@A fifteen-year-old “Yahoo!” joke said:
Straight from the horse’s mouth: houyhnhnm.com. Because you’re not just some yahoo.
Here's some interesting reading for you: Wet Goddess. It's a heart-warming autobiographical tale of love, life, and "consensual" dolphin-human sex.
Why, thank you so very much. In return, may I suggest this link: ‹http://amazon.com/s?field-keywords=brain+bleach›.
What about Heaven? Can you confirm that Jews don't really believe in it?
This is not exactly like Christian ideas of Heaven and Hell, but Jews do believe in Divine reward and punishment after death; see http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/4467/70.@argb said:
@Zecc said:Can someone tell me why it isn't kosher to, on sabbath, just have someone else around to do all the work?
It most certainly is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbos_goy
Also, 'kosher' only refers to the suitability of food being consumed by an observant Jew, not to any other law or anything non-food related.
The Wikipedia page does point out that, “Generally speaking, a Jew should respect a non-Jew's right to rest on the Sabbath, and therefore may not explicitly ask a non-Jew to perform a service prohibited by the Jewish law on the Sabbath.” In other words, using a non-Jew is another loophole, and there are guidelines on when this is or is not approriate.
(Also, the Hebrew word kosher literally means “appropriate”, so Zecc’s use of the word was, in fact, kosher.)
As an practicing orthodox Jew myself, let me weigh in on this.
xaade summarized the technicalities pretty well; the issue most of you seem to be havng is the matter of hiding behind technicalities. And that’s not wrong. The vast majority of their target market (i.e. observant Jews) will see things the same way and not use this product, no matter how persuasive the manufacturer’s blurbs are. However—
There are times when “hiding behind technicalities” is appropriate: situations of hardship where most of you would be saying, “God couldn’t have meant for you to leave the lights off now, could He?” Probably not, but the Rules don’t tend to have complex exception clauses; they just say, “Don’t.”
It’s a different way of approaching rules and exceptions. You can have exceptions that need to be updated as technology develops, or you can set up eternal rules, but with loopholes—and depend on human judgement to decide when the use of the loophole is appropriate. Some religions take the first route; orthodox Judaism believes God treats us as responsible adults. (Some people’s behavior makes me wonder, though.)
When the guy who picked git gets back from vacation, I swear to Christ I'm going to send him on a permanent vacation.
Plus, his work “shows the patriarchal nature of the software industry.” (http://megan.geek.nz/index.php/how-git-shows-the-patriarchal-nature-of-the-software-industry/)@blakeyrat said:
Could you guys stop posting this bullshit in my thread? This isn't English 102.
Don’t give her her next paycheck; instead give her a duplicate of the last one.
An EE is someone who, when you tell him the "true / false / file_not_found" joke, laughs at you, not the joke, for thinking a boolean could have only as few as three states!
As an EE, I feel obligated to prove Dave correct. There is this issue in the field ℤ₂ (although those are not quite Boolean numbers; in ℤ₂, 1+1 = 0) where the equation x² + x + 1 = 0 has no solution. (0×0 + 0 + 1 = 1 = 1×1 + 1 + 1) So we define α as a sort of imaginary value for which α² + α + 1 = 0. Then we need to define another imaginary so that polynomials with 0, 1, & α have solutions, and so ad infinitum.
Seriously, EEs can make practical use of insanity like this.
BTW, Dave, say “hi” to my Dad next time you see him.
Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.