Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:July:05 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2004/7/5 [Computer/SW/Languages/Perl] UID:31164 Activity:high
7/4     Is there something like a macro in Perl?  Couldn't find any in
        the Camel book.
        \_ If you truly need macros in Perl, you probably want AUTOLOAD.
           Of course, if you truly need macros, Perl is the wrong language for
           what you are doing.  -- ilyas
        \_ I don't know perl, but don't almost all interpreted languages have
           some kind of eval function?  If so, you don't really need macros;
           you can build up a string and evaluate it.
           \_ There is eval in perl, and yes I know I can use eval, but it
              is highly inefficient as the same code gets recompiled N times.
        \_ Standard motd answer: tell us what you're actually trying to do
           and we'll tell you the right way to do it instead of what you
           think you want to do.
           \_ What I want to do is pretty simple.  Assume Perl had #define
              then what I want to do would be like
                #define myMacro(a) if (flagP) {a} else {foo}
              Basically I want macro as a time saving device, rather than
              than the all powerful macro featured in Lisp.
              \_ Why don't you just run your Perl source files through
                 the c pre-processor?
                 \_ Would cpp conflict with Perl's grammar?
2004/7/5 [Uncategorized] UID:31165 Activity:nil
2004/7/5-26 [Uncategorized] UID:31166 Activity:high
7/25    Test
2004/7/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:31167 Activity:high
7/5     Read a detailed transcript of Cheney's comments to Sen. Leahy:
        \_ woot!
           \_ w00t!
        \_ Wow, that's almost clever.
2004/7/5-6 [Computer/SW/Security, Computer/SW/OS/FreeBSD] UID:31168 Activity:nil
05/07   A while ago I was having a lot of trouble getting Postfix to use
        SASL2 auth for sending mail on FreeBSD.  This link (including the
        errata at the bottom!) shows how to do it painlessly:  -John
2004/7/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:31169 Activity:insanely high
5/7     Why does anyone take Moore seriously? His movies are fiction,
        not documentaties.  First columbine now 911.
        Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911
        \_ written by a democrat who voted for nader.
           \_ holy shit!  he voted his concious instead of his party! traitor!
              kill him!  burn the witch!  he violated group think!  he has
              independent thought!  destroy the infection!
              \_ "independent thought" != intelligence.
              \_ its relevant bc its written by a dem, not hannity or foxnews.
                 \_ A Dem who writes for the National Review. NRO has spent
                    the last six months openly campaigning for Bush and
                    slamming Kerry, so they are hardly an objective source.
        \_ even before seeing 911, I do not see how any reasonable,
           compassionate person could vote for gwbush again.
           \_ compassionate?  meaning what?  you take my money and give it
              to yourself and others who haven't earned it through the
              power of the federal and state government?  get a job and
              you won't need compassion.
                \_ no, i don't sit around thinking of ways to steal your
                   money and give it to welfare queens.  I am an equal
                   opportunity bush despiser.  there's lots of reasons
                   to not vote for george bush, i could easily make
                   a list of several hundred good ones not involving
                   \_ It is a common fallacy of the politically maladroit
                      to assume that compassion has anything to with
                      politics. It does not. Politics is about ambition,
                      and ambition plays to what is expedient and necessary.
                      How is your Boston Brahmin any more or less despicable
                      than the Texan? You need wake up and smell the coffee.
                      Believing that compassion rules human behavior is
                      something that wisdom and common sense should have easily
                      \_ And yet he sold his platform in 2000 on "compassionate
                         conservatism".  We all knew the term was bullshit, and
                         yet it sold.
                         \_ No, it didn't.  People voted against Gore because
                            he did poorly in the debates and is a crackpot.
                            Very few voted 'for' Bush in 2000.  Gore's own
                            home state wouldn't even vote for him.
                            \_ Funny, I seem to remember Gore got over 50
                               percent of the vote...
                            \_ Funny, you seem to remember wrong. 48.38%.
                      \_ Perhaps.  But like any good game, politics requires
                         either compromise or utter domination.  For a short
                         while there, the Repubs had the latter: the House,
                         the Senate, the Presidency, the Bench, and the
                         support of the People.  Recently, they seem to have
                         lost the latter two and confused the former two.
                         This requires compromise, and the Texan (and his
                         Cabinet) are notorious for being poor compromisers.
                         The Boston Brahmin is famed for being able to come
                         to reasonable compromises that diminish neither side.
                         \_ Famed?  I call bullshit.  I've *never* heard
                            anyone claim the most liberal voting Senator is
                            famed for any such thing.
                            \_ HE'S A FLIP FLOPPING LIBERAL, I TELL YOU!
                               (For the clue impaired, "flip flop" is right
                                wing speak for compromise.)
                               \_ Incidentally, whatever else may be true,
                                  'flip-flopping' is perhaps the most damaging
                                  smear against Democrats in the Republican
                                  arsenal, in terms of real effects. -- ilyas
                               \_ What happened to 'waffling'?
                               \_ you mean it's not a piece of electronics!?
        \_ Because the dems are out of power and they need someone like
           Moore. The Reps used to use Limbaugh when they were out of power.
           The opposition party always needs a wacky muckracking spokesman
           to rally the troops. Moor's just the latest in a long line.
           \_ Yes Rush is a firebrand but he's never this deceitful.
              \_ Bull.  Rush spews false stats, misquotes, and is almost
                 psychotically hypocritical.
                 \_ Uh?  Rush doesn't tend to give any stats at all, when he
                    does he's quoting someone else, and his quotes are all
                    checkable online.  Where is he a hypocrite?  He was never
                    an anti-drug crusader so turning out to be a drug addict
                    doesn't make him a hypocrite.  Do you know *anything* about
                    the man or are you just spewing the DNC talking points?  I
                    wonder if you've even listened to his show for more than
                    5 minutes, if ever.
                       You are wrong, again. As usual.
                    \_ More Limbaugh Lies:
        \_ As opposed to CNN, NYTimes, ABC, etc. which is just 100% fact.  Yup.
           \_ By the kind of argument  employed in that url, everyday there
              are 10 imes more "deceits" in any of the above than F911.
              \_ I've been saying that about the media for years on the motd
                 but people always call me a crackpot for saying the main-
                 stream media is inaccurate, biased, or in any way
                 unreliable.  Are you a crackpot, too?
                 \_ If that means considering mainstream media inaccurate
                    rather than accusing them of bias along particular
                    directions, yes.
                    \_ well, i think you're both off base.  if "news" means
                       15 minutes of ads, 10 minutes of sports, 10 minutes of
                       weather, 10 minutes of "puppy saved in local lake"
                       and five minutes of sound bites with pretty pictures
                       about what's actually going on in the world, who gives
                       a shit if it's biased or wrong?  that's just not the
                       point.  the point is that no responsible journalist
                       is *ever* going to be able to reduce the news to a
                       five minute cartoon, and as long as that's all people
                       will take for their news, we have a serious problem.
                       I blame the morons who don't bother to *read*, not
                       the tv news networks  that respond accurately to
                       the demand of the news consumer.
                       \_ You'd feel differently if it was *your* puppy.
                          \_ not likely. in my experience, they'd get the
                             name of the puppy wrong, then say the police
                             rescued it when it was really the fire department,
                             and incorrectly name the lake from which it
                             was rescued.
        \_ When your sources include Slate articles by Chris Hitchens, you
           really must be scraping the barrel.
                          \- are you in fact the only person in the world
                             who refers to Christopher Hitchens as "Chris"?
                             \_ No, I'm in good company:
                                However, I promise not to call you "Par."
           \_ Either the material is true or it is not.  If you have to
              attack the source instead of the truthfulness of the material
              presented, you're not even in the barrel anymore.
              \_ Hitchen's article is a fact-free zone - its just a bloviating
                 \_ Maybe.  You expected anyone to actually read the URL before
                 \_ So you're saying that the clip in the movie at Camp David
                    does *not* show Bush sitting next to Tony Blair?
        \_ 50 of these "deceits" are not even lies, by any stretch of the
           imagination. It is a "deceit" to show that Bush sat and read in
           a classroom for nine minutes after being informed of the 9/11
           attacks? The author calls it a deceit because Moore offers no
           attacks? The author calls it a "lie" because Moore offers no
           other suggestion as to what Bush should have been doing....
           Whaaaat? Most of the rest are the same. He calls Moore a
           "liar" for not presenting both sides of controversial
           topics. This is a good example of "bias" but a terrible
           example of a "lie." This guy is a big hypocrite anyway,
           if you read any of his columns, he does not bother to
           present both sides of any views.
2004/7/5-6 [Uncategorized] UID:31170 Activity:kinda low
5/7     hit the ball
        \_ huh?
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:July:05 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>