473,838 Members | 1,637 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation


Dear all,

I would like to announce that the department of computer
science of the University of Namur, Belgium, is seeking a
post-doctoral researcher for a one-year fellowship in the area
of

(logic-based) program development, analysis and transformation.
Candidates should not be older than 35 years and hold a PhD in
computer science (or equivalent) acquired within the past five
years at a university outside Belgium.

For more details, please contact Wim Vanhoof (wv*@info.fundp .ac.be)
or visit http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~cri/Pos...cts/index.html
Please note the deadline for application is april 2, 2004.

Kind regards,
Wim Vanhoof.

------------------------------------------------------------
Wim Vanhoof E-mail: wv*@info.fundp. ac.be
University of Namur Tel. ++32(0)81.72.49 .77
Rue Grandgagnage, 21 Fax. ++32(0)81.72.52 .80
B-5000 Namur http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~wva
Belgium


Jul 17 '05
72 7003
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 06:00:29 -0600, Paul F. Dietz <di***@dls.ne t> wrote:
Wim Vanhoof wrote:

Candidates should not be older than 35 years


Hmm. In the US, I think that would be a violation of federal age
discrimination laws. (But IANAL)


How come requiring a US president to be at least 35 isn't
a violation of those same laws?
--
dg
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Jul 17 '05 #21
Don Groves wrote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 06:00:29 -0600, Paul F. Dietz <di***@dls.ne t> wrote:
Wim Vanhoof wrote:

Candidates should not be older than 35 years

Hmm. In the US, I think that would be a violation of federal age
discrimination laws. (But IANAL)

How come requiring a US president to be at least 35 isn't
a violation of those same laws?


Its constitutionall y based, meaning you cannot have a law that
superseeds the statements in the constutitions, whatever they may be.
Thats the first article of pretty much any constitution.

If someone would appeal the supreme court would rule in favor of the
constitution.

And that law could probably be judged as antequated though. The US
constitution isn't a "modern" constitution. IT has a lot of stuff in it
that shouldn't be there nowa days. Or sentences that should be re-made,
or dropped. Like the ammendments granting prohabition and then
repealing it.

But that's just my cannuck view of US law :)

Jul 17 '05 #22
Don Groves wrote:

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 06:00:29 -0600, Paul F. Dietz <di***@dls.ne t> wrote:
Wim Vanhoof wrote:

Candidates should not be older than 35 years


Hmm. In the US, I think that would be a violation of federal age
discrimination laws. (But IANAL)


How come requiring a US president to be at least 35 isn't
a violation of those same laws?


By definition, no, because it's in our Constitution. A law changing or
removing that age limit would be unconstitutiona l, and would get thrown
out by the Supreme Court.

But really what you're talking about here can't be discrimination (as
the term is usually meant). Children can't vote, much less hold public
office. It's well-established that children do not have the same rights
as adults until they reach a certain age (what age that is varies from
state to state). You don't, for instance, need a search warrant to
search a child's school locker (with the principal's permission), a
search that would be deemed illegal if it were an adult's personal
locker at work (even if the boss gave permission to perform the search).

Infants are incapable of voting or holding public office or being
drafted into the armed services (or _speaking_ for that matter), so a
line has to be drawn somewhere. Certainly one could debate where that
line should be drawn -- but clearly an age limit on holding public
office isn't unconstitutiona l, since age limits are everywhere and,
quite frankly, _required_ in the justice system.

--
__ Erik Max Francis && ma*@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
/ \ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
\__/ If the sky should fall, hold up your hands.
-- (a Spanish proverb)
Jul 17 '05 #23
Erik Max Francis <ma*@alcyone.co m> wrote
By definition, no, because it's in our Constitution. A law changing or
removing that age limit would be unconstitutiona l, and would get thrown
out by the Supreme Court.


Which is a fundamental flaw in the U.S. system. Without a formal notion
of human rights that supersedes the constitution, the U.S. would
perhaps be better off having no constitution at all. As evidence,
I present the current sorry efforts to change state and federal constitutions
to make certain discriminatory practices universal.
Jul 17 '05 #24
jo***********@y ahoo.com (Joan Estes) writes:
Erik Max Francis <ma*@alcyone.co m> wrote
By definition, no, because it's in our Constitution. A law changing or
removing that age limit would be unconstitutiona l, and would get thrown
out by the Supreme Court.


Which is a fundamental flaw in the U.S. system. Without a formal
notion of human rights that supersedes the constitution, the
U.S. would perhaps be better off having no constitution at all. As
evidence, I present the current sorry efforts to change state and
federal constitutions to make certain discriminatory practices
universal.


You are talking about gay marriage right? If you are there is nothing
preventing a gay man proposing to a woman and getting married or a gay
woman doing the same with a man. So they are not being discriminated
against.

Now no one is stopping them from living together in a monogamous
relationship if they want to. Now the financial and legal benefits
of marriage are there because the social purpose of marriage is to grow
the next generation of citizens and that is very expensive to do. Now
gay(same sex) couples do not produce children so they do not get the
economic drain that regular couples do so why should they get the
benefit's?

We also have a formal notion of rights it is called the constitution
the amendments to the constitution. And the people who wrote the US
constitution were not happy with it they just figured that it was the
best document they could write after years of trying. Also the fact
that the bar is so high for changing it is good because it prevents
all kinds of stupidity from happening. Societies that change too fast
fall apart.

marc
Jul 17 '05 #25
Marc Spitzer <ms******@opton line.net> writes:
jo***********@y ahoo.com (Joan Estes) writes:
Erik Max Francis <ma*@alcyone.co m> wrote
By definition, no, because it's in our Constitution. A law changing or
removing that age limit would be unconstitutiona l, and would get thrown
out by the Supreme Court.
Which is a fundamental flaw in the U.S. system. Without a formal
notion of human rights that supersedes the constitution, the
U.S. would perhaps be better off having no constitution at all. As
evidence, I present the current sorry efforts to change state and
federal constitutions to make certain discriminatory practices
universal.


You are talking about gay marriage right? If you are there is nothing
preventing a gay man proposing to a woman and getting married or a gay
woman doing the same with a man. So they are not being discriminated
against.


Oh, brother. Here we go again. (I'm going to be awfully glad when this
issue finally goes away, although it'll probably take 30-50 years.) I'm
getting really tired of hearing the same old arguments against same-sex
marriage, especially because I haven't heard one yet that holds up under
scrutiny.

They (well, ok, we) *are* being discriminated against, in the very real
sense that we are not allowed to marry whom we choose, in a way that does
not affect heterosexuals. In general, a heterosexual person is not
prevented from marrying the person of his/her choice.

Of course, there are consanguinity laws that do affect heterosexual
marriage. I don't have a problem with these; here, the state clearly has
an interest in forbidding such couples from having children, for reasons of
public health. No one has proved that the state has a similar interest in
the case of same-sex marriages.

And, to tie in another favorite anti-same-sex-marriage argument, how does
telling gay men to suck it up and marry a woman (or vice versa) protect the
"sanctity of marriage" (whatever that means)? Then, you have people
getting married primarily for tax benefits. That's not the kind of
commitment that marriage is supposed to be about, and that's not the kind
of commitment that the seven couples in Goodrich v. Department of Public
Health are trying to make.
Now no one is stopping them from living together in a monogamous
relationship if they want to.
Well, not since Lawrence v. Texas, anyway.... (Granted, this wasn't about
their right to live together in a monogamous relationship, but it's pretty
closely related, and it's an indication of how bad things were until very
recently.)
Now the financial and legal benefits of marriage are there because the
social purpose of marriage is to grow the next generation of citizens and
that is very expensive to do.
This argument doesn't hold water. In particular, in its recent decision,
the Massachusetts SJC specifically said that Mass. state law does not
contain any justification for the claim that marriage exists only for the
purposes of procreation.

So, Gov. Romney and Speaker Finneran made some noises about passing a law
that established procreation as the basis of marriage. While this effort
seems to have died off, I think it would have been absolutely wonderful to
have this law on the books. Because then, we could enforce it. Vigorously.

Depending on how such a law would be worded, it would forbid marriage to
those straight couples in which:

- either he or she is naturally infertile
- he's had a vasectomy
- she's had her tubes tied
- she's had a hysterectomy (which, BTW, are sometimes required to protect
the health of the woman in question, regardless of whether or not she
wants to have children)
- they've simply chosen not to have kids
- (sort of extreme, but possible depending on how the law is worded) he
prefers to use a condom.

Is that really what you want?

This isn't just a Massachusetts issue, either. I don't think there's a
state in the union that forbids marriage to any couple that meets one of
the preceding conditions. So it's awfully hard to justify the claim that
marriage is all about procreation.
Now gay(same sex) couples do not produce children so they do not get the
economic drain that regular couples do so why should they get the
benefit's?
Because they may want to adopt children? Because they may have children of
their own from previous straight marriages? Because the benefits of
marriage are also available to straight couples who do not or cannot have
children?
We also have a formal notion of rights it is called the constitution
the amendments to the constitution. And the people who wrote the US
constitution were not happy with it they just figured that it was the
best document they could write after years of trying.
Um, IIRC, the constitutional convention in Philadelphia lasted only a
summer, not "years of trying."

That said, I agree with your argument that the Constitution, and
particularly the Bill of Rights and other such amendments, do serve as our
(legally) fundamental notion of human rights. Trying to add another layer
above that is somewhat problematic.
Also the fact that the bar is so high for changing [the Constitution] is
good because it prevents all kinds of stupidity from happening.
Agreed. This stands a good chance of making sure the Federal DOM amendment
fails. If only state constitutions were as hard to change.
Societies that change too fast fall apart.


This certainly sounds plausible, but do you have any hard evidence to back
this claim up?

Richard
Jul 17 '05 #26
We were discussing age discrimination. ..

Richard C. Cobbe wrote:
Marc Spitzer <ms******@opton line.net> writes:

jo*********** @yahoo.com (Joan Estes) writes:

Erik Max Francis <ma*@alcyone.co m> wrote
By definition, no, because it's in our Constitution. A law changing or
removing that age limit would be unconstitutiona l, and would get thrown
out by the Supreme Court.

Which is a fundamental flaw in the U.S. system. Without a formal
notion of human rights that supersedes the constitution, the
U.S. would perhaps be better off having no constitution at all. As
evidence, I present the current sorry efforts to change state and
federal constitutions to make certain discriminatory practices
universal.


You are talking about gay marriage right? If you are there is nothing
preventing a gay man proposing to a woman and getting married or a gay
woman doing the same with a man. So they are not being discriminated
against.

Oh, brother. Here we go again. (I'm going to be awfully glad when this
issue finally goes away, although it'll probably take 30-50 years.) I'm
getting really tired of hearing the same old arguments against same-sex
marriage, especially because I haven't heard one yet that holds up under
scrutiny.

They (well, ok, we) *are* being discriminated against, in the very real
sense that we are not allowed to marry whom we choose, in a way that does
not affect heterosexuals. In general, a heterosexual person is not
prevented from marrying the person of his/her choice.

Of course, there are consanguinity laws that do affect heterosexual
marriage. I don't have a problem with these; here, the state clearly has
an interest in forbidding such couples from having children, for reasons of
public health. No one has proved that the state has a similar interest in
the case of same-sex marriages.

And, to tie in another favorite anti-same-sex-marriage argument, how does
telling gay men to suck it up and marry a woman (or vice versa) protect the
"sanctity of marriage" (whatever that means)? Then, you have people
getting married primarily for tax benefits. That's not the kind of
commitment that marriage is supposed to be about, and that's not the kind
of commitment that the seven couples in Goodrich v. Department of Public
Health are trying to make.

Now no one is stopping them from living together in a monogamous
relationshi p if they want to.

Well, not since Lawrence v. Texas, anyway.... (Granted, this wasn't about
their right to live together in a monogamous relationship, but it's pretty
closely related, and it's an indication of how bad things were until very
recently.)

Now the financial and legal benefits of marriage are there because the
social purpose of marriage is to grow the next generation of citizens and
that is very expensive to do.

This argument doesn't hold water. In particular, in its recent decision,
the Massachusetts SJC specifically said that Mass. state law does not
contain any justification for the claim that marriage exists only for the
purposes of procreation.

So, Gov. Romney and Speaker Finneran made some noises about passing a law
that established procreation as the basis of marriage. While this effort
seems to have died off, I think it would have been absolutely wonderful to
have this law on the books. Because then, we could enforce it. Vigorously.

Depending on how such a law would be worded, it would forbid marriage to
those straight couples in which:

- either he or she is naturally infertile
- he's had a vasectomy
- she's had her tubes tied
- she's had a hysterectomy (which, BTW, are sometimes required to protect
the health of the woman in question, regardless of whether or not she
wants to have children)
- they've simply chosen not to have kids
- (sort of extreme, but possible depending on how the law is worded) he
prefers to use a condom.

Is that really what you want?

This isn't just a Massachusetts issue, either. I don't think there's a
state in the union that forbids marriage to any couple that meets one of
the preceding conditions. So it's awfully hard to justify the claim that
marriage is all about procreation.

Now gay(same sex) couples do not produce children so they do not get the
economic drain that regular couples do so why should they get the
benefit's?

Because they may want to adopt children? Because they may have children of
their own from previous straight marriages? Because the benefits of
marriage are also available to straight couples who do not or cannot have
children?

We also have a formal notion of rights it is called the constitution
the amendments to the constitution. And the people who wrote the US
constitutio n were not happy with it they just figured that it was the
best document they could write after years of trying.

Um, IIRC, the constitutional convention in Philadelphia lasted only a
summer, not "years of trying."

That said, I agree with your argument that the Constitution, and
particularly the Bill of Rights and other such amendments, do serve as our
(legally) fundamental notion of human rights. Trying to add another layer
above that is somewhat problematic.

Also the fact that the bar is so high for changing [the Constitution] is
good because it prevents all kinds of stupidity from happening.

Agreed. This stands a good chance of making sure the Federal DOM amendment
fails. If only state constitutions were as hard to change.

Societies that change too fast fall apart.

This certainly sounds plausible, but do you have any hard evidence to back
this claim up?

Richard

Jul 17 '05 #27
Yoyoma_2 <Yoyoma_2@[at-]Hotmail.com> writes:
We were discussing age discrimination. ..


Well, if you see gay marriage as a discriminated union, it brings us
back on topic for at least a couple of newsgroups...

:-)

-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
Jul 17 '05 #28
Ketil Malde wrote:
Yoyoma_2 <Yoyoma_2@[at-]Hotmail.com> writes:

We were discussing age discrimination. ..

Well, if you see gay marriage as a discriminated union, it brings us
back on topic for at least a couple of newsgroups...

:-)


I don'want to comment on the actual, previous or future state of US
civil rights. But lets say that the US should maby model itself after
pretty much every other modern country in terms of civil rights :). So i
guess that was my comment hehe.


-kzm

Jul 17 '05 #29
Marc Spitzer wrote:
Now no one is stopping them from living together in a monogamous
relationship if they want to. Now the financial and legal benefits
of marriage are there because the social purpose of marriage is to grow
the next generation of citizens and that is very expensive to do. Now
gay(same sex) couples do not produce children so they do not get the
economic drain that regular couples do so why should they get the
benefit's?


This argument makes no sense. First, gay people can and do adopt, and this
would presumably be easier for gay couples if they were legally recognized.
Second, there's no legal requirement for married couples to have children,
so childless gay couples should be able to obtain the same marital benefits
as childless straight couples.

Really, you can't argue issues like this on rational grounds. It boils down
to your acceptance of principles. If you fundamentally don't believe in the
concept of same-sex marriage, and perhaps believe that some book written
thousands of years ago prohibits this (alongside its exhortations to kill
all the women and children in the villages of your enemies[*]), then no
amount of rational argument is going to help, and whatever happens will have
to be decided as the result of a political war.

Anton
[*] http://mindprod.com/biblestudy.html references, among many others,
Ezekiel 9:6, "Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children,
and women".
Jul 17 '05 #30

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

12
2075
by: Aaron Watters | last post by:
I'm doing a heart/lung bypass procedure on a largish Python program at the moment and it prompted the thought that the methodology I'm using would be absolutely impossible with a more "type safe" environment like C++, C#, java, ML etcetera. Basically I'm ripping apart the organs and sewing them back together, testing all the while and the majority of the program at the moment makes no sense in a type safe world... Nevertheless, since...
22
3620
by: edgrsprj | last post by:
PROPOSED EARTHQUAKE FORECASTING COMPUTER PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT EFFORT Posted July 11, 2005 My main earthquake forecasting Web page is: http://www.freewebz.com/eq-forecasting/Data.html Newsgroup Readers: If you circulate copies of this report to groups of computer programmers at different universities etc. around the world then they might find the subject matter to be interesting.
1
1472
by: cablespeed | last post by:
We currently are looking to fill two positions for our client (a large MNC) in Lancaster PA. Please reply ASAP to careers@techneers.com Here is the position description: Principal Responsibilities o Analyze requirements from primary stakeholders
5
1285
by: abhi | last post by:
Hello, My name is Abhilash and I am recruiting for an experienced Bioinformatics Programmer. This opportunity is permanent, full-time, and on site in Bethesda/Rockville, MD. The opportunity is with a team that has been tasked with providing scientific computing support for national and international research and development projects in Bioinformatics, Genomics, and Proteomics. Our clients produce some of the largest and most rapidly...
0
9696
by: Hystou | last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it. First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
0
10584
jinu1996
by: jinu1996 | last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth. The Art of Business Website Design Your website is...
0
9425
agi2029
by: agi2029 | last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own.... Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
1
7827
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules. He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms. Adolph will...
0
7015
by: conductexam | last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one. At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image. Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
0
5865
by: adsilva | last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
1
4482
by: 6302768590 | last post by:
Hai team i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
2
4063
muto222
by: muto222 | last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
3
3131
bsmnconsultancy
by: bsmnconsultancy | last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.