I'm interested in hard problems.
Recently, I've started thinking a lot about what CP6AN might look like.
Class::MOP and the Perl 6 Metamodel make me more excited than I'd like to admit.
Also expect occasional wordy technology-related rantings.
I've read several times now that computer geeks don't usually take the same approach to law as, say, lawyers. For example Eben Moglen characterized this as "the hacker belief that laws are form of code that are executed without errors or ambiguities." EDIT: Alias rightly points out that this is a strawman. I think a statement closer to what I'm getting at might be "the hacker belief that laws are a form of code that are intended to be executed without errors or ambiguities". End Edit
I'm starting to see why that might be the case.
Something that fascinates me is how the US Supreme Court has bootstrapped itself into its current role. (Basically, for those unfamiliar, a lot of what the US Supreme Court does is issue rulings on whether various laws are constitutional or not (unconstitutional laws are nullified), but the Constitution does not explicitly give the Court this power.)
It ocurred to me that the only reason the Court uses precendent in its decisions is precedent.
How's that for circular logic?
Yes, I am aware that if they completely decided to drop precedent, it would most likely cause other branches of the government and citizens to take actions that would undermine the court. That's beside the point here.