| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2004/4/10-11 [Computer/SW/Languages/Perl] UID:13124 Activity:low |
4/9 Can one write a filename expansion pattern that, say, match all
filenames without a '.' in it? This would be trivial in regexp but
I can't see how to do it in sh.
\_ I don't think you can do it directly (at least, not in a practical
way). You can always run the output of ls through sed easily
enough. Finer shells like zsh also have ways to negate wildcards,
which may help here somewhat.
\_ something silly like [A-Za-z0-9 _]* (etc,etc), but it really
depends on your shell. in /bin/sh? eh.... This sounds like
another of those motd problem where you're better off asking how
you should solve the real problem instead of asking the tedious
detail you got stuck on because you're lost in the forest looking
at the trees.
\- right. use ls,find,echo |fgrep -v . to generate the list. --psb
\_ psb is right. sh's pattern is different from regexp so that
char class cannot have wild card multiplier.
\_ yes I know that but if you read what I said the point is I
think he's doing the wrong thing. if he tells us what he's
trying to do at a higher level this whole regexp problem will
go away if he has a better general plan. his original q.
seems silly. he could just as easily call perl or some
other regexp compatible parser at that point in his /bin/sh
program but that doesn't seem to be the point, does it?
\_ I am not doing SA. I am just doing some spring cleaning
of the hard drive on my home pc and wondered if there is
a oneliner solution to a simple problem. It's faster to
visually inspect than to learn perl.
\- use emacs dired-mode --psb
\_ ok then use either of psb's answers or use a different
shell that can deal with a regexp. |
| 2004/4/10-11 [Recreation/Media] UID:13125 Activity:nil |
4/10 So do you think Clarke feels sorry enough about his failure that he'll
be donating his book *AND* movie profits to the surviving families
of 9/11? Somehow, I doubt it but I do think highly of his market
timing if not his morals and ethics.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000484839
\_ As a conservative, you should have long ago made peace with
the fact that many sets of "facts" pass as "truth" in this country
depending on what your political party is.
\_ This isn't an issue of truth or fact or any such thing. This is
strictly about his making a drooling apology from one side of
his mouth while counting his profit and cashing in on that same
failure from the other. I'd take his book (and now his movie)
more seriously if it didn't look like a market timing action
instead of an honest mea culpa.
\_ So how exactly do you feel about Haliburton cashing it in--
oh, wait, sorry--spreading good will and cheer in Iraq? -sax
\_ Not all. No one from Haliburton ever sat in front of a
camera and said, "boo hoo! woe is us! we're so sorry!"
while pushing their book and movie. Haliburton is a
corporation. Corporations exist to profit and make money.
If you don't like corporations that is an entirely
different issue and either way it doesn't excuse Clarke's
sicken behavior. One company's possible wrongs does
not excuse some unrelated one man's wrongs. How do you
feel about Clarke cashing in since you find Haliburton
so distasteful?
\_ Is what Clarke said true?
\_ That he's sorry? I can't read his mind but his
actions don't meet his words.
\_ Nothing wrong with speaking up about a cover up.
If it just so happens someone then decides to offer
him a book deal, there is nothing wrong with it.
Why do you hate when good people win? Why do you
hate America?
\_ No, it was book deal first. There wouldn't be a
book and movie if this wasn't a hot current topic.
My issue is that he apologised to the 9/11 families
and boo-hooed on TV (we call it grandstanding) but
then turns around and pockets the cash. Why do all
of you ignore the hypocritical nature of the apology
preceded by book and movie deals? The apology was
clearly just sales hype so he could cash in. Why is
he not donating the profits to the families if he's
so sorry?
the fact that two sets of "facts" pass as "truth" in this country. |
| 2004/4/10-12 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:13126 Activity:nil |
4/10 When I use font-size:medium, the font sizes are totally different in
IE and Firefox/Moz/Safari/etc. For real websites, is it recommended
to do something like font-size:11px ? Both allow for resizing.
\_ If you want something that looks exactly the way you want it to,
use PDF. If you want something that looks the way the reader
wants it to, use HTML. Your reader can make that choice; you
shouldn't. HTML specifies "what" not "how", despite the strong
efforts of far too many web designers who tell it "how", sigh ...
\_ PDF doesn't exactly work for interactive websites.
\_ Exactly the point. The "web designer" can not have absolute
control over the look of a site because html doesn't allow
for that. That is in the hands of the browser. There is no
way in hell a page in IE will look like the same in Mozilla
and in Opera and in lynks and Safari, etc.
and in Opera and in links and Safari, etc.
\_ medium/large/small/etc. are measured relative to the browser's
default font setting (which is configurable by the user, although
the default may vary from browser to browser). If you set it to
something like 11 px, then you're making your text by default to
be too small for people with high display resolutions or poor
eyesight. Every time they visit your page, they'll need to resize.
\_ Yes but if I use relative font settings and set my fonts to an
average size (which of course, looks too big to a 20something
graphic designer), it'll look tiny in FireFox, etc. If I set it
to 11pt, like most of the web, then people like my dad can still
view the site as long as their browser's font size is "Larger"
than default.
\_ Your grandmother's font size will be whatever the default is
for her browser. Stop being clever. |
| 2004/4/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:13127 Activity:high |
4/10 Good balanced article on Economist. US still has a window of
opportunity to make things work in Iraq.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2572254
"It was one of the worst weeks so far. But it would still be
wrong to write Iraq off"
\_ I'd like to point out for the umpteenth time that NOBODY-- not
even the Berkeley liberals-- wants the US to "write Iraq off".
We are opposed to the flimsy justification for this war, and the
continued mishandling of it.
\_ how do you figure it should be handled at this point? please
don't say "bring in the UN!". they were already there and Kofi
pulled them out after a single bombing after their local
directors ignored their own security people's advice.
\_ Turn the country over to the UN or some other multinational
co-alition, maybe the Arab League.
\_ Duh, where have you been? I just told you the UN turned
tail at the first sign of trouble. Do you read? Watch the
news? Anything? Or do you just make this shit up as you
go? The Arab League? Ah, yes, genius plan! We're there
right now trying to create a democracy of some sort and you
want to turn it over to the most oppressive dictators in
the modern world. Stick with html and java.
\_ You haven't been walking around campuses recently, or gone to
Berkeley-style bookstores of a certain variety, I take it?
And not seen those 'BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!' posters?
This is in LA, btw, not Berkeley. Berkeley is likely a lot
worse. I could have sworn I saw the same guys with the
'END IRAQ SANCTIONS NOW!' posters just a year ago. -- ilyas
\_ I live in a town where democrats outnumber republicans
13 to 1, with several universities within a couple miles.
all my freinds are democrats or greens or way out leftists
of some other type, and no one i know thinks we should just
pull out, and i have seen no signs to that effect. perhaps
LA is just full of stupid ass tools? why the fuck else
would they have decided to live in LA?
\_ Look, dude, I am happy that your far out leftist friends
are more reasonable, but your "NOBODY" claim is simply
false, I would say to the tune of 5% of the population
(at least). In fact, next time I am at UCLA, I am
going to take a little informal poll, and report back.
-- ilyas
p.s. One of them is Governor Stupid Ass Tool to you.
\_ 5% of the population believes that the govenment
is controlled by space aliens, too.
\_ We're working hard to convince the rest of you before
They take over everything and we all perish into the
food vats or as hosts for their symbiotes!
false. -- ilyas
\_ I've seen them in Berkeley, and wasn't that half of
Kucinichi's (sp?) platform?
\_ poor bastard... how does he expect anyone to vote for
him when they can't even spell his name. if he was
smith or jones or jackson he'd be ok.
\_ Seriously. That's probably a factor. I mean,
Kucinichi's (sp?) platform?
Kelly vs Bush?
\_ Actually, if and when the window of opportunity above closes,
it's time to get out. not getting out would just be prolonging
the pain.
\_ Agreed. It's not foolish or cowardly to realize that it's
possible for us to screw this situation up past the point
where our presence is in any way helpful. That point may
not be now, but we need to consider it as a possibility.
\_ It's always helpful to someone. The point so far has been
that on balance, it was never helpful to America to do this.
Nothing about the current situation is really much different
than many imagined.
\_ Not to take sides in this debate, or anything, but I
really don't think it is possible to evaluate the effects
of sweeping foreign policy changes after so little time
has passed. While it is true that the outcome in Iraq
is important, the fact that America now has a much more
aggressive doctrine of preemption (for example) will also
have effects. In twenty years it will be obvious whether
the Bush Doctrine was a bad idea. Calling it a failure
now falls under the heading of "I hate Bush" criticism.
To the poster below: whatever else may be true, pulling
out this very instant is certainly stupid, considering
how much it will save, and how much it will lose. There
will be no pullout certainly until November for obvious
reasons, and probably not for a few years. I think
the final toll will be a few thousand american lives, and
a whole lotta deficit. -- ilyas
\_ What is our agressive policy supposedly trying to
preempt? Disagreement with the United States? Because
it sure as hell has nothing to do with terrorism.
\_ What our aggressive policy is trying to prevent is
state-sponsored terrorism. Whether Iraq actually
sponsored terrorism is not even relevant. What is
relevant was the reason why we are in Iraq. Now
suddenly, the world realizes America has a really
itchy trigger finger for stuff like that, and will
think twice about it. Syria, for instance, is scared
shitless, they were doing nothing but conceding as of
late. In fact, domestic dissent on the Iraq war is
a natural sideeffect of democracy, but it weakens the
effect of the policy insofar as it makes America less
likely to engage in future wars of this type. In
case of Iraq, there was also a gamble to place a seed
of democracy in the middle east, using the common
observation that democracy is virulent, and
prosperity follows democracy. It was a gamble because
creating democracy from scratch is difficult, all
democratic european states went through a long period
of bloodshed before democracy was established for
good. -- ilyas
\_ "established for good". Really, that should be
"established for the moment". Democracy is
fragile and must be tended, not taken for granted
as the western Europeans and so many Americans do.
As far as the Bush Gamble goes, only time will
tell. Historians will look back and children will
either be taught that he was the most brilliant
foreign policy President in generations or the
worst. It is too soon to tell now.
\_ "Now suddenly, the world [...] will think twice
about it." Or they won't. It's equally possible
that countries will realize that the only to
protect themselves from aggression is to develop
their own WMD. I don't understand why above you
say that we need 20 years to evaluate the
success of the Bush Doctrine, and then you go
and claim that the Bush Doctrine has been
successful.
\_ I don't claim that it is successful. I was
merely giving possible reasons for the Bush
the Bush Doctrine was a bad idea. Calling it a failure
now falls under the heading of "I hate Bush" criticism.
Whatever else may be true, pulling out this very instant
is certainly stupid. - ilyas
To the poster below: whatever else may be true, pulling
\_ The right people at the top of what to accomplish what who wants?
a natural sideeffect of democracy, but it weakens the
effect of the policy insofar as it makes America less
likely to engage in future wars of this type. -- ilyas
Doctrine. Whether they are good reasons or
not remains to be seen. -- ilyas
\_ Developing WMD as a defense against the US at
this point in history would be pure suicide.
Only the most insane of leaders would think
like this. Witness North Korea for an example
of insanity. Without a dramatic shift in
power due to leapfrogging non-US technology or
the complete economic collapse of the US, the
currently non-WMD would only do as you suggest
if they were completely irrational. It's a
losing policy for any nation as the world
stands now. As far as the BD goes, no one here
has claimed success. Where do you get this
stuff from? Do you not read? Do you knee
jerk into anything that doesn't bash Bush must
be pro-Bush? We're having a nice little chat
here, please don't fuck it up with blind
partisanship.
\_ It's not stupid to support a pullout at this point. The
Washington Post has at least one very long article on the Falluja
This is in LA, btw, not Berkeley. I shudder when I think about
Berkeley... -- ilyas
Kucinichi's (sp?) platform?
it's time to get out. not getting out would just be prolonging
the pain.
out this very instant is certainly stupid, considering
how much it will save, and how much it will lose. -- ilyas
\_ It's not stupid to support a pullout at this point. The
Washington Post has at least one very long article on the Falluja
problem. I just get the impression that we're shitting ourselves
into a deeper and deeper hole; we don't have the right people
at the top to accomplish what they want.
war with each other for Europe's benefit. The lines are entirely
artificial and detrimental to the cause of peace and anyone's
security. If anyone had the balls to just admit the Europeans
fucked most of the rest of the world and just redraw the lines a
whole lot of ugliness would simply evaporate over night.
\_ Good idea, all we have to do is also invade Iran, Syria, and
Turkey so we can erase all current lines and redivide!
(Although, I agree with out in a perfect world sense.)
problem. I just get the impression that we're shitting ourselves
into a deeper and deeper hole; we don't have the right people
at the top to accomplish what they want.
\_ The right people at the top of what to accomplish what who wants?
\_ Does anyone remember how many troops we *still* have in the Kosovo
region? They were supposed to be out after *one year* from the
time they first entered the area. All these people all over the
place hate each other so much. Most of these situations were
created by European colonialism. The Europeans *intentionally*
divided tribes and put halves of traditional enemy tribes together
for the express purpose of making sure these places were always at
war with each other for Europe's benefit. The lines are entirely
artificial and detrimental to the cause of peace and anyone's
security. If anyone had the balls to just admit the Europeans
fucked most of the rest of the world and just redraw the lines a
whole lot of ugliness would simply evaporate over night.
\_ Good idea, all we have to do is also invade Iran, Syria, and
Turkey so we can erase all current lines and redivide!
(Although, I agree with out in a perfect world sense.)
\_ No invasion would be necesssary in most cases. A lot of the
current wars going on are because the original tribes are
trying to reform across borders. The Tutsi/Hutu thing was a
good example of that. One tribe managed to take control of
the government and used it to attempt to genocide the other
from within their borders. After 500,000 to 800,000 dead, it
sure looks like a better plan to bring everyone to the table
to redraw borders peacefully rather than by the gun or the
machete. |
| 2004/4/10-12 [Computer/SW/Languages/Perl] UID:13128 Activity:nil |
4/10 In perl, how do I get time precise to the milisecond? The CPAN module
requires recompilation and root access to install it, I'm looking for
something more portable. Thanks!
\_ If you need to know the time, there's no portable way to do it
without modules. However, if you just want a sub-second delay,
you can do it with select -- for example, select "", "", "", 0.1;
will pause for a tenth of a second. --mconst
\_ you can always install modules as a user and add the libs to your
perl lib path. |
| 2004/4/10-12 [Computer/SW/Languages/Perl] UID:13129 Activity:nil |
4/10 In perl, can I make the program more portable by first checking if
a module is available, then "use" or "require" it later?
\_ I think you can do this with an exec call. Checking.
no. i think i was thinking of using an eval block, but i
can't quite get it to work.
\_ You can set up a variables using single quoted strings with
embedded use/require statements and necessary subroutine
calls and then use eval to figure out which ones work at
runtime. Here is a short example that returns a hash of @_
using either MD5 or SHA1 (which ever is found first, unless
a search order is specified via $MODE):
sub doHash
{
my $hashCmdMD5 = 'use Digest::MD5 qw(md5 md5_hex md5_base64);';
$hashCmdMD5 .= " md5_hex('@_'); ";
my $hashCmdSHA1 = 'use Digest::SHA1 qw(sha1 sha1_hex sha1_base64);';
$hashCmdSHA1 .= " sha1_hex('@_'); ";
my $hashCmd = ($MODE eq "MD5" ? $hashCmdMD5 : $hashCmdSHA1);
my $hash = eval $hashCmd;
if ($@ || !defined($hash) || $hash eq "") {
$hashCmd = ($MODE eq "MD5" ? $hashCmdSHA1 : $hashCmdMD5);
$hash = eval $hashCmd;
}
return ($@ || !defined($hash) ? "" : $hash);
}
\_ nice. where's that code from? yours?
\_ This is modified from some code I wrote for work. I added
$MODE for this example, so that one can get an idea about
how this can work. |
| 2004/4/10-11 [Uncategorized] UID:13130 Activity:nil |
4/10 Bank ATM card reading scam. It's short. Read it.
http://www.utexas.edu/admin/utpd/atm.html |
| 2004/4/10-12 [Transportation/Airplane] UID:13131 Activity:high |
4/10 Does anyone have any information on or experiences with Thai
Airways Intl? Are they reliable/safe? Thanks.
\_ Most of their pilots are trained in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
Take offs: ok. Steering: excellent. Landing: not so good.
\- helo i have flown thai a number of times. in the last few yrs
they have more or less consciously modelled themselves after
singapore airlines, i.e. big focus on in-air service.
as for safety, you may wish to see:
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Articles/News
[i missed SQ 006 by a little bit ... switched to SQ 002]
If you are scared to fly a major airlines like this, you should
just kill yourself. However, I wouldnt blame you for being a bit
nervous on say Sita Air [where the pilot's GPS was from Sharper
Image] and there was more weight in beer in the cabin than people.
\_ yeah, "major airline". maybe I should just kill myself.
\- I hope you have a good flight and then get SARS. --psb
\_ but SARS has a low fatality rate.
\_ That is quite mean.
\_ wow partha that is the most malicious I've ever
seen you.
\- you all should get together and have a CircleCough
\_ I've flown Thai Airways several times, as have many of my ex-pat
friends. The planes are modern and safe, the pilots fly smoothly,
and the flight attendants are wonderfully polite and an absolute
joy to look at. Business class is better than Economy, of course,
but Thai Air's Economy is better than the steerage you'll find on
Northwest. --erikred
\_ Thai girls... mmmm... yummy....
\_ Ummm... you know those are really guys... right?
\_ At least we still have Singapore girls.
\_ When guys start looking *that* good I'm going queer.
\_ Most of them are post-op, so it's not really that queer.
\_ Pre, post, whatever. Hot is hot.
\_ Does retrofit vagina feel as good as real vagina?
\_ Pre, post, queer is queer.
\_ mesmerized by the pattern. must post.
\_ he's just jealous that he'll never be as hot
Image] --psb
as the other Thai girls. his surgeon sucks.
\_ if any more of this stuff is posted directly to the motd instead of
as a url somewhere it'll be toasted instantly with no further
warning. post a link to his site. if he cant then make one for
him and post it. but stop abusing the motd with endless lengthy
ramblings from this one guy.
\_ ok, look. If you're reallly reporting straight from Iraq to the
motd that's pretty cool, but could you PLEASE provide context for
these posts? Are you in the army? marines? a contractor? tourist?
where are you?
\_ he mentioned Flur in another post, which probably means he's
constructing infrastructure of some kind (I see mention of water<
and electrical in central/south iraq) -chialea
\_ civilian contractor working on iraq reconstruction. (our camp
-fluor daniel-is located within camp taji)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/taji_m.htm -kinney
\_ This is the equivelent of political spam. Instead of posting
this whole guys blog here, why not just provide a link and let
us read it ourselves?
\_ Kinney is a contractor. This is from one of his emails. He does
not have a web site. Don't delete this. -dans
\_ 4/11 [ I said, no spam, bitch. Just post a link ] |
| 2004/4/10 [Uncategorized] UID:29913 Activity:nil 50%like:11405 60%like:13066 |
4/9 http://hinterlands.cc/index.php?showtopic=66 Probably not work-safe. |
| 2004/4/10 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux, Computer/SW/Languages/Misc] UID:29914 Activity:nil |
4/10 Does anyone know how Redhat turns on IP forwarding? Apparently you can
set a directive FORWARD_IPV4=yes in /etc/sysconfig/network, but I can't
seem to find the script (or whatever) that acts on this. I know you can
'echo 1 > /proc/net/ipv4/ip_forward' to do the same thing, but I'd like
to find that file in hopes of also finding a list of other similar
directives. Google also does not seem to be coming up with a definitive
list of these things. Thanks. |