Well, yeah. Think about it. Programmers deal with some of the most sophisticated, detail-oriented, exception-proof, persnickety list of procedures, regulations, and rules out there -- namely, computer code. Surely, the simplification and management techniques we employ are among the best known. So why shouldn't Congress adapt some of our techniques to the U.S. Code?
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."
You could say the same about drug laws.
Indeed. I, for one, do say the same thing about drug laws.
Sure, being charismatic is an important characteristic in a leader, but perhaps having some political experience would help. Or having stood his ground on a key issue, or having written key legislation. Or something.
I can see where you're coming from here, but, as President, that kind of political experience is no good to him. He can't pass legislation. But he clearly does have some sort of vision or plan that he's put up on web-sites and talked about in his speeches, and he seems to have competent staff to help him out (though it's too bad he couldn't get Condi). So he has a) charisma, b) a plan, and c) support. If he can d) negotiate, that's the best of what we can ask of any President.
With European eyes it seems totally nuts that the president picks a supreme court judge and he just sits there until he dies of old age. If one wanted to change that system how would you do that? Is that an amendment?
Yeah, that would require a constitutional amendment granting the President the additional power to remove judges. Then a shitload of regulations and procedures would need to be updated or changed accordingly. It would probably take years.
Judges serve while they maintain good behavior (whatever that means) and cannot receive pay cuts. The President, also, cannot receive pay cuts or raises during his term.
You could make a movie where some guy is shrunk down to nano-size and has to navigate nano-mechanical environment. Among the hazards would be cars running everywhere, moving carpets, big switching molecules hanging down from above, assembly factories, photon trigger streams...it'd be pretty sweet, actually.
Not if you've developed nano-factories that build nano-factories, either level of which takes external commands or runs through a series of variations during its processing.
"All problems in nanotechnology can be solved by another level of indirection...except for the problem of too many levels of indirection."
The drafting table idea isn't perfect. You don't usually get to sit in a very comfortable position in front of a drafting table - you sit on a small seat - usually with a small or no back to lean on. You hunch over the table and look down on it - while better than looking at a completely flat desk, it's not a great solution either.
For someone that is going to be writing code, typing, or anything else on the computer (besides perhaps CAD) for a full work day, 5 days a week - the drafting table solution isn't much of a solution at all.
I think with drafting tables, you can stand or sit, alternating for comfort. From everything I've heard, this is preferable to only sitting for hours at a time. If they had a multi-touch table that could raise, lower, and pivot, so I could use it seated or standing, optimized for reading or typing, that would be so sweet I have no words.
My point is, if you go from action->object to object->action, you would still have to display all the objects available and then display all the actions available : you didn't reduce choice or the difficulty to navigate the interface at all.
True. And even if the action doesn't do anything right now, it might in different circumstances, or change the way other things interact with you.
Still, I think its useful to go object->action. For one thing, you probably have fewer actions than objects, so the first list is smaller. I don't know of any UI rule that says that's better, but I feel it probably is. And secondly, you can pick out a few of the most likely actions with that object from the full action list and make a hot-list.
Haskell's type system is one of the major things that makes Haskell better than most other languages,... Once you get your program past the type-checker it usually works, unless one misunderstood the algorithm itself.
Mutability is the bane of parallel programming, because you have to have all sorts of locks and constraints to keep your data consistent between threads.
People say this, but why is locking even necessary?
It seems to me that most values that a program accesses are only used by a single thread for its specific activities. So why is the paradigm "threads share all data?" Locks are an explicit way to disallow cross-thread mutation, but why not do that by default and require an explicit construction to allow cross-thread mutation?
Destination: the Stars is better known in America as The Stars My Destination. One of the things that makes it a good book is its discussion of the implications of Jumper-style teleportation.
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." -- James D. Nicoll, 1990.
Get real; you won't see home wind turbines, at least not en masse. They have too much vibration and transmitted noise to hook up to your house plus I'm sure the neighbors might object to the aesthetics.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, Object Oriented Law Making (OOLM)
Well, yeah. Think about it. Programmers deal with some of the most sophisticated, detail-oriented, exception-proof, persnickety list of procedures, regulations, and rules out there -- namely, computer code. Surely, the simplification and management techniques we employ are among the best known. So why shouldn't Congress adapt some of our techniques to the U.S. Code?
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."
You could say the same about drug laws.
Indeed. I, for one, do say the same thing about drug laws.
Sure, being charismatic is an important characteristic in a leader, but perhaps having some political experience would help. Or having stood his ground on a key issue, or having written key legislation. Or something.
I can see where you're coming from here, but, as President, that kind of political experience is no good to him. He can't pass legislation. But he clearly does have some sort of vision or plan that he's put up on web-sites and talked about in his speeches, and he seems to have competent staff to help him out (though it's too bad he couldn't get Condi). So he has a) charisma, b) a plan, and c) support. If he can d) negotiate, that's the best of what we can ask of any President.
I'm not worried. Not about him, anyway.
Good job Obama for being cool and on task.
"No Drama" Obama. I swear, just knowing that this is a guy who stays chill makes me believe a better future.
Yeah, that would require a constitutional amendment granting the President the additional power to remove judges. Then a shitload of regulations and procedures would need to be updated or changed accordingly. It would probably take years.
Judges serve while they maintain good behavior (whatever that means) and cannot receive pay cuts. The President, also, cannot receive pay cuts or raises during his term.
Surely you mean the Global Child Rape Terror-Tubes, right?
No, you're thinking about that one hentai series. Well, okay, that many hentai series.
Soundproofing seems far more relatable. Wrap something in an acoustic cloak, and it stops being there acoustically, and inside is perfect silence.
For those of you who have wondered where the "robe and wizard hat" thing came from:
http://bash.org/?104383
Perhaps having them ''duck'' out of the way would be a better way of visually cuing the actual behavior?
I think so. Plus, if you get bored, you can chase it around with the mouse. :-)
You could make a movie where some guy is shrunk down to nano-size and has to navigate nano-mechanical environment. Among the hazards would be cars running everywhere, moving carpets, big switching molecules hanging down from above, assembly factories, photon trigger streams...it'd be pretty sweet, actually.
Apparently, someone made nanomechanical nuts & bolts from imperfect carbon nanotubes, but you have to pay to see the paper.
"All problems in nanotechnology can be solved by another level of indirection...except for the problem of too many levels of indirection."
Of course, he IS rather stupid.
Yes; you did say he was a dog.
How does he always draw these things just in time for an appropriate Slashdot story?!?
I think with drafting tables, you can stand or sit, alternating for comfort. From everything I've heard, this is preferable to only sitting for hours at a time. If they had a multi-touch table that could raise, lower, and pivot, so I could use it seated or standing, optimized for reading or typing, that would be so sweet I have no words.
True. And even if the action doesn't do anything right now, it might in different circumstances, or change the way other things interact with you.
Still, I think its useful to go object->action. For one thing, you probably have fewer actions than objects, so the first list is smaller. I don't know of any UI rule that says that's better, but I feel it probably is. And secondly, you can pick out a few of the most likely actions with that object from the full action list and make a hot-list.
7AC7:1E55
This looks familiar. I have no idea why a hex code would look familiar, but it does. What is it from?
That was probably the best episode of any Star Trek ever made.
Haskell's type system is one of the major things that makes Haskell better than most other languages, ... Once you get your program past the type-checker it usually works, unless one misunderstood the algorithm itself.
Heh. I've heard that same thing said about Ada.
Mutability is the bane of parallel programming, because you have to have all sorts of locks and constraints to keep your data consistent between threads.
People say this, but why is locking even necessary?
It seems to me that most values that a program accesses are only used by a single thread for its specific activities. So why is the paradigm "threads share all data?" Locks are an explicit way to disallow cross-thread mutation, but why not do that by default and require an explicit construction to allow cross-thread mutation?
I think that should be standard practice!
I'm interested in really learning functional programming. Is clojure a real funcional language? What are some you would recommend?
Depends on if you want to sink or swim. If you want a relatively easy learning curve, I suggest Dylan. I've heard that Scala is also approachable.
Lisp, Scheme, Haskell, Ocaml, and Erlang will make your head explode. But if you survive, you'll eventually grow a replacement head.
You don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun the bear long enough to pass the baton.
Destination: the Stars is better known in America as The Stars My Destination. One of the things that makes it a good book is its discussion of the implications of Jumper-style teleportation.
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." -- James D. Nicoll, 1990.
Get real; you won't see home wind turbines, at least not en masse. They have too much vibration and transmitted noise to hook up to your house plus I'm sure the neighbors might object to the aesthetics.
I'm sure most of these 223 small wind turbines are quite suitable for home use.