Your source is wrong. This is from the Perl FAQs, part of the official Perl documentation,
What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"?
One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII?:-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the implementation of it, i.e. the current interpreter. Hence Tom's quip that "Nothing but perl can parse Perl."
Before the first edition of Programming perl, people commonly referred to the language as "perl", and its name appeared that way in the title because it referred to the interpreter. In the book, Randal Schwartz capitalised the language's name to make it stand out better when typeset. This convention was adopted by the community, and the second edition became Programming Perl, using the capitalized version of the name to refer to the language.
You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example, parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look good, while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never write "PERL", because perl is not an acronym, apocryphal folklore and post-facto expansions notwithstanding.
Seems to work for me just fine. I read articles from it all the time.
It has horrible bias against anyone who is a verifiable expert in their field.
Being an expert doesn't matter because this is an encyclopedia. Information needs sources. An expert should be able to cite lots of sources easily, giving them an advantage, if only they understand Wikipedia's purpose.
refutals to the crap that is 99% of wikipedia
I'd bet its the inverse of that.
Like any organization, Wikipedia has its problems, but they pale in comparison to how well everything works. If you think Wikipedia is so bad, why are you so worried about it?
Bleh, I hated the American Museum of Natural History. It wasn't so much a museum as it was a big diorama exhibit. Not much information, just lots of statues. If you're in NYC, I think the Metropolitan Museum of Art is a much better choice.
I blame the Smithsonian museums. The Smithsonian Institute National Museum of Natural History in DC is so great it has spoiled all other museums for me.
It's not even practical because letting them in doesn't help you at all, but it can potentially get you into real trouble. The cops might see something illegal/suspicious that you didn't even know was illegal, or maybe some friend of yours stashed drugs in your home and you didn't know (that happened to someone I know, but with his car, and it cost him his job). You don't have to prove your innocence, they have to prove your guilt. So in this situation you are much safer standing up for your rights. It's good in the long term and the short term. And, on a lesser note, you also aren't wasting your time, and their time, showing them around.
This was linked by someone else too: it's a lecture by a lawyer and a cop about why it's a bad idea to cooperate with the police more than is required to by law. Dont Talk to Police. The video is probably worth reviewing once a year.
"Obviously, the Internet has been more and more a mechanism for predators to reach out," said Sen. Bill Brady (R-Bloomington)
Obviously he doesn't know what she's talking about. Nearly all "predators" are related to, or are good friends with, the victim. Social networking sites aren't even on the radar.
There's a neat blog generator called Thingamablog, which generates a static blog, and therefore has no vulnerabilities itself. Write entries offline, generate the static HTML, then sync that up to the server. Because there is no dynamic content, it works for hosts that only serve static content (like on Freenet, which can only "host" static pages) and minimizes the work done by the server. It's still pretty feature rich, with categories, and good navigation.
The downside lack of comment system, since the whole thing is static. There are workarounds, though. It also stores everything in a little database that could be a lot better.
I use blosxom, which is extremely lightweight. The only way to get lighter is to have a static blog. It's only about 800 lines of Perl in a single script, so anyone who knows a little programming can easily become intimate with it. Many people who use it, including me, slowly modify it over time to fit our needs, molding it like a piece of putty. Its small size, with its worse is better tradeoffs, makes it pretty robust in terms of security, because there isn't any complexity in which to have vulnerabilities emerge.
In the two years I have been using it I'm only aware of one vulnerability, which was a mere cross-site attack where a specific argument in a URL could inject HTML. If you renamed the script from the default (which should be done out of caution anyway) and had on URL rewriting, then you were immune.
The only downsides are no comment system and lack of navigation links, though there are plugins for those features.
If that's true, then let's run an experiment. I'll completely copy a comment that got +5 insightful on the other thread.
Wow! It worked! Let me try it too.
It's an appalling piece of legislation for a number of reasons:
1. It makes forgetting your decryption key/passphrase/whatever illegal. Yes, seriously. The burden of proof is on the accused to show that they can no longer decrypt the data - how the hell do you prove you don't have something?
2. The people who it was originally intended to inconvenience - the real terrorists, if you like - aren't going to be even remotely concerned by it. They know full well that there is a risk they'll be caught and spend time in jail. If it's a choice between "reveal the decryption key, thus providing the police with the only evidence they're likely to find which implicates you and a number of others for so many criminal activities you'll be in prison for 20 years and when you get out you'll get a bullet in the head for the people who you dropped in it" or "keep your mouth shut, go to prison for two years", I wonder which one they'll chose?
Overwriting data is stupid too imho, "clearly" they would work on a backup of the data, so when they notice that all data gets overwritten after entering said password, they'll be able to charge you for 'willing obstruction' (or whatever it is called).
Exactly right. A self-destruct key will only be as effective as DRM: barely effective at all.
if the authorities have a search-warrant, [...] When they ask, you're supposed to open the doors, lockers, safes, etc... so they can get to whatever is behind it.
Nope, not in the US anyway, though the warrant may give them permission to break into those things, possibly destroying them.
however when the police knocks saying they suspect my basement to be a meth-lab, well I'll gladly let them in and go look for themselves.
Then you are a fool. Helping the police like that can't help you, and can only hurt you. If you don't have a meth-lab down there, then the police have no business being in your home, so you don't allow them in. It's a matter of privacy, so stand up for you rights. Complacency aids abuse.
You're argument here can be summed up to "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide," which is extremely naive.
Now even if your password was "password" they would still find it extremely difficult to compromise the system
I can back you up on that one! I run an ssh honeypot which has the password for root literally set to "password". If I used DenyHost to limit an IP to, say, 5 guesses, no one would have gotten in yet. If they ever even guess "password", its way down on their list.
I've never actually seen the whole Fx 3.5 UI since I use Vimperator, so I'm not sure what exactly you all are talking about. With Vimperator, all the GUI mess at the top is gone: it's just a row tabs, then the page. I think this is perfect, and it sounds a bit like what you are describing.
For the kind of passwords PasswordMaker generates by default, 16 characters for a website login password is complete overkill and waste of time. That's the sort of thing suited for strong encryption. With the default settings, 8 characters, worth almost 53 bits (specifically, 1 in 6,634,204,312,890,625 possible passwords), is more than enough, as an attacker has a very limited guessing frequency (a few times per second vs billions of times per second). Of course, this is only good if your inputs to the generator are worth at least as much.
You are completely right about many websites handling passwords very poorly. They should be hashing+salting it and never storing the plaintext, so it shouldn't care what characters are in the password or how long it is. These are the kind of places that will email you your password later on if you forget it. Way too many places get this wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it didn't make a difference to your point. Just being annoyingly pedantic. :-P
Except that Moon isn't playing near me. :-( And it's not on the torrents yet.
Perl is not an acronym, though, according to the official documentation.
Your source is wrong. This is from the Perl FAQs, part of the official Perl documentation,
What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"?
One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to
signify the language proper and "perl" the implementation of it, i.e.
the current interpreter. Hence Tom's quip that "Nothing but perl can
parse Perl."
Before the first edition of Programming perl, people commonly referred
to the language as "perl", and its name appeared that way in the title
because it referred to the interpreter. In the book, Randal Schwartz
capitalised the language's name to make it stand out better when
typeset. This convention was adopted by the community, and the second
edition became Programming Perl, using the capitalized version of the
name to refer to the language.
You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example,
parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look good, while
"awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never write "PERL",
because perl is not an acronym, apocryphal folklore and post-facto
expansions notwithstanding.
the parents will ALL be told that their kids are above average - which is a statistical impossibility
Not impossible. Example: most people have more than the average number of legs.
You missed the point. Try again.
They make the motions of such in public but form secret societies to subvert it.
Psst. That's how it works under any government. Human nature.
Wikipedia doesn't work.
Seems to work for me just fine. I read articles from it all the time.
It has horrible bias against anyone who is a verifiable expert in their field.
Being an expert doesn't matter because this is an encyclopedia. Information needs sources. An expert should be able to cite lots of sources easily, giving them an advantage, if only they understand Wikipedia's purpose.
refutals to the crap that is 99% of wikipedia
I'd bet its the inverse of that.
Like any organization, Wikipedia has its problems, but they pale in comparison to how well everything works. If you think Wikipedia is so bad, why are you so worried about it?
Links or it didn't happen.
The reason for keeping some commercial copyright is simple - if you make money, the original author/artist/whatever should make money.
That's not the purpose of copyright, though. It's not about compensation.
Bleh, I hated the American Museum of Natural History. It wasn't so much a museum as it was a big diorama exhibit. Not much information, just lots of statues. If you're in NYC, I think the Metropolitan Museum of Art is a much better choice.
I blame the Smithsonian museums. The Smithsonian Institute National Museum of Natural History in DC is so great it has spoiled all other museums for me.
It's not even practical because letting them in doesn't help you at all, but it can potentially get you into real trouble. The cops might see something illegal/suspicious that you didn't even know was illegal, or maybe some friend of yours stashed drugs in your home and you didn't know (that happened to someone I know, but with his car, and it cost him his job). You don't have to prove your innocence, they have to prove your guilt. So in this situation you are much safer standing up for your rights. It's good in the long term and the short term. And, on a lesser note, you also aren't wasting your time, and their time, showing them around.
This was linked by someone else too: it's a lecture by a lawyer and a cop about why it's a bad idea to cooperate with the police more than is required to by law. Dont Talk to Police. The video is probably worth reviewing once a year.
Oh, it didn't work. :-(
"Obviously, the Internet has been more and more a mechanism for predators to reach out," said Sen. Bill Brady (R-Bloomington)
Obviously he doesn't know what she's talking about. Nearly all "predators" are related to, or are good friends with, the victim. Social networking sites aren't even on the radar.
I hate politicians.
To reply again with another tool,
There's a neat blog generator called Thingamablog, which generates a static blog, and therefore has no vulnerabilities itself. Write entries offline, generate the static HTML, then sync that up to the server. Because there is no dynamic content, it works for hosts that only serve static content (like on Freenet, which can only "host" static pages) and minimizes the work done by the server. It's still pretty feature rich, with categories, and good navigation.
The downside lack of comment system, since the whole thing is static. There are workarounds, though. It also stores everything in a little database that could be a lot better.
I use blosxom, which is extremely lightweight. The only way to get lighter is to have a static blog. It's only about 800 lines of Perl in a single script, so anyone who knows a little programming can easily become intimate with it. Many people who use it, including me, slowly modify it over time to fit our needs, molding it like a piece of putty. Its small size, with its worse is better tradeoffs, makes it pretty robust in terms of security, because there isn't any complexity in which to have vulnerabilities emerge.
In the two years I have been using it I'm only aware of one vulnerability, which was a mere cross-site attack where a specific argument in a URL could inject HTML. If you renamed the script from the default (which should be done out of caution anyway) and had on URL rewriting, then you were immune.
The only downsides are no comment system and lack of navigation links, though there are plugins for those features.
If that's true, then let's run an experiment. I'll completely copy a comment that got +5 insightful on the other thread.
Wow! It worked! Let me try it too.
It's an appalling piece of legislation for a number of reasons:
1. It makes forgetting your decryption key/passphrase/whatever illegal. Yes, seriously. The burden of proof is on the accused to show that they can no longer decrypt the data - how the hell do you prove you don't have something?
2. The people who it was originally intended to inconvenience - the real terrorists, if you like - aren't going to be even remotely concerned by it. They know full well that there is a risk they'll be caught and spend time in jail. If it's a choice between "reveal the decryption key, thus providing the police with the only evidence they're likely to find which implicates you and a number of others for so many criminal activities you'll be in prison for 20 years and when you get out you'll get a bullet in the head for the people who you dropped in it" or "keep your mouth shut, go to prison for two years", I wonder which one they'll chose?
But we're talking about Word here, and words are written by pens. And we all know the pen is mightier than the sword.
Overwriting data is stupid too imho, "clearly" they would work on a backup of the data, so when they notice that all data gets overwritten after entering said password, they'll be able to charge you for 'willing obstruction' (or whatever it is called).
Exactly right. A self-destruct key will only be as effective as DRM: barely effective at all.
if the authorities have a search-warrant, [...] When they ask, you're supposed to open the doors, lockers, safes, etc... so they can get to whatever is behind it.
Nope, not in the US anyway, though the warrant may give them permission to break into those things, possibly destroying them.
however when the police knocks saying they suspect my basement to be a meth-lab, well I'll gladly let them in and go look for themselves.
Then you are a fool. Helping the police like that can't help you, and can only hurt you. If you don't have a meth-lab down there, then the police have no business being in your home, so you don't allow them in. It's a matter of privacy, so stand up for you rights. Complacency aids abuse.
You're argument here can be summed up to "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide," which is extremely naive.
Well, we need to know what we're calling it for here.
Now even if your password was "password" they would still find it extremely difficult to compromise the system
I can back you up on that one! I run an ssh honeypot which has the password for root literally set to "password". If I used DenyHost to limit an IP to, say, 5 guesses, no one would have gotten in yet. If they ever even guess "password", its way down on their list.
I've never actually seen the whole Fx 3.5 UI since I use Vimperator, so I'm not sure what exactly you all are talking about. With Vimperator, all the GUI mess at the top is gone: it's just a row tabs, then the page. I think this is perfect, and it sounds a bit like what you are describing.
Uh, no, this is the missing link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
Sheesh!
For the kind of passwords PasswordMaker generates by default, 16 characters for a website login password is complete overkill and waste of time. That's the sort of thing suited for strong encryption. With the default settings, 8 characters, worth almost 53 bits (specifically, 1 in 6,634,204,312,890,625 possible passwords), is more than enough, as an attacker has a very limited guessing frequency (a few times per second vs billions of times per second). Of course, this is only good if your inputs to the generator are worth at least as much.
You are completely right about many websites handling passwords very poorly. They should be hashing+salting it and never storing the plaintext, so it shouldn't care what characters are in the password or how long it is. These are the kind of places that will email you your password later on if you forget it. Way too many places get this wrong.
There is a <nav> tag, yes.