for that matter.
Other sects... tend to look at their holy writings as part of their culture, not writings to be interpreted literally.
Many Christians do too. I find it sad, really. (Not the setting aside of ancient interpretations, but of setting aside the importance and respect of those authors. They either saw what they saw and did what they did, or the book is merely a piece of literature.)
You can't paint all Jews with one brush on these sorts of things, just like you can't with all Christians.
Fair enough.
I'd lump myself into the boat of "American cultural Jews"... But I don't believe in an omnipotent God, or believe that if there is such a God he is disjoint from our universe and unknowable to us,...
I don't believe he is either disjoint from our universe or unknowable to us. I hope you will come to believe in his existence and power, but this doesn't seem to be the time to dwell on such things.
... and that good and bad behavior should be motivated by a working ethical framework, not religious fear.
I dislike the terms good/bad, right/wrong in this context. They're way too ambiguous. I prefer legal/illegal, ethical/unethical, and moral/immoral. I think each distinction has its place. I do agree that ethics based on the golden rule should permeate our society.
In any case, the question the Orthodox Jews are dealing with seems to be about when a person can be considered dead - I fail to see why their religious scholars don't admit the limits of their expertise and acknowledge that this is a question better determined by medical science and the families of the deceased than by themselves.
The medical community is incapable of determining when the soul is gone. Indeed, they do not (as a profession) admit to the existence of a soul. The typical family member does not understand the intricacies of either medicine or theology. (Granted, it ultimately is their choice.) Therefore, in the absence of other experts, the spiritual adviser is expected to choose a position. It is either that or admit that nobody knows the answer to a very, very important question. The scenario is rational. The position seems rational, even if an irrational double standard is based on it.
Uhm, in your first sentence that I quoted you are, indeed, specifying that people who are Jewish are worse than other groups in this regard. One might consider judging a whole group like that to be prejudiced
I knew that would be too tempting for somebody.
My church places a heavy emphasis on proselyting. As I believe the teachings of my church, this makes perfect, logical sense. On the other hand, I'm not blind to the fact that we have more irrational Bible thumping zealots harassing society than the average religion. (The leadership try to avoid it, but individuals make their own choices.)
By your logic, I might be considered prejudiced against my own religion.
(Note that I went out of my way to emphasized the "rich and arrogant", a combination that is never healthy. Note also that "knack" doesn't imply behavior, but ability and sometimes predisposition. Many street corner magicians have a knack for petty theft, even if they've never stolen anything: "Is this your watch?")
It might be said: Prejudice is as prejudice does. Do you assume that a specific person of a given culture/race/religion is going to behave in a fashion you consider unacceptable? That assumption leads you to action, and is half of the root of prejudice. The other half is the us-versus-them mentality. If broad observations equated prejudice, you would need to apply the term to the profession of anthropology (who would generally be insulted by the accusation).
I agree with the sentiment that you should get as you give, and that someone shouldn't expect donations if they aren't willing to give them. Dogma be damned. I don't think that Jews as a whole (or even just the wealthy ones) are any worse than other group in this regard.
Sorry if that transition caught you. I didn't mean to imply that Jews were the only ones with this issue, or that money was involved in this particular problem. I was responding to the parent post in general terms first (the level he was on), and then went more specific to the main article.
As far as loopholes go, there is a cultural tradition for Jews to read, discuss, debate, and interpret the meaning of their laws. This can lead to some pretty bizarre practices, but how they follow their religion is up to them.
True. Hence: "Making up fresh contradictions is only amusing when lives aren't on the line." Generally, I give a very wide berth to allow people to live their religion as they choose. Their rights end where someone else's begins. That's the only basis for debate here (and elsewhere).
I disagree. It's not a loophole. It's God's amnesty program. He intends for us to take advantage of it, even commands us to, and that makes all the difference.
Rich and arrogant Jews* have been doing this forever. A quick glance through the New Testament is proof of this. (Even if one doesn't hold it to be scripture, it really is ancient.) Rich people of all religions seem to do it, but wealthy Jews seem to have a knack for it.
*(With very strong emphasis on "rich and arrogant". One of my closest friends from High School is a practicing Jew and I have no patience for antisemitism.)
I'm not sure what drives the transplant double standard. Reiterating ancient nonsense** that doesn't reasonably stem from scripture (but is tradition) is forgivable, even understandable. Making up fresh contradictions is only amusing when lives aren't on the line.
**(It happens sometimes. I heard some today in my church. Let's stay calm, please.)
The following (from the article) is probably part of it:
But it has also raised resistance from within Israel's ultra-Orthodox Jewish minority... Most leading Orthodox rabbis — as well as Israeli law — agree that a person dies when his brain-stem stops functioning. A minority opinion, endorsed by Elyashiv, holds that as long as a person's heart beats he or she is alive and therefore the organs cannot be harvested. Donation in Israel after cardiac death is rare and only done in special circumstances.
It's still a double standard. If you can accept such a donation, you can give such a donation. I agree with you: God certainly knows where that organ came from. (He also won't blame recipients who were not conscious when the decision was made. etc.)
(Most transplants in Israel are done while the donor's heart is still beating!?!?! Am I misreading this?)
Final disclaimer: I'm posting while quite tired. I know I shouldn't. The above certainly contains mistakes. Perhaps egregious ones.
Oh come on. You can do better than that. "I hope they find it quickly. Maybe it rolled under the couch?" or "How do they intend to call it back, I wonder?". I'm sure there's a good boxer joke in there somewhere (loosening someone else's face).
Boys! Boys! No need to fight! Well, of course this is Slashdot... But we're going to need those missile launchers. Be careful with those pitchforks. They're sharp. I have some cork if you need it.
and don't show 50 different OpenOffice packages. 1 listing for OpenOffice-- either you want it or you don't.
Very true. Granted, they're only doing it because the come from Sun that way. (the blame should be shared) Besides, don't most systems have a virtual package for that? (The others should be hidden in your proposed easy-mode.)
Sadly not the best illustration because, as the page you cite states "The bill never became law." I was trying to find a reference to the old NSW Measurement Act, which I believe (but don't quote me) implied that the world was flat (by defining parallel lines, for the purposes of land surveying, as extending on an infinite horizontal plane), but it seems to have been repealed in the era before online legislation.:(
Interesting. I get your point, though my example was legislating a number;)
Oh, and the the smiley was there to dispel the notion that this could not in fact lead to situations which might properly be called "ridiculous."
Yeah, I got that. Likewise I titled my post "Obligatory" to indicate a relevant example. (It doesn't always mean "counterpoint".)
What is ridiculous about illegal numbers? If the parliament says a number is illegal, (and that parliament has the power to legislate with respect to the legality of numbers), then that number is illegal. It's all terribly straightforward.;)
You can't really worry about the runtime limit since it should be rather liberal for a student's competition...
As the summary says "Accepted languages" (presumably the competition rules), I would tend to agree. They're not going to ask your students to complete something that those languages cannot reasonably accomplish. Bad C++ code will be slower than halfway-decent Python code. Teach a good foundation, and let the chips fall where they may.
You've just described the tailspin that we're in. To get out of it, somebody must loose face because their device/system is incapable of supporting open and free standards. It's sad that the end users will be collateral damage to this, but the sooner it happens, the better off we'll be.
Pseudoephedrine is a good example of an otc that has had its availability restricted because of its illicit use.
Good argument, bad example. It's not pseudoephrine that people were abusing, but meth derived from it. Granted, most of the OTC risk is from not following proper dosage, or mixing drugs.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that some 5% of males are gay,...
So, are you making that up, or simply quoting someone else who did?
I will note that estimating the size of "the closet" is like estimating the number of *nix installs. Some people will estimate way too high, and others will estimate way too low, depending on what their conflicting interests are. (And you don't attempt to measure and estimate something like this unless you have some kind of conflict of interest.)
30 years is actually an extreme version of a very common form of "things that are quite clearly permanent". If someone innocent spends 6 months in jail, it is just as permanent, equally unjust, only less damaging. They will never regain that time.
Similarly, someone who spends untold hours over several years fighting off a frivolous lawsuit (and earning the money to pay the lawyer's fees) has permanently lost time from their lives that they will never get back. It doesn't take criminal law to cause irreparable damage. Civil law does so regularly. (just less spectacularly)
... and there is no more expensive prison time to taxpayers than solitary.
Really? How so?
I've heard that the death penalty is more expensive than life (something's way out of kilter here), but I hadn't heard this.
Perhaps it would be better not to sentence innocent people in the first place. It's pretty hard to argue about punishments as long as you can't even trust the system with that.
Ok, you invent the technique that only allows the conviction of guilty parties. The only one that currently exists is to have no law, therefore no guilt and no convictions. Total anarchy sounds like a pretty bad idea to me.
That doesn't mean that our system is perfect, or even that it doesn't have a few major problems. It will always have some innocent people punished for crimes they didn't commit. It will take a truly significant "advancement" to change that. (some of those possible advancements would make Orwell cringe.)
... Not that there's anything wrong with asking Google or Slashdot, but the first place I would go is to their teachers....
Yes, but where do good teachers get their "additional tools"? There are a couple of places. (1) They go online. If they can do it, you can too. (2) They watch and see what their students and parents come up with. When they recognize a good idea, they'll perpetuate it. For this to work, some students and parents need to do independent research. (3) They use what they were taught with. (4) They receive teacher oriented marketing. Most of it is junk (as with all marketing), but there are nuggets there. (5) They come up with something radical on their own.
In short, asking the teacher is really a good idea. Asking the teacher, though, should not be the last and only step in searching for learning tools.
It's called self sustainability. Foreign goods and services can be a good source of variety and ideas in the market place (driving innovation, keeping prices reasonable). Yet every nation should be able to supply the essential goods and services to sustain its own population. That includes the functioning of their government.
When you're discussing government contracts, there's always the issue of loyalty, sabotage, and espionage. I don't envy any government that weighs contracts towards those less likely to turn around and bite them. How many undercover CIA agents have infiltrated Microsoft? It could be zero. How does Munich know? I don't. I doubt Microsoft does.
As far as "imaginary borders" goes, well, you're just flat wrong. Borders are indeed artificial. That's indisputable. The effects are certainly not imaginary. Borders are a way of saying: Fine - do whatever you like - just do it over there - You have your space, I have mine. Unfortunately, our governments are still like 5 year olds in the back of any car. "Mom! He's touching me again!" Until the "developed" nations grow up, we can't even begin to discuss how silly and imaginary those lines seem. As long as there are homicidal tyrants, locales with rampant disease, and unreasonable, unmitigated arbitrage between national laws, borders will have a positive role on the international stage.
Why do you say that? If you interpreted khasim's statement as implying that Germany can and should hire German programmers out of some kind of nationalism..., then that's offensive no matter which government we're talking about. ["besides myself"] I hardly ever hear people... saying that things like "Buy American-Made" is offensive...
I'm sure you haven't thought it through, but I find what you said highly distasteful. Faulty logic like that allows greedy sociopaths to destroy the American economy (and others). Let me tell you the dirty little secret of free trade.
In the USA, we've legislated a minimum level of ethics: Minimum wages, child labor laws, work condition laws, environmental laws, etc. These laws are very good things (generally). Many countries around the world have implemented these (and better), but many have not. Businesses very rarely outsource work to places where labor is more expensive. They'll pick places where labor is cheep, places that have no decency in their employment practices. Some of these places work children at slave wages under inhumane conditions for almost every waking hour of every day.
The bosses of such shops claim that working for foreign (1st world) companies is a boon to their employees. Sometimes that's true. Sometimes it's just a very sweet lie. I'm going to set this aside for a moment, and come back to it.
Where does that leave 1st world countries like the USA? Our work force cannot compete within our own markets with cheep imports from places with unethical labor practices. It's an insult to common sense to believe otherwise. As a result, we have a greatly reduced industrial/manufacturing sector. Our spending on imports leads to a trade deficit and debt (on several levels). It is only a matter of time before this house of cards falls apart. (This is only one of the problems that is leading us to economic collapse.)
I propose a reasonable accommodation. Companies that opt in and follow USA federal law can import without tariff. Companies that don't, get charged. Yeah, it is a bit protectionist, but not unreasonably so. It's sad that it's necessary, but that's life. The upswing for foreign employees? They get to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Even without employment through American shell companies, their markets will continue to "emerge" if their efforts and their governments are properly focused. (Both are really required, and both are their responsibility.)
Does that mean that all imports are evil? No. It does mean, though, that there is value in favoring "Made in USA". That will be true whenever an import has an unfair advantage. (Better skilled artisans and smaller bureaucracies don't constitute unfair advantages.) "Free trade" sounds good. It is a desirable ideal. Unfortunately it has become a code-phrase for "Let us skirt around these inconvenient laws." Until that is dealt with, true free trade will forever be elusive.
I haven't tried Arch yet, but I have tried Gentoo. Installation took days, and upgrades took hours*. I know it's cliche at this point, but there really is a lot of truth to the accusations. I'm given to understand that Gentoo is optimal in offices and labs that rely on distcc because it greatly decreases compile time.
*(It was years ago, and I haven't really looked back. Maybe I will eventually. Maybe things have improved. I have been quite happy with Debian, though. I just wish that Sun would get a clue.)
I think this was back when OOo 3 came out, and it wasn't in the Debian repository yet (not even in sid). Using the repository wasn't an option, and I was looking forward to exploring the new features.
I'm given to understand that Debian and Ubuntu historically maintained package parity. I don't know about currently, but I hope the compatibility will last. I think it's healthy.
I wish I could merely stick with the default repository. It just doesn't seem to work out that way for me (but then, I'm not most people).
Sorry. What I'm really complaining about, I guess, is that the last time I installed the .deb files from openoffice.org it was a real pain to install due to a circular dependency. The common recommendation? Install from the distro repository and then upgrade to the downloaded .deb file. That's just ridiculous. They should have no more than N+1 packages, and no circular dependencies.
... perhaps specifically those who are arrogant enough to think that what man wrote in a book is more important that the intentions that an omniscient God should be fully aware of...
Ah, but an Orthodox Jew would tell you that man did not author the book. God himself did. Men just recorded it for him. Every word must therefore be perfect. It's how they get themselves twisted up in their silly little tangles - a great many Christian religions do too, for that matter.
Other sects... tend to look at their holy writings as part of their culture, not writings to be interpreted literally.
Many Christians do too. I find it sad, really. (Not the setting aside of ancient interpretations, but of setting aside the importance and respect of those authors. They either saw what they saw and did what they did, or the book is merely a piece of literature.)
You can't paint all Jews with one brush on these sorts of things, just like you can't with all Christians.
Fair enough.
I'd lump myself into the boat of "American cultural Jews"... But I don't believe in an omnipotent God, or believe that if there is such a God he is disjoint from our universe and unknowable to us,...
I don't believe he is either disjoint from our universe or unknowable to us. I hope you will come to believe in his existence and power, but this doesn't seem to be the time to dwell on such things.
... and that good and bad behavior should be motivated by a working ethical framework, not religious fear.
I dislike the terms good/bad, right/wrong in this context. They're way too ambiguous. I prefer legal/illegal, ethical/unethical, and moral/immoral. I think each distinction has its place. I do agree that ethics based on the golden rule should permeate our society.
In any case, the question the Orthodox Jews are dealing with seems to be about when a person can be considered dead - I fail to see why their religious scholars don't admit the limits of their expertise and acknowledge that this is a question better determined by medical science and the families of the deceased than by themselves.
The medical community is incapable of determining when the soul is gone. Indeed, they do not (as a profession) admit to the existence of a soul. The typical family member does not understand the intricacies of either medicine or theology. (Granted, it ultimately is their choice.) Therefore, in the absence of other experts, the spiritual adviser is expected to choose a position. It is either that or admit that nobody knows the answer to a very, very important question. The scenario is rational. The position seems rational, even if an irrational double standard is based on it.
Uhm, in your first sentence that I quoted you are, indeed, specifying that people who are Jewish are worse than other groups in this regard. One might consider judging a whole group like that to be prejudiced
I knew that would be too tempting for somebody.
My church places a heavy emphasis on proselyting. As I believe the teachings of my church, this makes perfect, logical sense. On the other hand, I'm not blind to the fact that we have more irrational Bible thumping zealots harassing society than the average religion. (The leadership try to avoid it, but individuals make their own choices.)
By your logic, I might be considered prejudiced against my own religion.
(Note that I went out of my way to emphasized the "rich and arrogant", a combination that is never healthy. Note also that "knack" doesn't imply behavior, but ability and sometimes predisposition. Many street corner magicians have a knack for petty theft, even if they've never stolen anything: "Is this your watch?")
It might be said: Prejudice is as prejudice does. Do you assume that a specific person of a given culture/race/religion is going to behave in a fashion you consider unacceptable? That assumption leads you to action, and is half of the root of prejudice. The other half is the us-versus-them mentality. If broad observations equated prejudice, you would need to apply the term to the profession of anthropology (who would generally be insulted by the accusation).
I agree with the sentiment that you should get as you give, and that someone shouldn't expect donations if they aren't willing to give them. Dogma be damned. I don't think that Jews as a whole (or even just the wealthy ones) are any worse than other group in this regard.
Sorry if that transition caught you. I didn't mean to imply that Jews were the only ones with this issue, or that money was involved in this particular problem. I was responding to the parent post in general terms first (the level he was on), and then went more specific to the main article.
As far as loopholes go, there is a cultural tradition for Jews to read, discuss, debate, and interpret the meaning of their laws. This can lead to some pretty bizarre practices, but how they follow their religion is up to them.
True. Hence: "Making up fresh contradictions is only amusing when lives aren't on the line." Generally, I give a very wide berth to allow people to live their religion as they choose. Their rights end where someone else's begins. That's the only basis for debate here (and elsewhere).
I disagree. It's not a loophole. It's God's amnesty program. He intends for us to take advantage of it, even commands us to, and that makes all the difference.
How in the world is the parent post a Troll?
Think about it. If the Executive, Legislature, Judge, and Jury were all one person (God) is he going to give any leeway to loopholes?
Obvious, maybe (to some), but not Troll.
Rich and arrogant Jews* have been doing this forever. A quick glance through the New Testament is proof of this. (Even if one doesn't hold it to be scripture, it really is ancient.) Rich people of all religions seem to do it, but wealthy Jews seem to have a knack for it.
*(With very strong emphasis on "rich and arrogant". One of my closest friends from High School is a practicing Jew and I have no patience for antisemitism.)
I'm not sure what drives the transplant double standard. Reiterating ancient nonsense** that doesn't reasonably stem from scripture (but is tradition) is forgivable, even understandable. Making up fresh contradictions is only amusing when lives aren't on the line.
**(It happens sometimes. I heard some today in my church. Let's stay calm, please.)
The following (from the article) is probably part of it:
But it has also raised resistance from within Israel's ultra-Orthodox Jewish minority... Most leading Orthodox rabbis — as well as Israeli law — agree that a person dies when his brain-stem stops functioning. A minority opinion, endorsed by Elyashiv, holds that as long as a person's heart beats he or she is alive and therefore the organs cannot be harvested. Donation in Israel after cardiac death is rare and only done in special circumstances.
It's still a double standard. If you can accept such a donation, you can give such a donation. I agree with you: God certainly knows where that organ came from. (He also won't blame recipients who were not conscious when the decision was made. etc.)
(Most transplants in Israel are done while the donor's heart is still beating!?!?! Am I misreading this?)
Final disclaimer: I'm posting while quite tired. I know I shouldn't. The above certainly contains mistakes. Perhaps egregious ones.
Oh come on. You can do better than that. "I hope they find it quickly. Maybe it rolled under the couch?" or "How do they intend to call it back, I wonder?". I'm sure there's a good boxer joke in there somewhere (loosening someone else's face).
Boys! Boys! No need to fight! Well, of course this is Slashdot... But we're going to need those missile launchers. Be careful with those pitchforks. They're sharp. I have some cork if you need it.
and don't show 50 different OpenOffice packages. 1 listing for OpenOffice-- either you want it or you don't.
Very true. Granted, they're only doing it because the come from Sun that way. (the blame should be shared) Besides, don't most systems have a virtual package for that? (The others should be hidden in your proposed easy-mode.)
Sadly not the best illustration because, as the page you cite states "The bill never became law." I was trying to find a reference to the old NSW Measurement Act, which I believe (but don't quote me) implied that the world was flat (by defining parallel lines, for the purposes of land surveying, as extending on an infinite horizontal plane), but it seems to have been repealed in the era before online legislation. :(
Interesting. I get your point, though my example was legislating a number ;)
Oh, and the the smiley was there to dispel the notion that this could not in fact lead to situations which might properly be called "ridiculous."
Yeah, I got that. Likewise I titled my post "Obligatory" to indicate a relevant example. (It doesn't always mean "counterpoint".)
What is ridiculous about illegal numbers? If the parliament says a number is illegal, (and that parliament has the power to legislate with respect to the legality of numbers), then that number is illegal. It's all terribly straightforward. ;)
Yes, terribly straightforward.
Python people don't (generally) claim Perl is slow. Their objection is the language itself.
(I liked my brief exposure to Perl, but it is a tough language to learn and retain.)
On the plus side, you could make a really spiffy "Hello World".
You can't really worry about the runtime limit since it should be rather liberal for a student's competition...
As the summary says "Accepted languages" (presumably the competition rules), I would tend to agree. They're not going to ask your students to complete something that those languages cannot reasonably accomplish. Bad C++ code will be slower than halfway-decent Python code. Teach a good foundation, and let the chips fall where they may.
(And I too vote Python, by the way.)
You've just described the tailspin that we're in. To get out of it, somebody must loose face because their device/system is incapable of supporting open and free standards. It's sad that the end users will be collateral damage to this, but the sooner it happens, the better off we'll be.
Pseudoephedrine is a good example of an otc that has had its availability restricted because of its illicit use.
Good argument, bad example. It's not pseudoephrine that people were abusing, but meth derived from it. Granted, most of the OTC risk is from not following proper dosage, or mixing drugs.