No, that's GNU/Defective By Design. Unfortunately some people have been using the entire "Defective by Design" phrase without acknowledging all the people who worked towards creating the EMACS editor with which it was composed.
It's complicated, but not ambiguous[1]. In the real world, there's exactly two things you're going to use chomp for:
chomp; # Chomps the default variable, $_
and
chomp $x; # Chomps the variable $x
What it means to "chomp" something is affected by how you're dealing with your input, which is controlled by $/ among other strange perlvar critters.
As it is, if you want to do strange things with your input, you should be looking at PerlIO. If you're dealing with code which uses $/ in combination with chomp, you've only got about five small paragraphs to go through on the page you linked to, in order to figure out what's going on - not too bad for a method which has stayed essentially unchanged for well over a decade.
[1] Just realised my post doesn't address the "ambiguous" complaint at all, so:
chomp: removes trailing record separators, returns the total number of characters removed. If no variable being chomped: $_ is chomped. If variable being chomped is list: chomps all the elements of the list. If variable being chomped is hash: chomps all the values of the hash, but not the keys. Record separator: the string being used to split up records in input. This can either be '', undef, or a reference to an integer. If '': chomp removes trailing newlines If undef or ref_integer: won't remove anything.
The documentation page also has a note about using brackets to clarify exactly what you want chomped.
How is any of this ambiguous? If anything, the documentation page describes in reasonably complete detail what chomp will do on any input type, under any $/ constraint. If you doubt this behavior, you can check out Perl's testing suite: I believe there's over 180,000 unit tests on the Perl interpreter and core modules, which should clarify what chomp will do under most circumstances.
Perl's certainly complicated, but it tries very, very hard to be unambiguous.
I noticed the same thing, but I really don't think it would have "jumped out" at me if I hadn't been looking out for something fake - I'd just have assumed that "Emily" had strange expressions.
I think Small Furry Creature is on the right track - the uncannyness of the valley isn't "people" looking almost-but-not-quite-right, it's our physics assumptions failing - when fat on someone's face doesn't move the right way, hair doesn't fall the way we expect it to, and so on. They got around that in this video by using real background video everywhere except for the face, so there are fewer cues for us to notice physics going wrong - except, as you point out, the eyelids. That's how they got around the uncanny valley, imnsho.
Just to check: when was this? A Warcraft III update turned off the CD check a while back, and I wasn't aware that it did any sort of hardware check/call home, apart from checking whether the CD is in the drive. Or is this battle.net? I've always thought of Blizzard as one of the software companies that "got it", sort of. I'll be very disappointed if they're into this DRMaddness.
My experience is with Warcraft III on Mac, no expansion pack, so maybe that's why my experience was different.
(Seriously, you should put your details into the spreadsheet so we can collate what's happening and on which logic boards, etc. There's also some advice on talking Apple into letting you buy AppleCare after your warranty's expired)
Yeah, and I've heard Chinese and Indians say nasty things about each other, what's your point? Religious doesn't have a monopoly on bigots. In many parts of India, for years on end, Muslims and Hindus live side by side peacefully - until riots break out and everything goes to hell in a handcart.
As a side issue: wtf is up with Islam and dogs? Jesus friggin' Christ. Any religion that doesn't "allow" a boy to have a dog as a pet is... sick.
Can't argue with you there, except to point out that most religions have silly rules one way or another.
after the Mohammed cartoon controversity, I'd imagine they'd want more "protection"
You mean censorship?
"protected" against blasphemy
Fail.
Yes, to clarify, I do think it's censorship, and absolutely wrong, as well as a little bit silly - seriously, a several thousand year old religious culture and/or an omnipresent, omnipotent supreme deity care in the slightest what I scribble on a little piece of paper? Honestly.
AFAIK, this was a point raised during the Mohammed comments - many people complained, "we don't insult your religion, why should it be okay to insult ours?" To which the answer is, because the right to free speech supercedes any right against offense. Where would we be if everything offensive to anybody were purged from the world? Thanks, but I think I'll keep questioning dogma, if that's all the same with everyone.
The Muslims will surely try to use it to debase Christianity further.
Hmm? Muslims consider Jesus a prophet of God, and the Jews and Christians are the other "people of the book", and are held at a higher level than other infidels. I don't see the Muslims disparaging other religions (atleast, other monotheistic ones); if anything, after the Mohammed cartoon controversity, I'd imagine they'd want more "protection" against blasphemizing Jewish and Christian beliefs, so that their beliefs can be "protected" against blasphemy as well.
Interestingly, that's almost exactly the behavior exhibited by mosquitofish - they can distinguish 4 fish from 1 fish, or 2 fish from 3 fish, but beyond 4, it's all the same to them.
Personally, I always thought it was vaguely plausible, particularly since the kids ended up in Russia and that bit about the friend going down to pick up the kids. That way, she'd only be separated from her kids for weeks or a few months, at most, which might have been possible if she was planning some kind of massive revenge. Except that the defence proved pretty conclusively that she didn't seem to have any reason for a massive revenge, not when everything was coming together for her pretty well at that time.
Until whenever this article came up on the front page, I preferred the "somebody else killed Nina, and Hans is just paranoid and really weird" theory myself. But I guess that's out of the question now.
Of course, I read all of three Slashdot articles and followed some of the testimony online - I didn't sit in court for several months listening to every bit of evidence. I remember a blog post about how twelve jurors frequently see through to the heart of the matter - obviously, I was wrong, and those twelve were right.
"The water should be actually boiling at the moment of impact, which means that one should keep it on the flame while one pours. Some people add that one should only use water that has been freshly brought to the boil, but I have never noticed that it makes any difference." -- George Orwell
Depends on where you are, I guess. A couple of years ago, Internet cafes flowered up all over Mumbai as people realised that you didn't need much of an investment - a small room, a couple of computers, somebody to make sure nobody steals the computers - to get going with cafes. I haven't seen any there lately, but I'm sure they exist - they keep popping up in the news; about half a year ago, a "protest" was launched against them to protest - of all things - an Orkut group denigrating Shivaji and/or India. So they're definitely there.
+1 Insightful. Easily the most concise refutation of the good Cmdr's point above.
Since I can't really add anything which would be more insightful than that, I'll go for the Funny vote: "Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry with your judgement, he'll be a mile away--and barefoot." (Sarah Jackson, according to Google)
In my opinion, he had the privilege to live the high point of traditional movie special effects, and had the honor of working on the film that ushered in CGI(Jurassic Park). And the thing about Jurassic Park, this movie combined both the classic approach and a modern approach seamlessly. Hear, hear. It was embarrassing that the CGI in Indiana Jones 4 was so obviously fake, to say nothing of some of the mindnubbingly bad sequences in Star Wars 1, 2 and 3. I thought it was Spielberg who pulled off Jurassic Park's most brilliant trick - by making the CGI distant and vague, and using puppets and robots for all the close-up shots, he allowed the movie to age extremely well - it still feels whole lot more real than many other movies made since! Well, I thought it was Spielberg - on the basis of your post and the lousy SFX in IJ4, it sounds like this might've been the genius and hard work of people like Stan, who definitely deserve every accolade they've received and a whole many others besides.
I might never have heard of you before, but I loved your work, Stan, and you will be missed.
Did you try the on-duty editor, at - I think - daddypants at slashdot.org? I e-mailed there once, and they fixed the problem that time pretty fast, although of course perhaps my e-mail vanished into the ether and somebody else with the correct e-mail address got in. Still, it's something to do, I suppose.
I doubt they'll change this, though, "Another switch in space" doesn't have the same ring to it, and neither will the ringing of their cash machine with titles like that.
AFAIK, Opera makes its money licensing Opera for cellphone browsers; the web version gets them publicity, testing on a wide number of pages and name recognition. The new synchronise feature will also allow people who browse on their cellphones to save websites to their browser bookmarks, and have these automatically synchronised with those on their home browser (if they're both Opera), giving those already using Opera at home a reason to get a phone with an Opera browser, and vice versa.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that's GNU/Defective By Design. Unfortunately some people have been using the entire "Defective by Design" phrase without acknowledging all the people who worked towards creating the EMACS editor with which it was composed.
Perl 1.0 was released in 1987, four years before Python. How old is your dad - and more to the point, how old are you?
It's complicated, but not ambiguous[1]. In the real world, there's exactly two things you're going to use chomp for:
and
What it means to "chomp" something is affected by how you're dealing with your input, which is controlled by $/ among other strange perlvar critters.
As it is, if you want to do strange things with your input, you should be looking at PerlIO. If you're dealing with code which uses $/ in combination with chomp, you've only got about five small paragraphs to go through on the page you linked to, in order to figure out what's going on - not too bad for a method which has stayed essentially unchanged for well over a decade.
[1] Just realised my post doesn't address the "ambiguous" complaint at all, so:
The documentation page also has a note about using brackets to clarify exactly what you want chomped.
How is any of this ambiguous? If anything, the documentation page describes in reasonably complete detail what chomp will do on any input type, under any $/ constraint. If you doubt this behavior, you can check out Perl's testing suite: I believe there's over 180,000 unit tests on the Perl interpreter and core modules, which should clarify what chomp will do under most circumstances.
Perl's certainly complicated, but it tries very, very hard to be unambiguous.
I noticed the same thing, but I really don't think it would have "jumped out" at me if I hadn't been looking out for something fake - I'd just have assumed that "Emily" had strange expressions.
I think Small Furry Creature is on the right track - the uncannyness of the valley isn't "people" looking almost-but-not-quite-right, it's our physics assumptions failing - when fat on someone's face doesn't move the right way, hair doesn't fall the way we expect it to, and so on. They got around that in this video by using real background video everywhere except for the face, so there are fewer cues for us to notice physics going wrong - except, as you point out, the eyelids. That's how they got around the uncanny valley, imnsho.
Or you can read the comic; it always helps straighten me out on the affect/effect thing.
Lovely expression, "nasty little hand grenade", btw. Must remember to copy it sometime.
Didn't he die twice in Star Trek: Generations? I remember thinking I couldn't possibly endure two William Shatner dramatic deaths.
No, thanks; I'm not walking into a room and telling people I'm a VOWK.
WarCraft refused, saying am pirating.
Just to check: when was this? A Warcraft III update turned off the CD check a while back, and I wasn't aware that it did any sort of hardware check/call home, apart from checking whether the CD is in the drive. Or is this battle.net? I've always thought of Blizzard as one of the software companies that "got it", sort of. I'll be very disappointed if they're into this DRMaddness.
My experience is with Warcraft III on Mac, no expansion pack, so maybe that's why my experience was different.
It's already available on consoles, but not - regrettably - on any of Just Some Guy's platforms.
What should/can I do?
Join the line?
(Seriously, you should put your details into the spreadsheet so we can collate what's happening and on which logic boards, etc. There's also some advice on talking Apple into letting you buy AppleCare after your warranty's expired)
higher level than other infidels
Oh, so there's a caste system for infidels? Goody! Put me at the bottom, k?
Wouldn't the most infidelous person be at top of a system for infidels? Other than that, agree.
I don't see the Muslims disparaging other religions
Really? I've heard Muslims call Jews rats, dogs, bastards, pigs....
Yeah, and I've heard Chinese and Indians say nasty things about each other, what's your point? Religious doesn't have a monopoly on bigots. In many parts of India, for years on end, Muslims and Hindus live side by side peacefully - until riots break out and everything goes to hell in a handcart.
As a side issue: wtf is up with Islam and dogs? Jesus friggin' Christ. Any religion that doesn't "allow" a boy to have a dog as a pet is... sick.
Can't argue with you there, except to point out that most religions have silly rules one way or another.
after the Mohammed cartoon controversity, I'd imagine they'd want more "protection"
You mean censorship?
"protected" against blasphemy
Fail.
Yes, to clarify, I do think it's censorship, and absolutely wrong, as well as a little bit silly - seriously, a several thousand year old religious culture and/or an omnipresent, omnipotent supreme deity care in the slightest what I scribble on a little piece of paper? Honestly.
AFAIK, this was a point raised during the Mohammed comments - many people complained, "we don't insult your religion, why should it be okay to insult ours?" To which the answer is, because the right to free speech supercedes any right against offense. Where would we be if everything offensive to anybody were purged from the world? Thanks, but I think I'll keep questioning dogma, if that's all the same with everyone.
And that's my rant for this morning. Good day!
The Muslims will surely try to use it to debase Christianity further.
Hmm? Muslims consider Jesus a prophet of God, and the Jews and Christians are the other "people of the book", and are held at a higher level than other infidels. I don't see the Muslims disparaging other religions (atleast, other monotheistic ones); if anything, after the Mohammed cartoon controversity, I'd imagine they'd want more "protection" against blasphemizing Jewish and Christian beliefs, so that their beliefs can be "protected" against blasphemy as well.
Interestingly, that's almost exactly the behavior exhibited by mosquitofish - they can distinguish 4 fish from 1 fish, or 2 fish from 3 fish, but beyond 4, it's all the same to them.
Personally, I always thought it was vaguely plausible, particularly since the kids ended up in Russia and that bit about the friend going down to pick up the kids. That way, she'd only be separated from her kids for weeks or a few months, at most, which might have been possible if she was planning some kind of massive revenge. Except that the defence proved pretty conclusively that she didn't seem to have any reason for a massive revenge, not when everything was coming together for her pretty well at that time.
Until whenever this article came up on the front page, I preferred the "somebody else killed Nina, and Hans is just paranoid and really weird" theory myself. But I guess that's out of the question now.
Of course, I read all of three Slashdot articles and followed some of the testimony online - I didn't sit in court for several months listening to every bit of evidence. I remember a blog post about how twelve jurors frequently see through to the heart of the matter - obviously, I was wrong, and those twelve were right.
"The water should be actually boiling at the moment of impact, which means that one should keep it on the flame while one pours. Some people add that one should only use water that has been freshly brought to the boil, but I have never noticed that it makes any difference." -- George Orwell
So 98.2'c sounds about right.
Depends on where you are, I guess. A couple of years ago, Internet cafes flowered up all over Mumbai as people realised that you didn't need much of an investment - a small room, a couple of computers, somebody to make sure nobody steals the computers - to get going with cafes. I haven't seen any there lately, but I'm sure they exist - they keep popping up in the news; about half a year ago, a "protest" was launched against them to protest - of all things - an Orkut group denigrating Shivaji and/or India. So they're definitely there.
+1 Insightful. Easily the most concise refutation of the good Cmdr's point above.
Since I can't really add anything which would be more insightful than that, I'll go for the Funny vote: "Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry with your judgement, he'll be a mile away--and barefoot." (Sarah Jackson, according to Google)
Amazon, the joke goes, is written in COAL: C++, Oracle, Apache, Linux. But that's just the joke.
Sorry, couldn't resist
I'll go away now.
I might never have heard of you before, but I loved your work, Stan, and you will be missed.
First a plumber, and now an IT helpdesk guy. NASA's really trying to reach out to the common man.
Did you try the on-duty editor, at - I think - daddypants at slashdot.org? I e-mailed there once, and they fixed the problem that time pretty fast, although of course perhaps my e-mail vanished into the ether and somebody else with the correct e-mail address got in. Still, it's something to do, I suppose.
I doubt they'll change this, though, "Another switch in space" doesn't have the same ring to it, and neither will the ringing of their cash machine with titles like that.
Bwavo!
Opera's a good example!
AFAIK, Opera makes its money licensing Opera for cellphone browsers; the web version gets them publicity, testing on a wide number of pages and name recognition. The new synchronise feature will also allow people who browse on their cellphones to save websites to their browser bookmarks, and have these automatically synchronised with those on their home browser (if they're both Opera), giving those already using Opera at home a reason to get a phone with an Opera browser, and vice versa.
I, err, guess.
A goat! No wonder Firefox is bloated; you're supposed to sacrifice a rabbit! There's far too much meat on a goat ... !