You're absolutely right, sort of.

I've seen a rabbi asked about reconciling the notion of human free will with the idea that God is omniscient about the future. His response was, "Where does it say that God is omniscient?". The concept of a "perfect" (omniscient and omnipotent) God is, I believe, a Greek idea that eventually made it in to Christianity (and much later, in to Judaism as well)

I believe it's also called Punctuation Punditry.

I'd be interested in seeing an example of a food manufacturer being called racist or anti-semitic because they don't have their products certified as kosher. Granted, I've always been part of pretty liberal Jewish communities, but the worst I've seen is "Oh, that's too bad" or occasionally some mild complaining.

Depending on who you ask, it might be okay, but the major problem would be the fact that it would be on your hands, which you often use to eat. I had one rabbi that explained it pretty well by simply saying, "Kashrut only applies to food." I don't know what she would say about bacon soap, though.

I'm not sure what version of Judaism you're looking at, but clearly it's one that Jews don't know about. Judaism has practically no concept of an afterlife. There are brief mentions of the possibility in later writings, but that's about it. Jewish law is almost entirely concerned with your actions in your "physical life". Any instance of something in the Torah that we would call a "thought crime" tends to draw a lot of commentary because it's so rare. Other than the death penalty, the punishment for most serious crimes is to be separated from the community. There is never any crime that is punished by being sent to Hell.

Mine are even better. I've gotten ads for "Bad Girls" (I'm on Slashdot, so I think you can do the math) and local Christian singles (my profile lists my religion as something other than Christian). I've had a few pretty epic failures on Facebook's targeted advertising.

You mean comparing a perceived distance and speed of an object to the distance you think you can travel in the amount of time it would take for that object to travel the perceived distance at its perceived speed? Because that sounds a little like math.

Contrary to popular opinion here on Slashdot, judges generally aren't stupid. They also generally hate being screwed with. If it was obvious that a publisher was trying to abuse the rule for works with more than 10 chapters, it's highly likely that a judge would simply refuse to apply that rule.

This sentence seems to be implying that the newspaper reporter is the one that decides whether to score a play a hit or an error. The article is about automated generation of newspaper articles, not computer-refereed sports.