strtok considers the string s1 to consist of a sequence of zero or more text tokens separated by spans of one or more characters from the separator string s2. The first call (with pointer s1 specified) returns a pointer to the first character of the first token, and will have written a null character into s1 immediately following the returned token. The function keeps track of its position in the string between separate calls, so that subsequent calls (which must be made with the first argument a NULL pointer) will work through the string s1 immediately following that token. In this way subsequent calls will work through the string s1 until no tokens remain. The separator string s2 may be different from call to call. When no token remains in s1, a NULL pointer is returned. Note that a string consisting entirely of non- separator characters is considered a single token. For example, if the initial call to strtok is made with s1 pointing to a string consisting entirely of non-separator characters, then the return value from strtok will be the value of s1 passed to strtok.
The first thing I thought when I saw all the press about the melissa "virus" (yes.. i know) is that perhaps this was released as publicity by someone.. maybe Norton or CA.
It is a WELL KNOWN FACT that antivirus product makers have historically released viruses into the wild to "boost" their products.. i don't know.. usefulness?
Well I had that thought the other day. And now today, reading that they supposedly "tracked" the creator.. and remebering the controversy over GUID's quite recently.. maybe it wasn't Norton or CA who created it, but Microsoft itself? Now of course I know that MS is not stupid enough to relase this/themselves/ , but I'm QUITE SURE they wouldn't have a problem allocating a "black budget" for this these types of things to be funded.
IN FACT.. most people probably don't remeber unless reminded this (and this is what pisses me off about MS, they have done SO MANY EVIL THINGS, but they space them out just far enough to where people don't remeber one from the next, so our anger can never peak.. its like a wave.. anyway) : Remeber a while ago it was uncovered that Microsoft had made plans with their PR agency to create a false grassroots support campaign for them? They PAID OFF national, prestigous journalists to write articles supporting them. They paid prominent people to write letters to the editor of newspapers. Fortunately this was uncovered in time to embarass them and to prevent them from unveiling this plan on a large scale. But those of you who are skeptical that this is a conspiracy.. please remeber that MICROS~1 has demonstrated in the past that this type of thing is not below them.
Additionally, who would better think to exploit the vbscript in word 97 other than a Microsoft engineer? Don't be foolish, their engineers are QUITE intelligent, its just that management beats them down. They have HUNDREDS of world-class programmers working for them, but unfortunately they are not allowed to do "what's right," they have to do what management says (cf. Win 3.1 compatibility in Windows 95 [and other 16 bit code]). I can see a microsoft engineer coming up with this idea.
It all in all smells quite fishy to me. We will see how it pans out, but my prediction is that no one will ever be caught
He was joking, reffering to John C. Dvorak, a columnist for (among other things) PC Magazine. He has a column called "The Inside Track" where he has lots and lots of short Hemmingway-style sentences, with (sometimes seemingly random:) words in bold in the middle, just as in your post. it wasn't a russian ethnic slur James
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that it is a little bit deceitful the way this article was presented?
The *ENTIRE ARTICLE* was written by Tucker, not the slashdotter. I read the disclaimer at the top, which stated "I excerpted the relevant portions."
Immediately following is a paragraph in block-quote format, in italics, as if it were indicating that that were the quote from Tucker's essay.
In reality, however, the entire essay as presented was from Tucker's essay.
I also find it deceptive that at the very top, Rob says, The following was written by slashdotter Kevin S. Van Horn, or whatever his name is (sorry, rushing off to dinner and don't have time to go back and check:).
Perhaps these two situations (the "the following was written by" and only one paragraph being in block-quote italics) were oversights on Rob's part... but I doubt it:(
And, after reading so many of the comments (all of them, actually), it is apparent that very few readers recognized that the slashdot contributor wrote zero essay.
But then again perhaps it is simply a wonderful example of what he thinks of putting your name on someone elses "Intellectual Property".
Comments and Flames both welcome, but please be polite:)
Flim flam bim bam SLACKWARE BY DAMN (with apologies to Colonel Reb.)
Oh yes and about the magical RPM fairy.. i tried redhat..what was it.. 4.0.. well that magical fairy pissed me off just once to many times. RH reminded me of Windows.. scary stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
strtok considers the string s1 to consist of a sequence of zero or more
text tokens separated by spans of one or more characters from the
separator string s2. The first call (with pointer s1 specified) returns
a pointer to the first character of the first token, and will have
written a null character into s1 immediately following the returned
token. The function keeps track of its position in the string between
separate calls, so that subsequent calls (which must be made with the
first argument a NULL pointer) will work through the string s1
immediately following that token. In this way subsequent calls will work
through the string s1 until no tokens remain. The separator string s2
may be different from call to call. When no token remains in s1, a NULL
pointer is returned. Note that a string consisting entirely of non-
separator characters is considered a single token. For example, if the
initial call to strtok is made with s1 pointing to a string consisting
entirely of non-separator characters, then the return value from strtok
will be the value of s1 passed to strtok.
seems clear enough to me (?)
James
The first thing I thought when I saw all the press about the melissa "virus" (yes .. i know) is that perhaps this was released as publicity by someone .. maybe Norton or CA.
.. i don't know .. usefulness?
.. and remebering the controversy over GUID's quite recently .. maybe it wasn't Norton or CA who created it, but Microsoft itself? Now of course I know that MS is not stupid enough to relase this /themselves/ , but I'm QUITE SURE they wouldn't have a problem allocating a "black budget" for this these types of things to be funded.
.. its like a wave .. anyway) :
It is a WELL KNOWN FACT that antivirus product makers have historically released viruses into the wild to "boost" their products
Well I had that thought the other day. And now today, reading that they supposedly "tracked" the creator
IN FACT.. most people probably don't remeber unless reminded this (and this is what pisses me off about MS, they have done SO MANY EVIL THINGS, but they space them out just far enough to where people don't remeber one from the next, so our anger can never peak
Remeber a while ago it was uncovered that Microsoft had made plans with their PR agency to create a false grassroots support campaign for them? They PAID OFF national, prestigous journalists to write articles supporting them. They paid prominent people to write letters to the editor of newspapers. Fortunately this was uncovered in time to embarass them and to prevent them from unveiling this plan on a large scale. But those of you who are skeptical that this is a conspiracy.. please remeber that MICROS~1 has demonstrated in the past that this type of thing is not below them.
Additionally, who would better think to exploit the vbscript in word 97 other than a Microsoft engineer? Don't be foolish, their engineers are QUITE intelligent, its just that management beats them down. They have HUNDREDS of world-class programmers working for them, but unfortunately they are not allowed to do "what's right," they have to do what management says (cf. Win 3.1 compatibility in Windows 95 [and other 16 bit code]). I can see a microsoft engineer coming up with this idea.
It all in all smells quite fishy to me. We will see how it pans out, but my prediction is that no one will ever be caught
He was joking, reffering to John C. Dvorak, a columnist for (among other things) PC Magazine. He has a column called "The Inside Track" where he has lots and lots of short Hemmingway-style sentences, with (sometimes seemingly random :) words in bold in the middle, just as in your post. it wasn't a russian ethnic slur James
Tim Williams' phone number is on theo's web page, which is 925-935-1118.
However, his extension number is 214.
If you call off hours then you can leave a message in his voice mail.
hehe.
James Blachly
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that it is a little bit deceitful the way this article was presented?
:).
:(
:)
The *ENTIRE ARTICLE* was written by Tucker, not the slashdotter. I read the disclaimer at the top, which stated "I excerpted the relevant portions."
Immediately following is a paragraph in block-quote format, in italics, as if it were indicating that that were the quote from Tucker's essay.
In reality, however, the entire essay as presented was from Tucker's essay.
I also find it deceptive that at the very top, Rob says, The following was written by slashdotter Kevin S. Van Horn, or whatever his name is (sorry, rushing off to dinner and don't have time to go back and check
Perhaps these two situations (the "the following was written by" and only one paragraph being in block-quote italics) were oversights on Rob's part... but I doubt it
And, after reading so many of the comments (all of them, actually), it is apparent that very few readers recognized that the slashdot contributor wrote zero essay.
But then again perhaps it is simply a wonderful example of what he thinks of putting your name on someone elses "Intellectual Property".
Comments and Flames both welcome, but please be polite
Respectfully,
James S. Blachly
Hellllllll yes!
.. i tried redhat ..what was it .. 4.0 .. well that magical fairy pissed me off just once to many times. RH reminded me of Windows .. scary stuff.
Damn RIGHT!
Hotty Toddy Gawsh Almighty
Who the hell are we?
Flim flam bim bam
SLACKWARE BY DAMN
(with apologies to Colonel Reb.)
Oh yes and about the magical RPM fairy
I'm a loon