Law to swim between apples and oranges
Admittedly, this is a bit off topic for a techy guy.
In commenting my latest post, the Antitrust mentioned a new cool three-letter acronym--LAW. What's that? Is it really Linux Against Windows? <g>
Another (sensational) event occurred this weekend to make me thinking of law again. Quoting from NDTV.com:
Ian Thorpe disqualified at Olympic trials
Ian Thorpe will be unable to defend his Olympic 400 metres freestyle title in Athens in August after the world record holder was disqualified from the event at the Australian selection trials on Saturday.
I have two contrasting feelings about that (and similar stories happened in the past for famous US champions). Feeling #1 is that I admire this sense of law and rules. Feeling #2 is that all this is ridiculous. To use the words of Thorpe's strongest rival Pieter van den Hoogenband:
I find that so childish. It is laughable that he can't defend his title. He has done so much for Australian swimming and for Australia itself. It shows a lack of respect to treat him like this.
Guess what's my feeling #2? I totally subscribe to this point of view. Ruling out an absolute champion after a bad performance is acceptable to me--law is law; ruling out after an accident sounds like a dull application of law.
In general (and by saying so I'm probably confusing apples, oranges, and even kiwis), I believe that law must be understood and interpreted. Then, only then, applied. Computers need certain rules and never go beyond the logic you hard code. Humans should mount another type of software. Possibly and hopefully smarter...