You're playing the idiot. It's not the same feeling at all. We love cute kids because it's a survival trait of our species, caring for them so that they can replicate when our time is past.
Oddly enough, it's not only our species. Every species loves cute kids, no matter whose species they are, which makes you wonder -- it may be better for the species to care for someone else's child, but is it better for me? Why wasn't this trait selected out a long time ago, in favor of people who only care about their own kids?
But actually, I was just trying to get you to be clear with your language. You actually did say that Love is what we call fixating a sexual urge on another. Obviously, it's more than that, even if it's still only biological.
No close-up insertions = not pr0n, definition over.
Cool, so nothing lesbian is pr0n.
But... I can't remember one sex *scene* in the whole book. It's "when you kiss, do this and that with your tongue", not "I see her lips parting to meet mine, her breath quickens, then with my hands on her ass I" --you get the point.
So, it's not pr0n if it's technical. What, it's got to be romantic now? Or passionate?
Whoops, there goes most of the pr0n industry that calls itself such. Much of it is actually pretty technical and boring.
Okay, I have it : when the focus of the book is directly related to sex, it's pr0n. (This calls for further argumentation, but let's leave the rule-of-thumb at that.)
So, doesn't count as a definition. "Rule of thumb" doesn't work to actually resolve a difference of opinion.
Last thing about obscenity : I'm talking of sex here, not perversions such as bestiality and paedophilia.
So now you've got a hidden definition of sex. What qualifies as a "perversion"? I can't think of a good way to measure it, yet you seem to be convinced it exists.
Well, it may be, but not for me. I don't have to see it to recognize it, is all. What I did is simply to define porn by what it is, instead of "whatever depiction of sex offends me", which was the previous one, IIRC?
Nope. Plenty of people enjoy porn, and would call it porn, and are not offended by it. So even that definition doesn't fit.
In what context is incomprehensibility an argument? We can understand all.
Wow, you're an arrogant prick. Go read some Godel. I think I just disproved your faith.
"Conscience can understand everything" is certinly more provable than "So, there's a spook in the sky, who *said* *let there be light* and light *was*, and that's how it all began, but you can't understand".
How so?
I actually think the spook in the sky is more provable, if that's your definition. Because then all it takes is a big, white, bearded man coming down out of the sky.
Valid rebuttal to what, again?
Well, you assert that God does not exist. My point was that your assertion is based on a particular definition, so it cannot be absolutely true.
You've only proven my point further with this discussion of pornography and obscenity -- you've provided several very interesting definitions of pornography. Now, suppose I said, "All pornography is visual." For some of your definitions of pornography, that statement is true. For other definitions, that statement is false.
My point is that to make such a blanket assertion, you have to define your terms. And you're not going to convince anyone when their terms differ from yours.
And my advice is this: Don't make those assertions. Don't waste your time trying to "disprove" something which people can't even define consistently. You just make yourself look as ridiculous as they do.
I don't know about you, but I have better things to do than piss off religious people. What's the point? It's not like anything you've said is going to convince a single believer.
Unless your interpreter can detect inner loops and compile them to native code for you.
The point is that by the time you care this much about the performance, compiling to native code isn't going to do much. At this point, you're actually going to want to do without a lot of the features of the language, specifically because those features will cause performance issues. (Example: If I really, really need to squeeze more cache space out of something, I might want to use a char to store a value I know will be small. In pure Perl, you don't get that choice -- it's an integer-which-can-be-coerced-into-a-float-or-a-string-or-any-scalar-value.)
Even C/C++ programmers will occasionally have to drop to assembly, for that reason. At least for now, programmers are still better at hand-optimizing than compilers are. They're just slower and more error-prone at the process.
The one I heard about was actually different than this -- updates were sent through WSUS, without approval, on systems where the admin thought they'd set all updates to require approval. Turns out, they'd somehow set all updates except a certain class (not even a critical class).
So the moral of the story there is to RTFM.
But if you'd like to link to a specific story or article, we can talk about it.
You see, what I meant was, if all PHP did was IO, that would be fine. But when people start using PHP as a general-purpose programming language, I call it a bad idea. It would be like writing a language in which OpenGL primitives were included -- where you had a specific symbol and syntax for a triangle, or a quad...
It's up to my own discipline to make sure that the "business logic" goes in the scripts, and the "display logic" goes into the templates.
But with that pattern, I honestly don't see the point of PHP over any other scripting language with strong template systems built on it.
I'm guessing you meant to say that a bad design is more likely via an evolutionary process like static HTML -> PHP. In that matter, the nature of PHP is both a strength and a weaknessPeople who suck at programming would be equally bad using a more complex framework.
Could be. I'd hope that a better-designed framework -- not necessarily more complex -- would force people to think in a different way. It is possible to write perfectly modular code based on GOTOs, but I wouldn't recommend it, certainly if you're trying to teach someone to program.
And add transcoding support in your downloader, so that people can pick the encoding they want. Hell, pre-encode in MP3 and offer that as an alternative (transparently, of course) to those who want it, but if I'm paying for music...
As for why they went MP3? Well, MP3 works on any digital music player, which is why they're generally called "MP3 players". I'm not entirely sure, but I'd guess that AAC doesn't work on the Zune, and WMA doesn't work on the iPod, and OGG works on next to nothing. The only reason FLAC isn't included is it's an extra step, but c'mon, you're already making us use your software...
Not that AJAX is a bad idea, but that it needed a word. And that word irritates the hell out of those of us who knew it as DHTML, or simply as Javascript.
Or, how's this: "Blog".
It's a journal, or it's a column. Either way, the only thing that makes it special is that it's on the Internet.
Or how about this: "Myspace".
This one makes me absolutely livid. It's Geocities 2.0, and you can just hear the resounding SMACK of a million programmers at once wondering why they didn't do it first. Not "think of it", because we already had Geocities, but do it.
I'm with you, somewhat, but that doesn't mean Rails is worthless.
I do still hope HD-DVD is somehow alive, but I fear it's more like this:
HD-DVD: Microsoft always triumphs! Have at you! Come on, then. [whop] [Blu-Ray chops HD-DVD's last studio off] HD-DVD: Oh? All right, we'll call it a draw. Blu-Ray: Come, Warner. HD-DVD: Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your Heroes off!
Depends how much work you're willing to do, but it might be possible to do the stuff you're describing as "hacks" without cracking it at all, especially if they start doing additional persistent storage.
The trick is, you would need an AACS-encrypted disc with any of the code you'd be doing this with.
Question is, how does this compare to, say, a PS3 with Linux?
It's more the statement about risk being built in to the price as a justification for $10-15/disc -- and that being a risk of, what, piracy? Except by making the product more expensive, you drive more people to piracy. It just seems odd.
Frankly, though, I can't blame him for some of that. No matter what he thinks, I very much doubt he can say "Sure, go ahead and steal it!"
Larry Wall doesn't exactly follow his own advice, there... But I digress.
I'm not really sure a raytracer was such a horrible idea.
When looking at a potential application, if it seems to be characterized by a lot of tight loops over intensive calculations, you should probably be looking elsewhere.
If you can isolate those tight loops, there's a good chance you can do just that part in C. High-performance should be possible.
It's the real-time response that would be difficult. I wouldn't have a problem writing a 3D raytracer (intended for a renderfarm, say) in Perl, but I might not want to do a 3D game.
The article also recommends both using Perl as a replacement for shell scripts, and, well, not using it as a replacement for shell scripts. The logic given is that you shouldn't call out to the shell, and use the native functions -- but that would suggest that you're using it as even more of a replacement for shell scripts. Ah, well, at least I don't actually disagree with the article, although occasionally, it just makes more sense to, say, call the 'find' command than re-implement it in Perl.
Then it gets into really WTF territory:
However, I would argue that more modern Web scripting languages, such as PHP and Ruby on Rails, offer more out-of-the-box Web support and a cleaner integration into the webpage experience. You should especially avoid using perl for traditional CGI-style form processing; this code tends to be hard to read and maintain because the HTML ends up inlined inside the perl code.
Wait, you're recommending PHP, a language invented out of the need to inline server-side code in HTML, and then you complain about Perl having HTML inlined in it?
I mean, yes, it's a bad pattern, but frankly, PHP is "more modern" in the sense that Vista is "more modern", and Perl has plenty of out-of-the-box Web support. I might still use something like Rails, or stranger things like Seaside, but never PHP.
Also: You recommend Perl for database manipulation. Rails was invented out of the idea that most web apps are really just trying to put a database on the web. And PHP has been notorious for SQL injections, if undeservedly.
Still, you have hit on the one unambiguous point: Unless you're participating in an Obfuscated Perl Contest, don't write ugly, unreadable code, in any language.
It is possible to turn off Windows Update. If you're willing to pay, you can have Windows Server Update Services, which allows you to pick and choose updates.
And maybe you can cite some sources for me -- was 2007 any worse for Microsoft than it was for anyone else? I mean, aside from Vista being useless...
Landmark does indeed threaten people with lawsuits, look at the GP link to the excellent Rick Ross site. They've threatened magazines, websites and media for daring to call them on their actions.
Alright, I'm reading through this, still looking for evidence other than aggressive lawsuits.
I mean, not that aggressive lawsuits are a good thing, but they hardly qualify as a "destructive cult". Compare this to Scientology, in which you get sucked deeper and deeper, paying more and more, only to learn that your religion is a space opera. (Oh, and did I mention, it's a religion, too?)
Maybe you could point to something more specific, because there are tons of articles, and so far, really nothing that damning about the courses themselves.
They've threatened YouTube when they had on a French expose done with a hidden camera during one of their "Forum Weekends".
Certainly sounds like it could be copyright infringement.
Again, not that I believe they should've gone after it, but take a quick look around at other groups sending takedown notices to YouTube.
Their "tools" are bullshit. NO ONE can explain how they work.
Many of them are self-evident.
You're telling me you honestly don't see how it works to understand the difference between what actually happened, and what we invent? (Story/What Happened)
I realize it's simple stuff -- that's the point.
And a question: Have you actually been to a Forum weekend? (Not a rhetorical question; I actually can't tell.)
Sorry, but your blind apologetics lead me to believe you're just another Landmarker who thinks s/he "gets it".
Actually, I'm a person. I did the Forum and the Advanced Course, haven't done anything else. I don't volunteer for them, and I generally don't word-of-mouth market for them.
But both the Forum and the Advanced Course did have a positive, fairly measurable impact on my life.
So you can understand why I'm skeptical when I see it called a dangerous cult. Not because I've thoroughly researched the subject, or even because I really have a clue, but because that's not what I experienced.
All of the reasons you've just given are all the more reason for you to learn a real dynamic scripting language. Try Perl, Python, or Ruby, though not necessarily in that order. Even Javascript.
It's not just that I hate PHP, although I do. It's that the only thing PHP has that these other languages don't is the <?php... ?> syntax, and all of them can do that already, to some extent.
Ruby has deep, pervasive OO, not just tacked on; pervasive patterns around anonymous callbacks (each, select, insert, and friends); and beautiful syntax.
Perl has a sweet code library (CPAN) such that most programs I write end up being less than 100 lines of code. Anything you want to do has probably already been done in CPAN.
Python is simple. Simple to pick up, learn, and use, and the strict syntax forces everything to be somewhat understandable. Plus, you can fly.
PHP has tacked-on OO, tons of code in web apps (pretty horrible code, too) but not much in libraries (so not easy to tie together), ass-ugly syntax, and, in general, no redeeming qualities. Except that you already know it, and it embeds in webpages.
Well, except that every one of the other languages I mentioned have plenty of templating systems for them already. You can certainly embed Perl and Python in a webpage (embperl, rhtml). So I guess that leaves PHP with "you already know it" and "a bunch of web apps are written in it". Not a very compelling argument, unless you happen to be maintaining one of said webapps.
Come to think of it, reminds me of setting CXXFLAGS in my Makefile to include -Wall -Wextra -Wno-reorder -Werror -march=pentium4 -minline-all-stringops -ffast-math -O2 -ggdb.
None of what you just described has anything to do with your actual code, or even its capabilities. Those are warnings, development options, and performance tuning.
And, were you to find a host who'd allow arbitrary executables, you could still set all that. Were you to find a host who'd allow arbitrary C, none of the flags you've set there actually affect the outcome.
Contrast this to PHP, where basic things like the maximum file upload size (a capability) and whether or not to automatically set query string variables to language variables (changes source compatibility) are global, language-wide, server-wide config options.
Anyone who says PHP can't be used for functional programming is just not creative enough.
Yeah, another poster mentioned create_function. They also mentioned that it leaks memory.
I actually do have a beef with this. I find PHP's method of output more natural than something like a C or C++ program where you have to explicitly manage I/O.
And if all it did was IO, that would be fine.
The fact that it can be horribly abused is no worse than the fact that any program in any other language can horribly abuse I/O.
More like it was designed to be horribly abused.
I mean, I assume you're talking about providing HTML output by putting ?> <b>some text here</b> <?php in the middle of your program. But how is that not explicit? It's just explicit in a really perverse way.
All of the (recent) PHP output I've written is as well-organized as any template-based system, thankyouverymuch.
Great -- and is your program code that well-organized? Do you cleanly separate your logic from your presentation, so your designers can tweak the template -- or swap it wholesale, or make your app skinnable -- without you having to lift a finger on the real code?
If you answered "yes", there's no reason you couldn't have done the same with Ruby and ERB, or Perl and TemplateToolkit, or...
If you answered "no", you're probably one of the people abusing it.
PHP offered me something. Dirt simple installation and a very easy migration path from static HTML pages to something dynamic.
And that is why it has been criticized -- if you go from static pages to PHP, there's a chance your PHP scripts are horribly designed.
I'd also argue that even systems like CGI or mod_perl are about as easy, for the few places I need something dynamic. When it's just a template system, I'll use something like a Perl script and static files.
Your comment may well apply to TFA (which I haven't read), but it doesn't take hindsight to figure out that people are going to want to use this for everything, including plenty of things Apple never thought of.
So, why did they limit it so severely that the exploit is called "jailbreak"?
Oh, and by the way, your Chinese saying doesn't apply here, either. It takes less effort to leave it open (and refuse to support custom apps, if you must) than it does to lock it down.
First, Landmark doesn't sue people for exposing their "beliefs", if you must call them that. The courses act more like a BSD license -- the one thing you're not allowed to do is pretend you came up with it yourself, and start selling a course on the same stuff.
Second, "brainwashing"? Really? The Landmark Forum, in particular, is a weekend seminar. Yes, a seminar -- you go sit in a room with lots of people, and you learn. There's no sleep deprivation, no starvation, no torture, none of the other techniques that you'd need for it to qualify as "brainwashing".
Third, there actually aren't any beliefs. It's a set of tools, take 'em or leave 'em. And by "tools", I don't mean anything weird, like meditation techniques. I mean things like actually gaining an understanding that you don't know everything. (Pie chart. Tiny sliver: what you know that you know. Slightly larger sliver: what you know that you don't know. Rest of the pie (easily more than 75%): what you don't know that you don't know.)
The money part, I do have to disagree -- it's not all about money, or they'd be asking a hell of a lot more than they are. At the same time, they do a pretty hard sell at the end to get you to call everyone you know, and get them to sign up.
Yes -- that is pretty much what I said. By "try it", I do mean actually start that drag'n'drop process.
But honestly, that's an extra step to look at what it's about to do. It's a mental "are you sure" process. This is why I use shift+delete, and shift/control+drag.
However, the one-line example you listed is the kind of thing I might use as a callback. Sometimes, I just can't resist overly-clever, completely unreadable one-liners.
I should have been clear -- a lot of the criticism of PHP is for historical reasons. But they are kind of valid historical reasons, because a lot of people do still code like that.
But you can probably build a decent API on top of most Turing-complete languages.
Slashdot Mirror
Oddly enough, it's not only our species. Every species loves cute kids, no matter whose species they are, which makes you wonder -- it may be better for the species to care for someone else's child, but is it better for me? Why wasn't this trait selected out a long time ago, in favor of people who only care about their own kids?
But actually, I was just trying to get you to be clear with your language. You actually did say that Love is what we call fixating a sexual urge on another. Obviously, it's more than that, even if it's still only biological.
Cool, so nothing lesbian is pr0n.
So, it's not pr0n if it's technical. What, it's got to be romantic now? Or passionate?
Whoops, there goes most of the pr0n industry that calls itself such. Much of it is actually pretty technical and boring.So, doesn't count as a definition. "Rule of thumb" doesn't work to actually resolve a difference of opinion.
So now you've got a hidden definition of sex. What qualifies as a "perversion"? I can't think of a good way to measure it, yet you seem to be convinced it exists.
Nope. Plenty of people enjoy porn, and would call it porn, and are not offended by it. So even that definition doesn't fit.
Wow, you're an arrogant prick. Go read some Godel. I think I just disproved your faith.
How so?
I actually think the spook in the sky is more provable, if that's your definition. Because then all it takes is a big, white, bearded man coming down out of the sky.
Well, you assert that God does not exist. My point was that your assertion is based on a particular definition, so it cannot be absolutely true.
You've only proven my point further with this discussion of pornography and obscenity -- you've provided several very interesting definitions of pornography. Now, suppose I said, "All pornography is visual." For some of your definitions of pornography, that statement is true. For other definitions, that statement is false.
My point is that to make such a blanket assertion, you have to define your terms. And you're not going to convince anyone when their terms differ from yours.
And my advice is this: Don't make those assertions. Don't waste your time trying to "disprove" something which people can't even define consistently. You just make yourself look as ridiculous as they do.
I don't know about you, but I have better things to do than piss off religious people. What's the point? It's not like anything you've said is going to convince a single believer.
The point is that by the time you care this much about the performance, compiling to native code isn't going to do much. At this point, you're actually going to want to do without a lot of the features of the language, specifically because those features will cause performance issues. (Example: If I really, really need to squeeze more cache space out of something, I might want to use a char to store a value I know will be small. In pure Perl, you don't get that choice -- it's an integer-which-can-be-coerced-into-a-float-or-a-string-or-any-scalar-value.)
Even C/C++ programmers will occasionally have to drop to assembly, for that reason. At least for now, programmers are still better at hand-optimizing than compilers are. They're just slower and more error-prone at the process.
The one I heard about was actually different than this -- updates were sent through WSUS, without approval, on systems where the admin thought they'd set all updates to require approval. Turns out, they'd somehow set all updates except a certain class (not even a critical class).
So the moral of the story there is to RTFM.
But if you'd like to link to a specific story or article, we can talk about it.
And add transcoding support in your downloader, so that people can pick the encoding they want. Hell, pre-encode in MP3 and offer that as an alternative (transparently, of course) to those who want it, but if I'm paying for music...
As for why they went MP3? Well, MP3 works on any digital music player, which is why they're generally called "MP3 players". I'm not entirely sure, but I'd guess that AAC doesn't work on the Zune, and WMA doesn't work on the iPod, and OGG works on next to nothing. The only reason FLAC isn't included is it's an extra step, but c'mon, you're already making us use your software...
AJAX.
Not that AJAX is a bad idea, but that it needed a word. And that word irritates the hell out of those of us who knew it as DHTML, or simply as Javascript.
Or, how's this: "Blog".
It's a journal, or it's a column. Either way, the only thing that makes it special is that it's on the Internet.
Or how about this: "Myspace".
This one makes me absolutely livid. It's Geocities 2.0, and you can just hear the resounding SMACK of a million programmers at once wondering why they didn't do it first. Not "think of it", because we already had Geocities, but do it.
I'm with you, somewhat, but that doesn't mean Rails is worthless.
I do still hope HD-DVD is somehow alive, but I fear it's more like this:
HD-DVD: Microsoft always triumphs! Have at you! Come on, then.
[whop]
[Blu-Ray chops HD-DVD's last studio off]
HD-DVD: Oh? All right, we'll call it a draw.
Blu-Ray: Come, Warner.
HD-DVD: Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your Heroes off!
Depends how much work you're willing to do, but it might be possible to do the stuff you're describing as "hacks" without cracking it at all, especially if they start doing additional persistent storage.
The trick is, you would need an AACS-encrypted disc with any of the code you'd be doing this with.
Question is, how does this compare to, say, a PS3 with Linux?
It's more the statement about risk being built in to the price as a justification for $10-15/disc -- and that being a risk of, what, piracy? Except by making the product more expensive, you drive more people to piracy. It just seems odd.
Frankly, though, I can't blame him for some of that. No matter what he thinks, I very much doubt he can say "Sure, go ahead and steal it!"
I do believe that the OLPC and the Internet is a step towards that. Figure that article alone would have to have an impact on these people, right?
Larry Wall doesn't exactly follow his own advice, there... But I digress.
I'm not really sure a raytracer was such a horrible idea.
If you can isolate those tight loops, there's a good chance you can do just that part in C. High-performance should be possible.
It's the real-time response that would be difficult. I wouldn't have a problem writing a 3D raytracer (intended for a renderfarm, say) in Perl, but I might not want to do a 3D game.
The article also recommends both using Perl as a replacement for shell scripts, and, well, not using it as a replacement for shell scripts. The logic given is that you shouldn't call out to the shell, and use the native functions -- but that would suggest that you're using it as even more of a replacement for shell scripts. Ah, well, at least I don't actually disagree with the article, although occasionally, it just makes more sense to, say, call the 'find' command than re-implement it in Perl.
Then it gets into really WTF territory:
Wait, you're recommending PHP, a language invented out of the need to inline server-side code in HTML, and then you complain about Perl having HTML inlined in it?
I mean, yes, it's a bad pattern, but frankly, PHP is "more modern" in the sense that Vista is "more modern", and Perl has plenty of out-of-the-box Web support. I might still use something like Rails, or stranger things like Seaside, but never PHP.
Also: You recommend Perl for database manipulation. Rails was invented out of the idea that most web apps are really just trying to put a database on the web. And PHP has been notorious for SQL injections, if undeservedly.
Still, you have hit on the one unambiguous point: Unless you're participating in an Obfuscated Perl Contest, don't write ugly, unreadable code, in any language.
It is possible to turn off Windows Update. If you're willing to pay, you can have Windows Server Update Services, which allows you to pick and choose updates.
And maybe you can cite some sources for me -- was 2007 any worse for Microsoft than it was for anyone else? I mean, aside from Vista being useless...
The term is "Nobody got fired for choosing IBM."
Where are they now?
Just like XP was supposed to be an interim OS between 2K and Longhorn.
Alright, I'm reading through this, still looking for evidence other than aggressive lawsuits.
I mean, not that aggressive lawsuits are a good thing, but they hardly qualify as a "destructive cult". Compare this to Scientology, in which you get sucked deeper and deeper, paying more and more, only to learn that your religion is a space opera. (Oh, and did I mention, it's a religion, too?)
Maybe you could point to something more specific, because there are tons of articles, and so far, really nothing that damning about the courses themselves.
Certainly sounds like it could be copyright infringement.
Again, not that I believe they should've gone after it, but take a quick look around at other groups sending takedown notices to YouTube.
Many of them are self-evident.
You're telling me you honestly don't see how it works to understand the difference between what actually happened, and what we invent? (Story/What Happened)
I realize it's simple stuff -- that's the point.
And a question: Have you actually been to a Forum weekend? (Not a rhetorical question; I actually can't tell.)
Actually, I'm a person. I did the Forum and the Advanced Course, haven't done anything else. I don't volunteer for them, and I generally don't word-of-mouth market for them.
But both the Forum and the Advanced Course did have a positive, fairly measurable impact on my life.
So you can understand why I'm skeptical when I see it called a dangerous cult. Not because I've thoroughly researched the subject, or even because I really have a clue, but because that's not what I experienced.
All of the reasons you've just given are all the more reason for you to learn a real dynamic scripting language. Try Perl, Python, or Ruby, though not necessarily in that order. Even Javascript.
... ?> syntax, and all of them can do that already, to some extent.
It's not just that I hate PHP, although I do. It's that the only thing PHP has that these other languages don't is the <?php
Ruby has deep, pervasive OO, not just tacked on; pervasive patterns around anonymous callbacks (each, select, insert, and friends); and beautiful syntax.
Perl has a sweet code library (CPAN) such that most programs I write end up being less than 100 lines of code. Anything you want to do has probably already been done in CPAN.
Python is simple. Simple to pick up, learn, and use, and the strict syntax forces everything to be somewhat understandable. Plus, you can fly.
PHP has tacked-on OO, tons of code in web apps (pretty horrible code, too) but not much in libraries (so not easy to tie together), ass-ugly syntax, and, in general, no redeeming qualities. Except that you already know it, and it embeds in webpages.
Well, except that every one of the other languages I mentioned have plenty of templating systems for them already. You can certainly embed Perl and Python in a webpage (embperl, rhtml). So I guess that leaves PHP with "you already know it" and "a bunch of web apps are written in it". Not a very compelling argument, unless you happen to be maintaining one of said webapps.
None of what you just described has anything to do with your actual code, or even its capabilities. Those are warnings, development options, and performance tuning.
And, were you to find a host who'd allow arbitrary executables, you could still set all that. Were you to find a host who'd allow arbitrary C, none of the flags you've set there actually affect the outcome.
Contrast this to PHP, where basic things like the maximum file upload size (a capability) and whether or not to automatically set query string variables to language variables (changes source compatibility) are global, language-wide, server-wide config options.
Yeah, another poster mentioned create_function. They also mentioned that it leaks memory.
And if all it did was IO, that would be fine.
More like it was designed to be horribly abused.
I mean, I assume you're talking about providing HTML output by putting ?> <b>some text here</b> <?php in the middle of your program. But how is that not explicit? It's just explicit in a really perverse way.
Great -- and is your program code that well-organized? Do you cleanly separate your logic from your presentation, so your designers can tweak the template -- or swap it wholesale, or make your app skinnable -- without you having to lift a finger on the real code?
If you answered "yes", there's no reason you couldn't have done the same with Ruby and ERB, or Perl and TemplateToolkit, or...
If you answered "no", you're probably one of the people abusing it.
And that is why it has been criticized -- if you go from static pages to PHP, there's a chance your PHP scripts are horribly designed.
I'd also argue that even systems like CGI or mod_perl are about as easy, for the few places I need something dynamic. When it's just a template system, I'll use something like a Perl script and static files.
Your comment may well apply to TFA (which I haven't read), but it doesn't take hindsight to figure out that people are going to want to use this for everything, including plenty of things Apple never thought of.
So, why did they limit it so severely that the exploit is called "jailbreak"?
Oh, and by the way, your Chinese saying doesn't apply here, either. It takes less effort to leave it open (and refuse to support custom apps, if you must) than it does to lock it down.
First, Landmark doesn't sue people for exposing their "beliefs", if you must call them that. The courses act more like a BSD license -- the one thing you're not allowed to do is pretend you came up with it yourself, and start selling a course on the same stuff.
Second, "brainwashing"? Really? The Landmark Forum, in particular, is a weekend seminar. Yes, a seminar -- you go sit in a room with lots of people, and you learn. There's no sleep deprivation, no starvation, no torture, none of the other techniques that you'd need for it to qualify as "brainwashing".
Third, there actually aren't any beliefs. It's a set of tools, take 'em or leave 'em. And by "tools", I don't mean anything weird, like meditation techniques. I mean things like actually gaining an understanding that you don't know everything. (Pie chart. Tiny sliver: what you know that you know. Slightly larger sliver: what you know that you don't know. Rest of the pie (easily more than 75%): what you don't know that you don't know.)
The money part, I do have to disagree -- it's not all about money, or they'd be asking a hell of a lot more than they are. At the same time, they do a pretty hard sell at the end to get you to call everyone you know, and get them to sign up.
I don't care how hard their sell was.
Either you can simply ignore them, or they're actually doing something illegal, and you can stop them.
I don't see why you felt the need to fund them.
How dare you compare the fine folks at The Onion to Fox news!?
Which is exactly what the original poster was complaining about. On KDE, if you don't hold a key while dragging, all drag/drop is like right-clicking.
Yes -- that is pretty much what I said. By "try it", I do mean actually start that drag'n'drop process.
But honestly, that's an extra step to look at what it's about to do. It's a mental "are you sure" process. This is why I use shift+delete, and shift/control+drag.
I generally prefer something like:
sub add {
my ($x, $y) = @_;
return $x + $y;
}
However, the one-line example you listed is the kind of thing I might use as a callback. Sometimes, I just can't resist overly-clever, completely unreadable one-liners.
Pretty much.
I should have been clear -- a lot of the criticism of PHP is for historical reasons. But they are kind of valid historical reasons, because a lot of people do still code like that.
But you can probably build a decent API on top of most Turing-complete languages.