Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

+ - Kawa 2.0 supports Scheme R7RS

Submitted by Per Bothner
Per Bothner writes: Kawa is a general-purpose Scheme-based programming language that runs on the Java platform. It combines the strengths of dynamic scripting languages (less boiler-plate, fast and easy start-up, a REPL, no required compilation step) with the strengths of traditional compiled languages (fast execution, static error detection, modularity, zero-overhead Java platform integration).

Version 2.0 was just released with many new features. Most notably is (almost) complete support for the latest Scheme specification, R7RS, which was ratified in late 2013. This LWN article contains a brief introduction to Kawa and why it is worth a look.

Comment: eh I don't know (Score 1) 186

by nomadic (#48563743) Attached to: NetHack: Still One of the Greatest Games Ever Written
I don't know about NetHack. I started with Hack back in the late 80's, and have played that then NetHack off and on since, usually picking it up for a day to a few weeks then losing interest. Never finished the game. I'd usually play until I got a guy down pretty far with a great kit, then when he inevitably died from something stupid, I'd be annoyed and lose interest again.

It's a good game, maybe even a great game, but it's not a perfect game and it's not the best game ever. Too much of it is just not fun. The major design flaws in my mind:

* Once you hit the labyrinths and have to deal with the wizard following you around, it just becomes a grind. A little bit of a grind in order to achieve something afterwards is fine but when a game becomes work then that is not.
* It doesn't give you a fair way to figure out what to do. A lot of the actions required to finish the game are neither hinted at nor intuitive.
* It's too repetitive. It doesn't exercise my mind much; you just do the same things again and again.
* It's too time-consuming, and frequently unnecessarily so (which goes back to the repetitive point).

Anyway, just my thoughts.

Comment: Re:Legal question (Score 1) 173

Well unlawful searches would be a violation to due process, the question then becomes what's the remedy for that? I think we're so used to the evidence exclusion rule that we tend not to realize that's just one way to "fix" the problem. You can do criminal charges against the police, or you can do civil damages.

The counterargument against excluding evidence is: you committed a crime; this evidence shows it. Why should you get off just because the police did something wrong? That didn't magically make it so you didn't commit the crime, it just turns the whole process into a game with arbitrary rules.

Comment: Re:Legal question (Score 1) 173

by nomadic (#47227153) Attached to: The Government Can No Longer Track Your Cell Phone Without a Warrant
Uh....Fernandez v. California says the opposite of what you're saying. In it the Supreme Court held that even though one occupant had denied police entry, that after he had been arrested and moved away from the premises the other occupant could consent to a search. Only where one occupant is physically present and denying access are the police prevented from searching.

In any event, my hypothetical was more akin to Illinois v. Rodriguez, where the Court held that as long as the police had a reasonable belief that the person giving consent to search was in fact authorized to do so, evidence won't be excluded, even if that person did not have actual authority.

That being said, I will qualify that I believe in some states actual authority is required, but at the Supreme Court/Federal level only apparent authority is needed.

Comment: Re:Legal question (Score 1) 173

by nomadic (#47227077) Attached to: The Government Can No Longer Track Your Cell Phone Without a Warrant
I don't think there's much that can be done as a preventive measure, though I guess since a lot of these cases hinge on really close questions about whether a search was reasonable it's possible. You'd have to make it super specific I'd think, maybe something like: "No trespassing. This specifically includes law enforcement; the owner does not and never will give consent for law enforcement to search or enter these premises for any reason whatsoever. Anyone giving such consent is not the owner and is not authorized to grant any such permission. The owner reserves all rights under the law and will pursue a civil action and/or file criminal charges against anyone, including law enforcement, who unlawfully enters these premises."

Kind of over the top but in a close case it might convince a judge that whatever pretext the police came up with to enter was unreasonable. Also might be a good idea to have a motion-activated camera with sound to capture anyone who would be in a position to read it so you could capture whoever enters, if you really want to be careful.

Comment: Re:Legal question (Score 1) 173

by nomadic (#47226729) Attached to: The Government Can No Longer Track Your Cell Phone Without a Warrant
Well the exclusionary principle isn't enshrined in law, or even considered a Constitutional requirement, it's just a policy decision the Courts have made to keep the police in line. Theoretically they could get rid of it tomorrow and offer a different remedy for an unlawful search (like lawsuits for damages). Once there's no deterrent effect (like where the cops don't know it's illegal, or at least can show that) the Court discards it as essentially useless.

"If you don't want your dog to have bad breath, do what I do: Pour a little Lavoris in the toilet." -- Comedian Jay Leno