Uh-oh, this is going to be a big problem for the United States since our entire fiscal policy is to deficit spend and avoid really solving any problems until the planet explodes in 2012. It is going to be mighty embarrassing when the debt collectors come a knockin' in 2013. "There's nobody home, go away!"

To answer the question of whether or not she should be allowed to compete as a female if she is not 100% female, one must first consider the question of whether women should be competing in a separate class at all.

Let's avoid the underlying moral and philosophical issues and just stick with the practical reason for setting things up so women compete separately: approximately 50% of the population is female, so it is a political necessity. You can argue all sorts of other reasons, but when it really comes down to it, that is the crux of it.

And if you really think about it, we don't actually have women competing against women in one group and men competing against men in another group. What we REALLY have is women competing against women in one group, and EVERYONE ELSE competing in another group. Men are not set up as a protected class, it is only women who are set up as a protected class. If a sufficiently gifted female runner wanted to compete against men, I very much suspect that she'd be allowed to do so.

Once you realize the reality that female sports are basically a protected class based on a political reality, the answer to the other question becomes pretty simple: anyone who is not 100% female is not part of the "protected class" and should therefore compete in the "everyone else" category.

Is it fair? Maybe not. But how is having women compete separately "fair" in the first place? It is just for political expediency, and personally I don't see anything wrong with it if it keeps 50% of the population happier and more fulfilled than they otherwise would be without causing any undue hardship on a significant part of the population.

Convoluted or obfuscated code is no benefit to anyone and deserves scorn.

However, there is nothing about being a brilliant programmer that requires one to write convoluted or obfuscated code.

The best code needs very little documentation because it is immediately obvious to any other programmer what the code is doing, and long comments are only required in sections of the code where the purpose of the code is not immediately obvious.

It does require a dose of humility to intentionally add minor inefficiencies to a program to make it more clear, though, and it sounds like the Josh in this story was sorely lacking such humility.

Using five lines of code to show the intermediate assignments in a long calculation instead of doing it all in one line of code can make the logic flow easier to follow by orders of magnitude, but some programmers are unwilling to deface the elegance of their design with such simplicities.

Ultimately the true genius is the person who can write brilliant code that is also easy to read and modify.

The President swears to uphold the Constitution, but what if he chooses not to?

As you point out, the worst that happens is the court eventually overrules, but often the damage has already been done and the President can just try again in a slightly modified way.

Is such disregard for the Constitution treason?

At the very least it is an impeachable offense, but only if congress has the will to impeach.

So that chick in Babel expected no one to look at her hairy monster?