#!/usr/bin/perl -w
s{(tech|rights|Constitution)}
{(qw(corporation abuse geek system internet new era Hellmouth))[int(rand(8))] . " $1"}egi, print for <DATA>;
__DATA__
Plugin your text here
I think Qt/Embedded would be a good choice. It looks like it's exactly right for the job. I saw it running at Linuxtag and, though I didn't take a very detailed look at it, I had a positive first impression of it. Here's the faq if you're interested.
English ( as the name suggests ) was not invented in America.
English (like any other natural language) was not invented at all, it evolved; modern-day American English as well as modern-day British English are both descended from a common 'ancestor' and are thus 'cousins' (this is a vast oversimplification). British English is no closer to the 'original' English (A mixture of the Anglo, Saxen, and Jute dialects of old Western-Germanic) than American English -- just as a cousin descended from your grandparents through women is not any less related to the grandparents because he/she has a different family name.
You've got cause and effect mixed up. The reason this is banned in Germany & France is that Germany & France had, before the bans, strong Nazi movements, and were also both ruled by Nazis. The US has never had a particularly strong Nazi movement.
Maybe you've got cause and effect mixed up?
This is, of course, a matter of opinion, but maybe the fact that they can make idiots of themselves in public has kept them weak, since it allows everyone to constantly point out the weaknesses in their ideas.
If you get out of practice arguing against Nazi ideas, your best rebuttal becomes: "Uh, but it's bad!" or "Hey, that's not allowed" which just sound less convincing than a point for point argument.
I have a book that says "No part of this publication may be reproduced..." on page 3. Skipping directly to page 5 does not mean that I'm exempt from this legally binding statement.
I cover my eyes during the FBI warning at the beginning of videos. I still can't copy them.
The illegality of copying the above mentioned book and movie does not derive from the warnings; the warnings are just to remind you of that fact that it's illegal to copy them.
They are not licenses and they do not restrict fair use; thus a movie about MS's extensions to Kerberos could not be reproduced in whole without permission, but you could still use the description therein to implement them.
Sorry, I just think it's kinda funny that so many slashdotters claim to be libertarian and then turn around and expect the govt. to break up MS.
Is that how you read it? I see a lot of slashdotters who claim to be Libertarian and a lot of other slashdotters who expect the govt. to break up MS. Or do you see any specific examples of individuals holding both views? I'm amazed time and again by the tendency to lump all relatively popular views (held by say more than 20% of the posters) into one collective and then turn around and call that collective 'hypocrite'. I know you didn't use that word but that's the implication here.
Also, note that there are a number of individuals here who might hold views which are typically Libertarian but who neither are nor claim to be Libertarians as such.
My biggest gripe with perl is that there seems to be no mode to require variables to be declared beforehand. I really despise when I'm coding and do something like:
my ($fileName) = "/etc/blah/blah.cfg"; if ( $filename =~ m~^/etc~ ) { print "This is in/etc\n");
add this at the beginning:
use strict;
and you get this:
Global symbol "$filename" requires explicit package name at/home/ku02c/junk.pl line 4. syntax error at/home/ku02c/junk.pl line 4, near ""This is in/etc\n")" Missing right bracket at/home/ku02c/junk.pl line 4, at end of line Execution of/home/ku02c/junk.pl aborted due to compilation errors.
Oops, let's correct your bracket;-)
use strict; my ($fileName) = "/etc/blah/blah.cfg"; if ( $filename =~ m~^/etc~ ) { print "This is in/etc\n";}
new output: Global symbol "$filename" requires explicit package name at/home/ku02c/junk.pl line 4. Execution of/home/ku02c/junk.pl aborted due to compilation errors.
How is breaking Microsoft into a bunch of small companies supposed to change anything? Forgive my simplistic view, but for the last few months, I've been trying to figure out how that's any different than telling your average Joe Blow that he has too much money. So you tell him that he must divide it up into 10 savings accounts.
Well you're right it is a bit simplistic, because Joe Blow doesn't own all of the money. Rather, he's got 'investors' who have a stake in his money. so let's say Joe has to split up his money based on currency. Up until now he was investing his Rubles in the Russian Mafia and letting all the profits show up in Dollars in his Swiss account. That was cool with his investors (including the Italian Mafia) since they had a stake in all of his money.
But now the Italian Mafia is left with partial shares in (in addition to Joe's other accounts) the Rubles, which are getting no return of their own (and have some pretty hefty inflation to boot) and the Dollars, which not only are earning some decent interest, but are receiving a steady influx of cash from Russia.
Now the Mafia has two choices:
Either they will pull all their money from the Rubles and: convert it to Dollars, take it elsewhere, etc.... or
If they for some reason wish to keep some money invested in a business they're familiar with -- they'll break Joe's legs;-)
This is of course still over-simplified, since Joe wouldn't even retain control of every account, rather one of his clones would.
"the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts"
What...truth? Since when did it have to be true, so long as it is our opinion?
You're misinterpreting: Allowing free speech (of any kind) serves the advancement of truth, not that the speech itself has to be true; just look at satire: it's not true per se, but it serves the advancement of truth.
Both Algore The Inventor Of The Internet and Dubya Bush have said that they will drop the Microsoft matter completely once they get into office. M$ must have given each of them mucho dinero for their campaign coffers.
Do you have sources for these claims? I believe Bush only said he would prefer to see a settlement, and I don't think Gore even placated Microsoft when he gave a speech directly to them.
Anyhow, regarding the relevance (or rather lack thereof) of what a new Prez wants see my above post.
But if they can stretch it out to appeal, then they may find a new administration at the Justice Dept.
I mentioned this once before in one of the numerous discussions about this trial, but here it is again:
So what if there's a new administration at the Justice Dept.? The case is being prosecuted by the DOJ and the Attorneys General of 19 states. Yes, you read correctly, 19. What are the chances that all 19 states have a 'new administration'? I think the answer is pretty obvious. There is no reason to believe that the other prosecutors would just walk away from this case because a 'new administration' up and ordered the DOJ to drop it; and that's assuming a new administration would even be so rash. I mean maybe the public is still sympathetic to MS (and they are unfortunately), but wouldn't people want to know why a trial was succesfully prosecuted, and then suddenly dropped? I don't see a President sticking his popularity on the line right at the start of his administration for just one campaign contributor, no matter how generous.
Furthermore, the other attorneys could get on quite well without the feds since the most expensive/difficult part of the trial is over; I'm pretty sure they would be capable of 'cleanup'.
Funny, I could say the same thing about your posts.
True. Which is why I labeled them as such in the subjects.
Twice I have counted, in one glimpse of your page, you bitching and moaning like a teenage ho0r because someone happened to mention python.
Hmmm... I thought I said it pretty low-key, I even posted without a +1 keep the thread low-profile. Oh, well I guess I'll tone it down next time;-)
Get over your friggin ego trip foo!
Ummm... how do you define ego trip here? Criticism?
Someone asked a question about perl, and someone answered it.
Who answered it? Not the replies I criticized; #75 and #132 below were the ones who addressed the question and I didn't get up in arms about the mention of Python there...
First of all see my reply to the above critic for the bulk of my answer.
Offtopic? How would you argue that discussion of a programming language does not belong in discussion of programming languages?
This is a discussion of one particular programming language, specifically Perl, and specifically the new release.
I responded to a query on the use of Perl as an alternative to C++ with a suggestion to try Python, because I like it better than Perl.
Does this mean that a valid answer to someone asking about the Usefulness of Linux in a discussion about a new release of Linux is: 'I like Windows better, because the GUI is much more intuitive'? That would probably even get marked as a troll.
He was asking to what degree Perl could replace C++, namely: completely? Only for small stuff?
It couldn't get any more "on-topic".
Well, it could have if you had said one single thing answering his question, or had at least made concrete comparisons about why Python might be more suitable which most Python trolls do.
Are you that stuck on Perl that you can't even discuss the alternatives?
No. If that's what the discussion is about. There was a discussion specifically addressing the comparison between Perl and Python just a few weeks ago on Slashdot; I found that very enjoyable since a lot of points were raised about Python's strengths which intrigued me enough that I might try it someday. But, I'm getting really tired of Python advocates jumping into every Perl-specific discussion like a bad Energizer-Bunny commercial saying 'Python, Python!'
Let me ask you: 'Are you so stuck on Python that you can't even let discussions about other languages remain about the other languages?'
Until you get moderation points why don't you keep your moderating opinions to yourself.
When, I get moderation points is exactly the time I do keep my moderating opinions to myself; then I just moderate. Since I don't have any, it is at least as valid to commment on the fact that the post was OT as it was to answer 'Python!' to a question about whether Perl is capable of something. This is very very common in threads dealing with Perl, and it gets old.
If you don't like it, have you metamoderated today?
?? What does that have to do with offtopic posts?
I see you are spamming across all replies to a particular thread.
Two replies. Both answering 'Python' to Perl questions. Spam is unsolicited E-mail. I wasn't sending E-mail, and if it was unsolicited, so were the OT replies being discussed here. At least I didn't use my +1 bonus to do it.
Just a suggestion, if you view in threads mode, you don't have to dig into a discussion that you are not interested in.
You mean the discussion labeled: 'Usefullness of Perl?' I'm interested in that; isn't that where people talk about the strengths and weaknesses of Perl?
In fact here's the original question (in part):
Can anyone provide me with a good argument for using Perl or provide some examples of where Perl is used? I know/. uses Perl, but what else does?
and the followup:
Is there a limit to the size of an application you would write in Perl? What I'm getting at is could I drop C++ and write all my applications in Perl or is it better suited for quick hacks and data massaging?
I'm sorry but there is no opening for Python there unless this really is a general discussion about the relative merits of different languages.
If the two replies in question had perhaps changed their subject lines to match the content of their postings I probably wouldn't have said anything, and threaded mode would have been of some use.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a quote from the article at the ZDTV link
Which article are you quoting? Or are you just trolling?
Chris
Try this; it will actually work ;-)
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
s{(tech|rights|Constitution)}
{(qw(corporation abuse geek system internet new era Hellmouth))[int(rand(8))] . " $1"}egi, print for <DATA>;
__DATA__
Plugin your text here
I think Qt/Embedded would be a good choice. It looks like it's exactly right for the job. I saw it running at Linuxtag and, though I didn't take a very detailed look at it, I had a positive first impression of it. Here's the faq if you're interested.
Chris
Ok, so now we make X just a little smaller and throw it on the watch that IBM put out. Then we run an X server on the watch and run X-clock.
;-)
I particularly like this picture showing how far we've come in calculator technology
Chris
English ( as the name suggests ) was not invented in America.
English (like any other natural language) was not invented at all, it evolved; modern-day American English as well as modern-day British English are both descended from a common 'ancestor' and are thus 'cousins' (this is a vast oversimplification). British English is no closer to the 'original' English (A mixture of the Anglo, Saxen, and Jute dialects of old Western-Germanic) than American English -- just as a cousin descended from your grandparents through women is not any less related to the grandparents because he/she has a different family name.
Chris
3. Linux doesn't have visio *yet*.
:-(
Microsoft bought Visio, so don't hold your breath
Chris
Ahhhh, the 'I was just following orders' defense. Ask the Berlin Wall guards how well that held up...
Chris
8 hours ?? That's pretty awful. My Thinkpad running Linux can last over 48 hours in sleep mode.
I'm pretty sure they mean 8 hours without being in sleep mode.
Chris
...and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've read or heard someone recommending that secrataries learn LaTex!
You mean 31 times!?!?
Sorry I couldn't resist.
You've got cause and effect mixed up. The reason this is banned in Germany & France is that Germany & France had, before the bans, strong Nazi movements, and were also both ruled by Nazis. The US has never had a particularly strong Nazi movement.
Maybe you've got cause and effect mixed up?
This is, of course, a matter of opinion, but maybe the fact that they can make idiots of themselves in public has kept them weak, since it allows everyone to constantly point out the weaknesses in their ideas.
If you get out of practice arguing against Nazi ideas, your best rebuttal becomes: "Uh, but it's bad!" or "Hey, that's not allowed" which just sound less convincing than a point for point argument.
Chris
I have a book that says "No part of this publication may be reproduced ..." on page 3. Skipping directly to page 5 does not mean that I'm exempt from this legally binding statement.
I cover my eyes during the FBI warning at the beginning of videos. I still can't copy them.
The illegality of copying the above mentioned book and movie does not derive from the warnings; the warnings are just to remind you of that fact that it's illegal to copy them.
They are not licenses and they do not restrict fair use; thus a movie about MS's extensions to Kerberos could not be reproduced in whole without permission, but you could still use the description therein to implement them.
Chris
Sorry, I just think it's kinda funny that so many slashdotters claim to be libertarian and then turn around and expect the govt. to break up MS.
Is that how you read it? I see a lot of slashdotters who claim to be Libertarian and a lot of other slashdotters who expect the govt. to break up MS. Or do you see any specific examples of individuals holding both views? I'm amazed time and again by the tendency to lump all relatively popular views (held by say more than 20% of the posters) into one collective and then turn around and call that collective 'hypocrite'. I know you didn't use that word but that's the implication here.
Also, note that there are a number of individuals here who might hold views which are typically Libertarian but who neither are nor claim to be Libertarians as such.
Chris
well..if you hack the kernel with the best of them...sleep is optional anyway. :)
'Sleep? Isn't that a totally inadequate substitute for caffeine?'
- Sorry, I don't know where this one's from. Anyone else know?
My biggest gripe with perl is that there seems to be no mode to require variables to be declared beforehand. I really despise when I'm coding and do something like:
/etc\n");
/home/ku02c/junk.pl line 4. /home/ku02c/junk.pl line 4, near ""This is in /etc\n")" /home/ku02c/junk.pl line 4, at end of line /home/ku02c/junk.pl aborted due to compilation errors.
;-)
/etc\n";}
/home/ku02c/junk.pl line 4. /home/ku02c/junk.pl aborted due to compilation errors.
my ($fileName) = "/etc/blah/blah.cfg";
if ( $filename =~ m~^/etc~ ) { print "This is in
add this at the beginning:
use strict;
and you get this:
Global symbol "$filename" requires explicit package name at
syntax error at
Missing right bracket at
Execution of
Oops, let's correct your bracket
use strict;
my ($fileName) = "/etc/blah/blah.cfg";
if ( $filename =~ m~^/etc~ ) { print "This is in
new output:
Global symbol "$filename" requires explicit package name at
Execution of
Try: perldoc strict for more info.
Happy?
Chris
Well you're right it is a bit simplistic, because Joe Blow doesn't own all of the money. Rather, he's got 'investors' who have a stake in his money. so let's say Joe has to split up his money based on currency. Up until now he was investing his Rubles in the Russian Mafia and letting all the profits show up in Dollars in his Swiss account. That was cool with his investors (including the Italian Mafia) since they had a stake in all of his money.
But now the Italian Mafia is left with partial shares in (in addition to Joe's other accounts) the Rubles, which are getting no return of their own (and have some pretty hefty inflation to boot) and the Dollars, which not only are earning some decent interest, but are receiving a steady influx of cash from Russia.
Now the Mafia has two choices:
This is of course still over-simplified, since Joe wouldn't even retain control of every account, rather one of his clones would.
Chris
I will assume EU covers all european countries
Not all of them by a long shot, but certainly almost all which have a sizeable population with a decent amount of cash to spend on MS products.
Chris
I'll say it's not a victory. I quote the line:
"the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts"
What...truth? Since when did it have to be true, so long as it is our opinion?
You're misinterpreting: Allowing free speech (of any kind) serves the advancement of truth, not that the speech itself has to be true; just look at satire: it's not true per se, but it serves the advancement of truth.
Chris
Both Algore The Inventor Of The Internet and Dubya Bush have said that they will drop the Microsoft matter completely once they get into office. M$ must have given each of them mucho dinero for their campaign coffers.
Do you have sources for these claims? I believe Bush only said he would prefer to see a settlement, and I don't think Gore even placated Microsoft when he gave a speech directly to them.
Anyhow, regarding the relevance (or rather lack thereof) of what a new Prez wants see my above post.
Chris
But if they can stretch it out to appeal, then they may find a new administration at the Justice Dept.
I mentioned this once before in one of the numerous discussions about this trial, but here it is again:
So what if there's a new administration at the Justice Dept.? The case is being prosecuted by the DOJ and the Attorneys General of 19 states. Yes, you read correctly, 19. What are the chances that all 19 states have a 'new administration'? I think the answer is pretty obvious. There is no reason to believe that the other prosecutors would just walk away from this case because a 'new administration' up and ordered the DOJ to drop it; and that's assuming a new administration would even be so rash. I mean maybe the public is still sympathetic to MS (and they are unfortunately), but wouldn't people want to know why a trial was succesfully prosecuted, and then suddenly dropped? I don't see a President sticking his popularity on the line right at the start of his administration for just one campaign contributor, no matter how generous.
Furthermore, the other attorneys could get on quite well without the feds since the most expensive/difficult part of the trial is over; I'm pretty sure they would be capable of 'cleanup'.
Chris
I believe Bush pocketed a wad from Microsoft, and he has already made it pretty clear where he stands concerning this trial.
Don't have any sources, so maybe someone else can confirm this?
Chris
Funny, I could say the same thing about your posts.
;-)
True. Which is why I labeled them as such in the subjects.
Twice I have counted, in one glimpse of your page, you bitching and moaning like a teenage ho0r because someone happened to mention python.
Hmmm... I thought I said it pretty low-key, I even posted without a +1 keep the thread low-profile. Oh, well I guess I'll tone it down next time
Get over your friggin ego trip foo!
Ummm... how do you define ego trip here? Criticism?
Someone asked a question about perl, and someone answered it.
Who answered it? Not the replies I criticized; #75 and #132 below were the ones who addressed the question and I didn't get up in arms about the mention of Python there...
Chris
Chris
First of all see my reply to the above critic for the bulk of my answer.
Offtopic? How would you argue that discussion of a programming language does not belong in discussion of programming languages?
This is a discussion of one particular programming language, specifically Perl, and specifically the new release.
I responded to a query on the use of Perl as an alternative to C++ with a suggestion to try Python, because I like it better than Perl.
Does this mean that a valid answer to someone asking about the Usefulness of Linux in a discussion about a new release of Linux is: 'I like Windows better, because the GUI is much more intuitive'? That would probably even get marked as a troll.
He was asking to what degree Perl could replace C++, namely: completely? Only for small stuff?
It couldn't get any more "on-topic".
Well, it could have if you had said one single thing answering his question, or had at least made concrete comparisons about why Python might be more suitable which most Python trolls do.
Are you that stuck on Perl that you can't even discuss the alternatives?
No. If that's what the discussion is about. There was a discussion specifically addressing the comparison between Perl and Python just a few weeks ago on Slashdot; I found that very enjoyable since a lot of points were raised about Python's strengths which intrigued me enough that I might try it someday. But, I'm getting really tired of Python advocates jumping into every Perl-specific discussion like a bad Energizer-Bunny commercial saying 'Python, Python!'
Let me ask you: 'Are you so stuck on Python that you can't even let discussions about other languages remain about the other languages?'
Chris
At least I didn't use my +1 bonus to do it
:-(
After which I stupidly sent the above reply without disabling my bonus
Oh, well....
Chris
Until you get moderation points why don't you keep your moderating opinions to yourself.
/. uses Perl, but what else does?
When, I get moderation points is exactly the time I do keep my moderating opinions to myself; then I just moderate. Since I don't have any, it is at least as valid to commment on the fact that the post was OT as it was to answer 'Python!' to a question about whether Perl is capable of something. This is very very common in threads dealing with Perl, and it gets old.
If you don't like it, have you metamoderated today?
?? What does that have to do with offtopic posts?
I see you are spamming across all replies to a particular thread.
Two replies. Both answering 'Python' to Perl questions. Spam is unsolicited E-mail. I wasn't sending E-mail, and if it was unsolicited, so were the OT replies being discussed here. At least I didn't use my +1 bonus to do it.
Just a suggestion, if you view in threads mode, you don't have to dig into a discussion that you are not interested in.
You mean the discussion labeled: 'Usefullness of Perl?' I'm interested in that; isn't that where people talk about the strengths and weaknesses of Perl?
In fact here's the original question (in part):
Can anyone provide me with a good argument for using Perl or provide some examples of where Perl is used? I know
and the followup:
Is there a limit to the size of an application you would write in Perl? What I'm getting at is could I drop C++ and write all my applications in Perl or is it better suited for quick hacks and data massaging?
I'm sorry but there is no opening for Python there unless this really is a general discussion about the relative merits of different languages.
If the two replies in question had perhaps changed their subject lines to match the content of their postings I probably wouldn't have said anything, and threaded mode would have been of some use.
Chris
This has nothing to do with a new Perl release, and, *SIGH*, you used your +1 bonus to post it as well.
Chris