> prototype... in perl... translates it into > VBscript asp's
*vomit*:-)
Seriously,/why/ would you want to do that? I mean, presumably it's some Dilbert-style management decision, but which MS marketing scam was it they fell for?
> A complete rewrite? This, from the man who advocates laziness in programmers
Yes: it fits rather neatly with that philosophy, in fact.
It's a special kind of laziness that's Good in programmers. The kind that makes you put that little bit much more effort in *now* because you know that in a few (days|weeks|months|lifetimes) you'll be able to reuse that code, or maintain it more easily, or whatever...
I know what you mean about the outdated interpreters:-/ How well does the perl compiler thingy work these days, does anybody know?
(ack. I'm sure IE was written to piss vi users off. Pressing Escape shouldn't clear the text box, FFS)
> about a kajillion different ways to do the same > thing Otherwise known as "There's More Than One Way To Do It", one of the central mantras of Perl:-)
The way I see Perl is that if you have a messy mind, you'll create crappy perl. If you've got a focussed mind, you'll create focussed perl. You impose the discipline on perl, it doesn't impose the discipline on you. It's the most direct and natural way I've ever seen for transferring thoughts to real code. (Painting By Numbers doesn't count).
> language-based improvements I don't see what improvements there could be.
When I learnt to program in BASIC, I felt there were things missing, although I only had a vague idea of what they were. I moved on to C and found lots of the gaps filled, but still that nagging feeling something was missing.
I found perl, and I've *never* thought "Hrm, I wish Perl did " or "Why does it do it like that? It'd be much better like ?" about Perl...
And why should the President expect privacy? He chose to stand for election to *public* office. At that point, any right to privacy he had became forfeit, IMO.
But I don't expect all that many people to agree with me, so that's okay;-)
You/really/ think that Microsoft are going to open up their code to an auditing organisation?
You/really/ think that Microsoft are going to benefit when the auditing organisation takes one look and falls over laughing?
I think you're confusing "benefits Microsoft" and "benefits consumers"... sometimes it seems those aren't just not the same thing, but actually mutually exclusive.
>put the base unit in your pocket Would this be your trouser pocket? That is, your pocket next to your reproductive organs? Doesn't sound very safe to/me/:-)
> how exactly I am stupid Uh, I thought "Risking your life and that of others for no particularly good reason" was a fairly good indicator, actually.
> -1: Arrogant Chauvinist Pig Have you ever noticed how that phrase is only ever used by women who are generalising about those evil nasty males? Funny, that.
Not *exactly* what I was trying to say; I'm not advocating total rule by aristocracy, merely a section of the government... a compromise between the two approaches, since each cancels out the problems with the other.
>What I don't understand is why you think this is "proven"
I cite Britain as a good example, for a good few centuries now:-)
>The only form of government that's ever been stable is democracy
Well, first of all, is "stable" the same as "better", necessarily? And also, from a slightly different point-of-view it's the *least* stable; power generally changes hands a couple of times a decade...
Or maybe it's that the Americans make it sound like they're some kind of heroes who single-handedly won WWII, when in fact what they did was strut in half-way through and mop up tired, depleted armies?
Remember, *People are stupid*. The majority of voters will vote for a tax cut and then complain when public spending gets cut. (for example)
Democracy isn't some magic shining Holy Grail that is the One True Way to run a society... you Americans seem to be brain-washed into thinking it is, probably as a side effect of the "Evil red commie bastards!" brain-washing.
Having a non-elected section of government is a fantastic idea; it means there is some other influence than petty short-term vote grabbing by politicians. Sure, it's not perfect, and hereditary power isn't particularly fair, but it's a solution that works well and is proven.
*sigh* Have you actually thought about this for even a second? Half a second? No, it's just a knee-jerk reaction, isn't it?
You don't think these keys will be protected by a pass-phrase? If your kids are genius cryptanalysts with access to huge computing resources, *then* you may have a problem...
Just because Windows editors do it, doesn't make it right... I'd be incredibly pissed off if vi started doing that. I want my text editor to show me exactly what is in the file, not piss around wrapping words. If it started doing that, how can you tell where your line actually ends?
The most important property of text editors is that they show the text exactly how it is. *Real* wysiwyg;-)
>I will now only pay credence to any ads for >which I am paid for my time
You *are* being paid for your time, just not in cash. You're being given a news service, or a search engine, or an application database... the list goes on.
If everybody starts demanding to be paid for looking at these adverts, how do you think these "free" services are going to survive?
But do we really want to set the precedent of governments restricting the internet in this way? After all, whether you like it or not freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Once you begin applying "censorship" and restrictions, you're on a slippery slope that will be difficult to escape from.
You can't shout "Free speech for everyone!" in one breath, and then in the next breath allow them to do something like this because it's convenient and you maybe won't have to press the delete key on your mail client as many times a day...
Forgive me if this seems a silly question, but why *do* the US government want to restrict encryption export?
Do they actually believe that it's a threat to national security? I can't believe even the US government could be quite that stupid...
Is there maybe another reason? I don't know what... something to do with trade maybe? It's not like it'd be the first time they've tried to gain unfair trade advantages.
Of course, that's probably not it... but if not, what *is* their motive?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah well, that failed to work, didn't it? :-)
Those were supposed to be links to the appropriate pages on perl.com. I'm sure you can find them or look at the local versions...
Ho hum.
use constant FOO => 'bar';
HTH, HAND.
> prototype ... in perl ... translates it into
:-)
/why/ would you want to do that? I mean, presumably it's some Dilbert-style management decision, but which MS marketing scam was it they fell for?
> VBscript asp's
*vomit*
Seriously,
> don't find Perl to be particularly aesthetic
:-p
Well, I've never seen poetry written in Python
> A complete rewrite? This, from the man who advocates laziness in programmers
:-/ How well does the perl compiler thingy work these days, does anybody know?
Yes: it fits rather neatly with that philosophy, in fact.
It's a special kind of laziness that's Good in programmers. The kind that makes you put that little bit much more effort in *now* because you know that in a few (days|weeks|months|lifetimes) you'll be able to reuse that code, or maintain it more easily, or whatever...
I know what you mean about the outdated interpreters
(ack. I'm sure IE was written to piss vi users off. Pressing Escape shouldn't clear the text box, FFS)
:-)
> about a kajillion different ways to do the same
> thing
Otherwise known as "There's More Than One Way To Do It", one of the central mantras of Perl
The way I see Perl is that if you have a messy mind, you'll create crappy perl. If you've got a focussed mind, you'll create focussed perl. You impose the discipline on perl, it doesn't impose the discipline on you. It's the most direct and natural way I've ever seen for transferring thoughts to real code. (Painting By Numbers doesn't count).
> language-based improvements
I don't see what improvements there could be.
When I learnt to program in BASIC, I felt there were things missing, although I only had a vague idea of what they were. I moved on to C and found lots of the gaps filled, but still that nagging feeling something was missing.
I found perl, and I've *never* thought "Hrm, I wish Perl did " or "Why does it do it like that? It'd be much better like ?" about Perl...
And why should the President expect privacy? He chose to stand for election to *public* office. At that point, any right to privacy he had became forfeit, IMO.
;-)
But I don't expect all that many people to agree with me, so that's okay
> Microsoft ... would benefit
/really/ think that Microsoft are going to open up their code to an auditing organisation?
/really/ think that Microsoft are going to benefit when the auditing organisation takes one look and falls over laughing?
Hehehehe. *ahem*. Sorry.
You
You
I think you're confusing "benefits Microsoft" and "benefits consumers"... sometimes it seems those aren't just not the same thing, but actually mutually exclusive.
Perhaps it didn't have its weetabix?
"but I'd rather take that risk than risk missing an important call from one of my girlfriends." was the phrase you used...
>written off as some "ditzy little airhead girl"
Maybe I missed some posts, but I never saw anybody actually bring your gender into it, particularly.
>put the base unit in your pocket /me/ :-)
Would this be your trouser pocket? That is, your pocket next to your reproductive organs? Doesn't sound very safe to
> how exactly I am stupid
Uh, I thought "Risking your life and that of others for no particularly good reason" was a fairly good indicator, actually.
> -1: Arrogant Chauvinist Pig
Have you ever noticed how that phrase is only ever used by women who are generalising about those evil nasty males? Funny, that.
Hey, you know, maybe you're right. I've been thinking for a while Slashdot needs a new moderation category. "-1: Stupid"...
> You have to behave the way we say
Funny, I can think of a certain "operating system" beginning with W that seems to embody that very philosophy...
> kinda suprised to see some not so professional
> communication
Professional? I wasn't aware the kernel developers were getting paid to develop the kernel; until they are "professionalism" is an irrelevancy.
Remember, they're volunteers, they can do whatever the hell they like!
>royalty and a ruling class
:-)
Not *exactly* what I was trying to say; I'm not advocating total rule by aristocracy, merely a section of the government... a compromise between the two approaches, since each cancels out the problems with the other.
>What I don't understand is why you think this is "proven"
I cite Britain as a good example, for a good few centuries now
>The only form of government that's ever been stable is democracy
Well, first of all, is "stable" the same as "better", necessarily? And also, from a slightly different point-of-view it's the *least* stable; power generally changes hands a couple of times a decade...
>you make it sounds like it's somehow our fault
Or maybe it's that the Americans make it sound like they're some kind of heroes who single-handedly won WWII, when in fact what they did was strut in half-way through and mop up tired, depleted armies?
>they're certainly doing a good job of it
*blink* So your argument is "Indigenous people can't rule themselves effectively, so we'll kill them and steal their land?
Ooh, good argument. Hmm.
...it's just a lesser evil.
Remember, *People are stupid*. The majority of voters will vote for a tax cut and then complain when public spending gets cut. (for example)
Democracy isn't some magic shining Holy Grail that is the One True Way to run a society... you Americans seem to be brain-washed into thinking it is, probably as a side effect of the "Evil red commie bastards!" brain-washing.
Having a non-elected section of government is a fantastic idea; it means there is some other influence than petty short-term vote grabbing by politicians. Sure, it's not perfect, and hereditary power isn't particularly fair, but it's a solution that works well and is proven.
*sigh* Have you actually thought about this for even a second? Half a second? No, it's just a knee-jerk reaction, isn't it?
You don't think these keys will be protected by a pass-phrase? If your kids are genius cryptanalysts with access to huge computing resources, *then* you may have a problem...
Just because Windows editors do it, doesn't make it right... I'd be incredibly pissed off if vi started doing that. I want my text editor to show me exactly what is in the file, not piss around wrapping words. If it started doing that, how can you tell where your line actually ends?
;-)
The most important property of text editors is that they show the text exactly how it is. *Real* wysiwyg
>I will now only pay credence to any ads for
>which I am paid for my time
You *are* being paid for your time, just not in cash. You're being given a news service, or
a search engine, or an application database... the list goes on.
If everybody starts demanding to be paid for looking at these adverts, how do you think these "free" services are going to survive?
Sure, spam is irritating...
But do we really want to set the precedent of governments restricting the internet in this way? After all, whether you like it or not freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Once you begin applying "censorship" and restrictions, you're on a slippery slope that will be difficult to escape from.
You can't shout "Free speech for everyone!" in one breath, and then in the next breath allow them to do something like this because it's convenient and you maybe won't have to press the delete key on your mail client as many times a day...
Keep sight of what's important...
Forgive me if this seems a silly question, but why *do* the US government want to restrict encryption export?
Do they actually believe that it's a threat to national security? I can't believe even the US government could be quite that stupid...
Is there maybe another reason? I don't know what... something to do with trade maybe? It's not like it'd be the first time they've tried to gain unfair trade advantages.
Of course, that's probably not it... but if not, what *is* their motive?