Re: Describe what you do in 34 characters
Ben A L Jemmett
> The .uk census form has a question which asks for one's job title and
> then follows up with "Briefly describe what you do in your main job".
> There are boxes to write your answer in, allowing only 34 characters
> in total.
>
> There would appear to be some scope for creativity here. Suggestions,
> people?
My first thought was to invite a number of attractive young lady
friends around as houseguests for the relevant evening so as to
complete the Persons 2 - N sections, fill that answer in with
"Pimpin'!", then cross that out and continue "LEGITIMATE BUSINESS
ACTIVITES". Although upon counting, that wouldn't quite fit. Blast.
--
Regards,
Ben A L Jemmett.
http://flatpack.microwavepizza.co.uk/
Brian Kantor
>There are boxes to write your answer in, allowing only 34 characters in
>total.
"unscrewing the inscrutable"
It could be more profane.
- Brian
Erwan David
> The .uk census form has a question which asks for one's job title and
> then follows up with "Briefly describe what you do in your main job".
> There are boxes to write your answer in, allowing only 34 characters in
> total.
>
> There would appear to be some scope for creativity here. Suggestions,
> people?
>
> So far I have:
>
> - "Herding servers and desktops"
>
> - "Issuing cluefulness and insight"
>
> - "Telling people what not to do", and
>
> - "Mangling kit so you don't have to".
"Removing loops in network pipes"
--
Le travail n'est pas une bonne chose. Si ça l'était,
les riches l'auraient accaparé
David Cameron Staples
> The .uk census form has a question which asks for one's job title and
> then follows up with "Briefly describe what you do in your main job".
> There are boxes to write your answer in, allowing only 34 characters in
> total.
>
> There would appear to be some scope for creativity here. Suggestions,
> people?
>
> So far I have:
>
> - "Herding servers and desktops"
>
> - "Issuing cluefulness and insight"
>
> - "Telling people what not to do", and
>
> - "Mangling kit so you don't have to".
"Keeping the Internet up."
"Warring against spammers."
"Enabling pointless emails."
--
David Cameron Staples | staples AT unimelb DOT edu DOT au
Melbourne University | ITS | Hosting | Unix Operations
Roses are red,/ violets are blue,
badger badger badger,/ badger badger mushroom -- bash.org/?218315
Ben A L Jemmett
> My first thought was to [...]
... learn to type. Chiz. Only rated a before-morning-coffee
half-smirk anyway, if that!
Brian Kantor
> Suggestions, people?
"123456789012345789012345678901234"
"answering stupid questions"
"answering these foolish questions"
"answering your stupid questions"
"chewing holes in the carpet"
"dinsdale used sarcasm"
"hiding from the light"
"need to know basis only"
"putting a spanner in the works"
"see figure one"
"unfscking computers and users"
"does anyone actually read this?"
"oh gawd I need a vacation"
Alexander Clouter
>
> So far I have:
> - "Herding servers and desktops"
> - "Issuing cluefulness and insight"
> - "Telling people what not to do", and
> - "Mangling kit so you don't have to".
>
Cheers
--
Alexander Clouter
.sigmonster says: The soul would have no rainbow had the eyes no tears.
Cipher
> The .uk census form has a question which asks for one's job title and
> then follows up with "Briefly describe what you do in your main job".
> There are boxes to write your answer in, allowing only 34 characters in
> total.
>
> people?
"Solving other people's fuck-ups."
--
The word "urgent" is the moral of the story "The boy who cried wolf". As
a general rule I don't believe it until a manager comes to me almost in
tears. I like to catch them in a cup and drink them later.
-- Matt Holiab, in the Monastery
c...@nospam.netunix.com
"This page intentionally left blank"
--
From the quill of Chris Newport g4jci.
Lionel
> The .uk census form has a question which asks for one's job title and
> then follows up with "Briefly describe what you do in your main job".
> There are boxes to write your answer in, allowing only 34 characters in
> total.
>
> There would appear to be some scope for creativity here. Suggestions,
> people?
"Torturing the clueless."
--
W
. | , w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Thompson
> The .uk census form has a question which asks for one's job title and
> then follows up with "Briefly describe what you do in your main job".
> There are boxes to write your answer in, allowing only 34 characters in
> total.
>
> There would appear to be some scope for creativity here. Suggestions,
> people?
"Running important bits of society" -- Joe
--
Joe Thompson | Sysadmin - Social Irritant - Political Dilettante
E-mail addresses in headers are valid. | http://www.orion-com.com/
"It is hard to imagine the Ayatollah Elmo." -- http://bit.ly/icLRjB
Lionel
"Screwing the scrutable"?
David Cameron Staples
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 21:53:35 +0000, Dave Ewart wrote:
>
>> The .uk census form has a question which asks for one's job title and
>> then follows up with "Briefly describe what you do in your main job".
>> There are boxes to write your answer in, allowing only 34 characters in
>> total.
>>
>> There would appear to be some scope for creativity here. Suggestions,
>> people?
>
> "Torturing the clueless."
>
Shouldn't that be under "hobby"?
--
David Cameron Staples | staples AT unimelb DOT edu DOT au
Melbourne University | ITS | Hosting | Unix Operations
you know you've been doing too much SQL when you're at a prompt and
do SELECT * FROM /bin; -- bash.org/?5274
Lionel
> On 8/03/11 2:24 PM, Lionel wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 21:53:35 +0000, Dave Ewart wrote:
>>
>>> The .uk census form has a question which asks for one's job title and
>>> then follows up with "Briefly describe what you do in your main job".
>>> There are boxes to write your answer in, allowing only 34 characters
>>> in total.
>>>
>>> There would appear to be some scope for creativity here. Suggestions,
>>> people?
>>
>> "Torturing the clueless."
>>
>>
> Shouldn't that be under "hobby"?
I prefer to think of it as a vocation.
David Gersic
> There would appear to be some scope for creativity here. Suggestions,
> people?
"123456789012345789012345678901234"
"Down, not across."
"Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"
"Fixing other people's fuckups."
"Herding cats."
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." (Darn, too long...)
Kevin Goebel
wrote:
>The .uk census form has a question which asks for one's job title and
>then follows up with "Briefly describe what you do in your main job".
>There are boxes to write your answer in, allowing only 34 characters in
>total.
>
>There would appear to be some scope for creativity here. Suggestions,
>people?
hackeddefnetupload2launchworm u235
Kevin Goebel
Lionel
"RedRum."
Lionel
On that note:
Sales'); DROP TABLE *;--
(With apologies to Randall Munroe)
James Coupe
>There would appear to be some scope for creativity here. Suggestions,
>people?
1234567890123456789012345678901234
In a chip shop, swearing I'm Elvis
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Bob Vaughan
Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 21:53:35 +0000, Dave Ewart wrote:
>
>> The .uk census form has a question which asks for one's job title and
>> then follows up with "Briefly describe what you do in your main job".
>> There are boxes to write your answer in, allowing only 34 characters in
>> total.
>>
>> There would appear to be some scope for creativity here. Suggestions,
>> people?
>
>"Torturing the clueless."
Eternal Torture of Clueless Lusers
Endlessly Torturing Clueless Users
Cultivation of Fear and Loathing
You Suck. I Rule. Nuf Said.
Cultivation of Luser Paranoia.
insufficient space to give a shit
many duties you can not comprehend
--
-- Welcome My Son, Welcome To The Machine --
Bob Vaughan | techie@{w6yx|tantivy}.stanford.edu | af...@w6yx.ampr.org
AF6RR | P.O. Box 19792, Stanford, Ca 94309 | 1-650-469-3850
-- I am Me, I am only Me, And no one else is Me, What could be simpler? --
Lionel
> insufficient space to give a shit
Good idea, but I'm sure we can do better than that:
Give-a-shit factor: 0
Care factor == 0.
You == 0
And at 8 char's, I give up[0]. Can anyone beat that?
[0] Well, for now. I might try again tomorrow if inspiration strikes, &
nobody has come up with anything brilliant in the meantime.
Maarten Wiltink
news:il58o4$r6e$3...@parhelion.firedrake.org...
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 09:25:17 +0000, Bob Vaughan wrote:
>> insufficient space to give a shit
>
> Good idea, but I'm sure we can do better than that:
>
> Give-a-shit factor: 0
>
> Care factor == 0.
>
> You == 0
>
> And at 8 char's, I give up[0]. Can anyone beat that?
Ahem. C background, I guess? It seems rather trivial to do 'better'
(or at least shorter) than that.
I draw the line just before "UR ". It might be a bit too subtle
anyway. The form probably does not offer any way to make trailing
whitespace significant.
Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink
David Gersic
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 09:25:17 +0000, Bob Vaughan wrote:
>
>> insufficient space to give a shit
"Other duties as assigned."
Jim
>> The .uk census form has a question which asks for one's job title and
>> then follows up with "Briefly describe what you do in your main job".
>> There are boxes to write your answer in, allowing only 34 characters
>> in total.
>
>
> "Typing"
>
> or perhaps
>
> "Typing, occasional use of mouse"
I think I'm going to go with 'IT underclass'. It pretty much sums up how
I feel at the moment.
Jim
--
Twitter:@GreyAreaUK Facetime ID:j...@magrathea.plus.com
"[Angry Birds is] marginally more addictive than a compound of crack cocaine,
strong tobacco and powdered orgasms." - The Daily Mash
LP
>
> The more I think about it, the most accurate answer would probably be:
>
> "Typing"
"Typing, thinking and swearing"
-Paul
--
http://paulseward.com
Shmuel Metz
at 09:53 PM, Dave Ewart <da...@sungate.co.uk> said:
>The .uk census form has a question which asks for one's job title and
>then follows up with "Briefly describe what you do in your main job".
>There are boxes to write your answer in, allowing only 34 characters
>in total.
1 2 3
1234567890123456789012345678901234
Answer stupid questions
Fill in stupid surveys
Amuse idiots
Drain swamps like yours
Design brain-dead surveys
Design surveys for Procrustes
Speak to the wall
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> ISO position
Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+bspfh to contact me.
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
Joe Thompson
As do my co-worker and I. It also has the property of lending itself to
bastardly conversation:
"Well, OK, but what are your *primary* duties?"
"Those."
"But what is it you *actually do*?"
"That."
etc... -- Joe
Paul
at 09:53 PM, Dave Ewart <da...@sungate.co.uk> said:
>The .uk census form has a question which asks for one's job title
>and then follows up with "Briefly describe what you do in your main
>job". There are boxes to write your answer in, allowing only 34
>characters in total.
1 2 3
1234567890123456789012345678901234
Envy Hercules and Sisyphus.
--
Paul the Legacy Server
Full Recovery reached May 30, 2008
"People can be educated beyond their intelligence"
-- Marilyn vos Savant
stevo
> On 2011-03-07, Dave Ewart <da...@sungate.co.uk> wrote:
>> The .uk census form has a question which asks for one's job title and
>> then follows up with "Briefly describe what you do in your main job".
>> There are boxes to write your answer in, allowing only 34 characters in
>> total.
>>
>> There would appear to be some scope for creativity here. Suggestions,
>> people?
>
> "Running important bits of society" -- Joe
FPA "Ruining important bits of society"
Which was still appropriate.
And for my suggestion: "Doing shit more complex than you can comprehend"
Write small and bugger the imposed limit <grin>
--
Stevo st...@madcelt.org
stevo
>> people?
>
>
> 1234567890123456789012345678901234
> I make penguins talk to airplanes.
>
> Matt Roberds
>
Hey Matt
How goes the holiday? You want to describe your trip across the Nullabor
for the avid listeners?
--
Stevo st...@madcelt.org
Seebs
> The .uk census form has a question which asks for one's job title and
> then follows up with "Briefly describe what you do in your main job".
> There are boxes to write your answer in, allowing only 34 characters in
> total.
...
Wow, that's an art form.
I make computers dance.
I've established that, of people I meet outside of ASR or work, about 5%
at most know enough about computers that I can even explain the words for
what I do without having to go back and explain other words to do that.
I usually settle on "I do something with computers." I occasionally say "I
was recently messing with overriding library symbols using Darwin's dynamic
linker. If that means anything to you, I'd be happy to explain what I do."
(Oddly, every so often someone is all enthused about this.)
-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
Lionel
> "Lionel" <imag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:il58o4$r6e$3...@parhelion.firedrake.org...
>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 09:25:17 +0000, Bob Vaughan wrote:
>
>>> insufficient space to give a shit
>>
>> Good idea, but I'm sure we can do better than that:
>>
>> Give-a-shit factor: 0
>>
>> Care factor == 0.
>>
>> You == 0
>>
>> And at 8 char's, I give up[0]. Can anyone beat that?
>
> Ahem. C background, I guess?
Amongst many others. C isn't the only language that uses that syntactic
idiom (or similar ones) to distinguish between comparison & assignment, &
if you intend to convey that distinction, '==' is the shortest one in any
language that I'm reasonably familiar with.
> It seems rather trivial to do 'better' (or
> at least shorter) than that.
If you mean '=' instead of '==', it spoils the idiom I intended. The
latter is an observation, the former implies intent. That is, "you are",
vs "I will make you be". Although now that I think about it, maybe that's
kind of bofhlier, so perhaps you have a point.
> I draw the line just before "UR ". It might be a bit too subtle anyway.
> The form probably does not offer any way to make trailing whitespace
> significant.
As I see it, the idea is to make it validly bofhish to the cognoscenti,
while still being halfway explicable/insulting to a lay reader. So, I
also would draw the line at txt-speech on the first principle, & at
trailing whitespace for the second.
Maarten Wiltink
[...]
> If you mean '=' instead of '==', it spoils the idiom I intended. The
> latter is an observation, the former implies intent.
':='.
Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink
Lionel
> "Lionel" <imag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:il6t0q$3u2$9...@parhelion.firedrake.org... [...]
>> If you mean '=' instead of '==', it spoils the idiom I intended. The
>> latter is an observation, the former implies intent.
>
> ':='.
How is that shorter?
John Burnham
> The .uk census form has a question which asks for one's job title and
> then follows up with "Briefly describe what you do in your main job".
> There are boxes to write your answer in, allowing only 34 characters in
> total.
>
> There would appear to be some scope for creativity here. Suggestions,
> people?
>
I resist the urge to kill idiots.
J
Maarten Wiltink
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 09:36:29 +0100, Maarten Wiltink wrote:
>> "Lionel" <imag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:il6t0q$3u2$9...@parhelion.firedrake.org... [...]
>>> If you mean '=' instead of '==', it spoils the idiom I intended. The
>>> latter is an observation, the former implies intent.
>>
>> ':='.
>
> How is that shorter?
It isn't. But it makes '=' available for the observatory role.
Of course, then you'd look like a mathematician instead of a geek,
and the subliminal message would be lost.
Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink
Paul
at 09:53 PM, Dave Ewart <da...@sungate.co.uk> said:
>The .uk census form has a question which asks for one's job title
>and then follows up with "Briefly describe what you do in your main
>job". There are boxes to write your answer in, allowing only 34
>characters in total.
1 2 3
1234567890123456789012345678901234
Enable the unable.
Brian Kantor
>
>':='.
>
Only because the left arrow didn't make it through the ASCII standards
committee.
A <- B->C->D.Q:4.
Heh.
- Brian
Joe Zeff
> Of course, then you'd look like a mathematician instead of a geek, and
> the subliminal message would be lost.
Or, for those of us who remember, it would make you look like a quiche-
eating Pascal luser.
--
Joe Zeff -- The Guy With The Sideburns:
http://www.zeff.us http://www.lasfs.info
Unix doesn't prevent you from doing something stupid because
that would prevent me from doing something clever.
Joe Zeff
> On 2011-03-08, mrob...@att.net <mrob...@att.net> wrote:
>> Dave Ewart <da...@sungate.co.uk> wrote:
>>> There would appear to be some scope for creativity here. Suggestions,
>>> people?
>>
>> This is a slightly-shortened version of a line I actually use:
>>
>> 1234567890123456789012345678901234
> If I told you I'd have to kill you
I've been wondering why nobody's suggested this:
You wouldn't understand.
--
Joe Zeff -- The Guy With The Sideburns:
http://www.zeff.us http://www.lasfs.info
I think that's because the Geneva convention prohibits
doing such things.
Steve VanDevender
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 09:20:20 +0000, Yes This Works wrote:
>
>> On 2011-03-08, mrob...@att.net <mrob...@att.net> wrote:
>>> Dave Ewart <da...@sungate.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> There would appear to be some scope for creativity here. Suggestions,
>>>> people?
>>>
>>> This is a slightly-shortened version of a line I actually use:
>>>
>>> 1234567890123456789012345678901234
>> If I told you I'd have to kill you
>
> I've been wondering why nobody's suggested this:
> You wouldn't understand.
1234567890123456789012345678901234
You are not expected to understand this
Darn, doesn't fit. Maybe if we took out all the spaces?
1234567890123456789012345678901234
Youarenotexpectedtounderstandthis
I guess my .sig has included a response that would fit for years now.
1234567890123456789012345678901234
I ride the big iron
--
Steve VanDevender "I ride the big iron" http://hexadecimal.uoregon.edu/
ste...@hexadecimal.uoregon.edu PGP keyprint 4AD7AF61F0B9DE87 522902969C0A7EE8
"bash awk grep perl sed df du, du-du du-du,
vi troff su fsck rm * halt LART LART LART!" -- the Swedish BOFH
Just zis Guy, you know?
> The .uk census form has a question which asks for one's job title and
> then follows up with "Briefly describe what you do in your main job".
> There are boxes to write your answer in, allowing only 34 characters in
> total.
>
> people?
>
>
> - "Herding servers and desktops"
>
> - "Issuing cluefulness and insight"
>
> - "Telling people what not to do", and
>
> - "Mangling kit so you don't have to".
"The bare, irreducible minimum"
"You would not understand - I don't"
"No, I will not fix your computer"
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
Maarten Wiltink
news:4d77c74a$0$13722$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com...
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 17:51:35 +0100, Maarten Wiltink wrote:
>> Of course, then you'd look like a mathematician instead of a geek,
>> and the subliminal message would be lost.
>
> Or, for those of us who remember, it would make you look like a quiche-
> eating Pascal luser.
Mmm, quiche. Should visit Lorraine again soon.
Would you like me to start insulting you now? Can't be hard. (Oops, I've
already started.)
Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink
Lionel
> "Joe Zeff" <the.guy.with....@lasfs.info> wrote in message
> news:4d77c74a$0$13722$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com...
>> On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 17:51:35 +0100, Maarten Wiltink wrote:
>
>>> Of course, then you'd look like a mathematician instead of a geek, and
>>> the subliminal message would be lost.
>>
>> Or, for those of us who remember, it would make you look like a quiche-
>> eating Pascal luser.
>
> Mmm, quiche. Should visit Lorraine again soon.
Is she a green-skinned alien space babe? (As opposed to her sister
Florentine, who's presumably yellow skinned.)
> Would you like me to start insulting you now? Can't be hard. (Oops, I've
> already started.)
*snort*
It took me a moment to even remember which language used ':=' in the
first place. Being a low-level sort of guy, I loathe Pascal with a
passion. At least Modula2 has implementations that can actually be used
to do systems stuff.
mikea
> It took me a moment to even remember which language used ':=' in the
> first place. Being a low-level sort of guy, I loathe Pascal with a
> passion. At least Modula2 has implementations that can actually be used
> to do systems stuff.
Erm ... didn't Algol also use ":=" in assignment statements? The Revised
Report on the Algorithmic Language Algol 60 indicates that it did. Here's
some BNF syntax description from the report:
4.2. Assignment statements
4.2.1. Syntax.
<left part> ::= <variable> := | <procedure identifier> :=
<left part list> ::= <left part> | <left part list>
<left part>
<assignment statement> ::= <left part list>
<arithmetic expression> | <left part list>
<Boolean expression>
4.2.2. Examples.
s:=p[0]:=n:=n+1+s
n:=n+1
A:=B/C-v-qS
S[v,k+2]:=3-arctan(szeta)
V:=Q>YZ
--
Censorship sucks^H^H^H^H^H is for your own good.
Lionel
> Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <ilaegd$dt1$4...@parhelion.firedrake.org>:
>
>> It took me a moment to even remember which language used ':=' in the
>> first place. Being a low-level sort of guy, I loathe Pascal with a
>> passion. At least Modula2 has implementations that can actually be used
>> to do systems stuff.
>
> Erm ... didn't Algol also use ":=" in assignment statements?
Given that I've never learned Algol, I'll take your word for it. The
first language I'm familiar with that uses ':=' is Pascal. It wouldn't
greatly surprise me if Wirth lifted it from something earlier. (I'm not
saying that that's bad thing, you understand.)
Shmuel Metz
at 03:43 AM, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> said:
>Amongst many others. C isn't the only language that uses that
>syntactic idiom (or similar ones) to distinguish between comparison
>& assignment, & if you intend to convey that distinction, '==' is
>the shortest one in any language that I'm reasonably familiar
>with.
'=' is shorter. You said nothing about the length of the assignment
operator.
>If you mean '=' instead of '==', it spoils the idiom I intended.
Only to those unfamiliar with the second international algorithmic
language[1][2]. '=' is distinct from ':='.
>As I see it, the idea is to make it validly bofhish to the
>cognoscenti, while still being halfway explicable/insulting to a
>lay reader.
That depends on whether your tastes run to the scalpel or the
bludgeon. Use the right[3] tool for the job.
[1] Is the obfuscation enough to distract your
search engine du jour?
[2] Yes, I know the difference between publication and reference
syntax.
[3] Sometimes both the scalpel and the bludgeon are right; use
both in that case.
Shmuel Metz
at 05:40 PM, Brian Kantor <br...@ucsd.edu> said:
>Only because the left arrow didn't make it through the ASCII
>standards committee.
It did, sort of, sharing a code point with a more useful character.
Nor was that the only grotesque case of dual code-point assignments.
Shmuel Metz
03/09/2011
at 06:30 PM, Joe Zeff <the.guy.with....@lasfs.info> said:
>Or, for those of us who remember, it would make you look like a
>quiche-
>eating Pascal luser.
There's nothing wrong with Pascal that an Oxy-Acetylene torch wouldn't
cure.
Shmuel Metz
at 12:00 PM, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> said:
>It took me a moment to even remember which language used ':=' in the
>first place. Being a low-level sort of guy, I loathe Pascal
I'd tell you to get your mind out of my gutter, but Pascal is someone
else's gutter, TYVM, and did not originate the use of ':=' for
assignment. All ghouls are divided in three parts.
Lionel
> In <il6t0q$3u2$9...@parhelion.firedrake.org>, on 03/09/2011
> at 03:43 AM, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>Amongst many others. C isn't the only language that uses that syntactic
>>idiom (or similar ones) to distinguish between comparison & assignment,
>>& if you intend to convey that distinction, '==' is the shortest one in
>>any language that I'm reasonably familiar with.
>
> '=' is shorter. You said nothing about the length of the assignment
> operator.
True enough. I was using the shortest unambiguous comparison operator.
'=' is far too ambiguous for this application, because in the majority of
contexts, a bare '=' implies either an assertion or an assignment, where
I intended a comparison or observation.
>>If you mean '=' instead of '==', it spoils the idiom I intended.
>
> Only to those unfamiliar with the second international algorithmic
> language[1][2]. '=' is distinct from ':='.
It's horribly ambiguous in in the wider context. I don't see the point of
sending a message that's only clear to people who know Pascal or Algol,
(& maybe one or two other languages). The LCD is people who managed to
survive high-school maths, to whom '=' would send the wrong message.
>>As I see it, the idea is to make it validly bofhish to the cognoscenti,
>>while still being halfway explicable/insulting to a lay reader.
>
> That depends on whether your tastes run to the scalpel or the bludgeon.
> Use the right[3] tool for the job.
If I wanted to use a bludgeon, I'd either use 20Kg of thermite on the
census-taker, soak the census form in potassium nitrate, &/or judiciously
apply a black marker & a few staples to the census form barcodes[4].
> [1] Is the obfuscation enough to distract your
> search engine du jour?
For the clueless, yes.
> [2] Yes, I know the difference between publication and reference
> syntax.
I should hope so.
> [3] Sometimes both the scalpel and the bludgeon are right; use
> both in that case.
[4] I have actually done the latter. Our government added a bunch of
questions to our last census to which I & others took great offense.
Their response was to provide a 'privacy envelope' which the nation was
assured was not linked in any way to any physical address. After looking
at the individual coding on both the form & the 'private' envelope, I
decided to call their bluff & apply some, um, sanity-check testing[5] to
their equipment.
[5] Hey, bar-codes have checksums built right into the standards. If
their equipment has been designed correctly, it should reject inputs with
bad checksums. And what kind of crappy scanner can't cope with being fed
foreign objects? Really, I was doing them a favour.
Lionel
> In <ilaegd$dt1$4...@parhelion.firedrake.org>, on 03/10/2011
> at 12:00 PM, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>It took me a moment to even remember which language used ':=' in the
>>first place. Being a low-level sort of guy, I loathe Pascal
>
> I'd tell you to get your mind out of my gutter, but Pascal is someone
> else's gutter, TYVM, and did not originate the use of ':=' for
> assignment. All ghouls are divided in three parts.
Pfft. You'll be talking about SNOBOL next, or something equally obsolete.
(And if anyone says .EQ., you deserve a smack around the back of the
head.)
Willem
) In <il6t0q$3u2$9...@parhelion.firedrake.org>, on 03/09/2011
) at 03:43 AM, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> said:
)
)>Amongst many others. C isn't the only language that uses that
)>syntactic idiom (or similar ones) to distinguish between comparison
)>& assignment, & if you intend to convey that distinction, '==' is
)>the shortest one in any language that I'm reasonably familiar
)>with.
)
) '=' is shorter. You said nothing about the length of the assignment
) operator.
'==' is unambiguous. (As is ':=', but unlike '='.)
So without context, IMO, use '==' for equality and ':=' for assignment.
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
Lionel
> Shmuel Metz wrote:
> ) In <il6t0q$3u2$9...@parhelion.firedrake.org>, on 03/09/2011 ) at 03:43
> AM, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> said: )
> )>Amongst many others. C isn't the only language that uses that
> )>syntactic idiom (or similar ones) to distinguish between comparison
> )>& assignment, & if you intend to convey that distinction, '==' is
> )>the shortest one in any language that I'm reasonably familiar )>with.
> )
> ) '=' is shorter. You said nothing about the length of the assignment )
> operator.
>
> '==' is unambiguous. (As is ':=', but unlike '='.) So without context,
> IMO, use '==' for equality and ':=' for assignment.
Exactly. When one uses '==' there is zero possibility of confusion. '.EQ.'
is the only other unambiguous relational operator that I can think of,
but it's both longer & more obscure.
Brian Kantor
>Given that I've never learned Algol, I'll take your word for it. The
Algol 60 [extended] was, in fact, my first computer language (on a
Burroughs 5500).
When one was using an EBCDIC keypunch, := was used for the assignment
operator. If you were using the BCL keypunch, you could use the left arrow.
I've never seen an ASCII keypunch.
Some years later, when our Burro finally got TTYs attached to it,
the ASCII left arrow had been deprecated (no translation to EBCDIC?)
and := was the norm.
- Brian
Joe Zeff
> Exactly. When one uses '==' there is zero possibility of confusion.
> '.EQ.' is the only other unambiguous relational operator that I can
> think of, but it's both longer & more obscure.
Only to those who are unfamiliar with it. To those of us who have used
it, the meaning is instantly obvious.
--
Joe Zeff -- The Guy With The Sideburns:
http://www.zeff.us http://www.lasfs.info
Tish and typos happen.
Peter Corlett
[...]
> Exactly. When one uses '==' there is zero possibility of confusion. '.EQ.'
> is the only other unambiguous relational operator that I can think of, but
> it's both longer & more obscure.
It's not that obscure. Perl uses 'eq' for string comparisons, as opposed to
'==' for numeric[0]. Assembly languages tend to use 'eq' in their
branch-on-equal or test-equal mnemonics. And test(1) uses '-eq' for
comparison.
Basically, anybody who has done a bit of programming should recognise 'eq'
or a variant just fine.
[0] This is why rookie Perl scripts often don't work properly. 'one' ==
'two' in Perl. It's flagged as a warning, but of course rookies never
bother with those.
Lionel
>>> Erm ... didn't Algol also use ":=" in assignment statements?
>>Given that I've never learned Algol, I'll take your word for it. The
>
> Algol 60 [extended] was, in fact, my first computer language (on a
> Burroughs 5500).
>
> When one was using an EBCDIC keypunch, := was used for the assignment
> operator. If you were using the BCL keypunch, you could use the left
> arrow.
Feh. The only person who could possibly consider EBCDIC even halfway sane
is someone who grew up with Baudot. Boy, have we come a long way since
then.
> I've never seen an ASCII keypunch.
You say that like it's a bad thing. I'm /just/ old enough to have used an
ASR-33 over a modem, & never needed to use its tape punch. The last tape
punch I used was ASCII[2], but with only a serial input, & that was a
machine that I found at my then orkplace, & I was the only one who had a
clue as to WTF it was. Even then, as much as I would've liked to hang
onto it as a curiousity, I couldn't justify it - my GF was already ready
to kill me for the amount of old junk I was already hanging onto at the
time.
> Some years later, when our Burro finally got TTYs attached to it, the
> ASCII left arrow had been deprecated (no translation to EBCDIC?) and :=
> was the norm.
Bah. My 1st serious PC[0] translated BS as "caret erased-char"[1]. I
ended up having to write my own command-line editing suite to at least be
able to write shit with some degree of comfort. No wonder I considered MS-
DOS 2.mumble to be an improvement.
(On the bright side, I notice that you aren't saying anything about using
the overstrike capability on the ASR-33 to program in APL.)
[0] Ohio Scientific C4P-MF.
[1] One needed to be able to edit command-lines in one's head.
[2] ie; 7 bit.
Lionel
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:51:39 +0000, Lionel wrote:
>
>> Exactly. When one uses '==' there is zero possibility of confusion.
>> '.EQ.' is the only other unambiguous relational operator that I can
>> think of, but it's both longer & more obscure.
>
> Only to those who are unfamiliar with it. To those of us who have used
> it, the meaning is instantly obvious.
Sure, but it's *longer*. Duh. Otherwise I would've used it to make /damn/
sure there was no confusion. The downside is that I would've been showing
my age[0] pretty severely. ;^)
[0] Who else here remembers "The FORTRAN Coloring Book"?
Joe Thompson
> [0] This is why rookie Perl scripts often don't work properly. 'one' ==
> 'two' in Perl. It's flagged as a warning, but of course rookies never
> bother with those.
Surely everybody has "use strict;" as a finger macro by now? -- Joe
--
Joe Thompson | Sysadmin - Social Irritant - Political Dilettante
E-mail addresses in headers are valid. | http://www.orion-com.com/
"It is hard to imagine the Ayatollah Elmo." -- http://bit.ly/icLRjB
Lionel
> Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> Exactly. When one uses '==' there is zero possibility of confusion.
>> '.EQ.' is the only other unambiguous relational operator that I can
>> think of, but it's both longer & more obscure.
>
> It's not that obscure.
It's 4 char's instead of 2, & only the old folks remember it anyway. I
mean, really, when did you last see FORTRAN used in anger?
> Perl uses 'eq' for string comparisons,
Which is 2 char's, & thus no improvement over '==' anyway. (Although I'll
grant you that it's an equally clear comparison operator that I hadn't
thought of.) And how many C programmers are there vs Perl programmers?
> as opposed
> to '==' for numeric[0]. Assembly languages tend to use 'eq' in their
> branch-on-equal or test-equal mnemonics.
Except that the 'eq' is usually embedded in the mnemonic. Eg; BEQ, but is
just as likely to be BNQ, etc.
> And test(1) uses '-eq' for
> comparison.
So, how many census takers write shell scripts? Plus, I notice that it's
3 char's instead of 2.
> Basically, anybody who has done a bit of programming should recognise
> 'eq' or a variant just fine.
Yes, that's true enough. I'm just not seeing how it's an improvement over
'==', though.
> [0] This is why rookie Perl scripts often don't work properly. 'one' ==
> 'two' in Perl. It's flagged as a warning, but of course rookies
> never bother with those.
That's actually one of the things that freaks me out about Perl. I'm just
not used to a language that tries to be nice to me & DWIM. I'm much more
used to assemblers, where, if you get it wrong, the CPU will beat the
shit out of you & then rape you with a broken bottle. The idea of a
language actually trying to DWIM is utterly foreign to me, & kind of
frightening. I mean, really, how can you tell when you've screwed up when
the language goes all fuzzy & PC on you & just delivers the wrong answers
instead of a proper error message?
David Gersic
> Somewhere I have the incantation to turn every warning into a fatal
> error. Handy during the development phase.
Depending on the definition of "fatal", that could be even more useful
after the development phase when the "Oh, Bob left the company, and
nobody knows how this undocumented pile of scripts works, but payroll
won't run without it, and IT'S NOT WORKING" phase comes along.
Garrett Wollman
>doing things you didn't expect, but C and assembler have lots of room for
>storing part of a larger value in not enough space, overflowing ints,
Which reminds me....
Every relevant architecture designed in the past N decades has used
two's-complement arithmetic, which behaves in a particularly
well-known, well-understood, and completely defined way. It was bad
enough that the C standards committee had to provide for weird and
obsolete implementations by making integer overflow undefined, but now
the fine developers of the Ruminant Compiler Collection have decided
that they are free to assume that integer overflow *can't happen* and
optimize away code that checks to see whether it did or not.
I think you can still get sensible behavior by storing all of your
signed ints in a union with an unsigned int and doing all of the
arithmetic operations on the unsigned member, but breaking the
compiler in this way is totally insane. I have more sympathy for
Gosling's "absolutely everything is strictly defined" philosophy than
I used to. Undefined behavior is a reasonable thing to provide for in
a language like C, but that shouldn't be taken as a license for the
compiler to do something stupid.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Lionel
> Joe Thompson posted thus:
>>Surely everybody has "use strict;" as a finger macro by now? -- Joe
>
> Certainly all the oldtimers here should: nobody's going to quickly
> forget a Perl Goddess thundering in this very froup with the words:
>
> "Use strict! *WHAM* Strict, I tell you! And -w! *WHAM* *WHAM* *WHAM*"
I even got to see it in person.
Peter Corlett
[...]
> I wonder if we can still get three-way IF and computed GO TO into Perl.
> Hmmmmm.
You say that as if they weren't already there:
goto(qw/ EQUAL MORE LESS /)[$foo <=> $bar];
Brian Kantor
>Years ago at WeBankruptOurselvesRentingExcessivelyNiceOffices, there was
>a corporate job satisfaction survey that came down to Branch for us each
>to fill out. My first reaction was that I should likely photocopy the
>form and send back the copy, so as to exclude any invisible ink on the
>original, but then I saw a little handwritten number at the bottom
>lefthand corner.
Indeed, the "reminders" that I have not yet participated in the annual
"anonymous" job satisfaction survey are seeming more shrill as the
deadline approaches, thus increasing my resolve not to answer the
damn thing. I'm assured it's "voluntary".
- Brian
Brian Kantor
>storing part of a larger value in not enough space, overflowing ints,
>sundry other things that will cause a program to do the wrong thing
>without actually triggering a crash or a trip into error-handling code.
One of the things that endeared the old Burroughs to me was that
the variable stack was unsmashable, call returns were on a separate stack,
arrays were index protected by the VM hardware, and typing was also enforced
by the hardware. It wasn't perfect, of course, but it made it much harder
to accidently screw up.
Whoever decided that storing variables and call/return on a single stack
was a good idea needs to be spanked. With a girder.
- Brian
Richard Gadsden
I run our anonymous surveys. I made *damned* sure that they
were actually anonymous. Especially as the equal opps survey asked for
people's sexualities, and trans* status, and disabilities.
I even put up a long description of how the survey could (a) make sure
that you didn't enter it more than once and (b) still not record who
had entered it. And I put up a link to the source code.
I was very pleased to see that the number of non-straight people tripled
from the previous year's paper survey to the new on-line one.
--
Richard Gadsden ric...@gadsden.name
"I disagree with what you say but I will defend to
the death your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire
Lionel
[...]
> Whoever decided that storing variables and call/return on a single stack
> was a good idea needs to be spanked. With a girder.
It's funny that you should say that, because I'm about a third of the way
through writing a semi-formal rant about why Intel-style stack frames are
a retarded idea on todays hardware, & how we can fix it.
If you're interested, I'll send you a copy before I post it publicly.
Cipher
> Joe Thompson posted thus:
>
> forget a Perl Goddess thundering in this very froup with the words:
>
> "Use strict! *WHAM* Strict, I tell you!
> And -w! *WHAM* *WHAM* *WHAM*"
While the Perl Goddess isn't part of my remaining memory, I learned how
to code a Perl hack for $WESELLCLOTHES in about two days from zero.[1]
The #creyuryc channel on RSArg has never failed to answer my (frequently
idiotic) questions and the aforementioned mantra was pretty well
hammered into my head there as well - so much so that on the rare
occasions I answer questions about said language, if it's not the first
thing in the script I won't go further until it is.
ObRandom: I looked at an old drive I've been meaning to trash and found
it contained some of my oldest and arguably most useful code that I
thought was lost. Yay, sloth!
[1] Gur pbzcnal unq byq Pnoyrgeba rdhvczrag ba juvpu gur ybpny pybpxf
qevsgrq onqyl. Bar bs zl "bgure qhgvrf nf nffvtarq" jnf gb erfrg gur
gvzr ba gurz. Nyy 125 bs gurz. Qnvyl. N qnl yngre V unf n Crey fpevcg
gung jbhyq ybbx ng gur ybpny gvzr ba zl qrfxgbc naq chfu vg bhg gb gur
argjbex uneqjner ivn FAZC. Vg ena ng 0200 naq rira jvgu ubj onqyl vg jnf
pbqrq bayl gbby 30f gb erfrg gurz nyy.
--
The word "urgent" is the moral of the story "The boy who cried wolf". As
a general rule I don't believe it until a manager comes to me almost in
tears. I like to catch them in a cup and drink them later.
-- Matt Holiab, in the Monastery
Joe Zeff
> So, we need a forth way to do it?
The Forth, Luke, use the Forth!
--
Joe Zeff -- The Guy With The Sideburns:
http://www.zeff.us http://www.lasfs.info
Complaining about the wait times doesn't make them shorter.
Greg Andrews
>The .uk census form has a question which asks for one's job title and
>then follows up with "Briefly describe what you do in your main job".
>There are boxes to write your answer in, allowing only 34 characters in
>total.
>
>There would appear to be some scope for creativity here. Suggestions,
>people?
>
"Replace lusers with shell scripts"
-Greg
--
::::::::::::::: Greg Andrews :::::: ge...@panix.com :::::::::::::::
"Shut up," she explained.
Paul Kelleher
>
> Dave Ewart <da...@sungate.co.uk> wrote:
> >There are boxes to write your answer in, allowing only 34 characters in
> >total.
>
>
> It could be more profane.
> - Brian
"Effing the ineffable."
Some four years ago now, I was required to attend a two-day time-
management course, immediately upon my return to work after taking
time off. The first I knew about it was when I got in that morning,
and read my e-mail to discover that it started the previous day;
thus, I was late for a time-management course. Fortunately, it was
due to someone else's poor time management, but such niceties tend
to get glossed over come the next appraisal. Anyway...
One of the things which we did (in passing) was to briefly describe
what we did. We all ummed and aahed, and I put forward some tosh about
"maintaining the company's IT infrastructure and providing the tools
with which other people can work more efficiently..." before I ran out
of steam. We all did similar, and had another go-around to try to get
these a little shorter, and as I was metaphorically scratching my head,
the chap next to me piped up with:
"He fixes things."
I can do no better than this.
Kelloggs
--
| Paul Kelleher, kelloggs@ | .sig not found: (A)bort, (R)etry, (W)ing |
| antiphase.org | it? |
| Amongst other places... | |
| | |
Julian Macassey
<newsgro...@microwavepizza.co.uk> wrote:
>
> My first thought was to invite a number of attractive young lady
> friends around as houseguests for the relevant evening so as to
> complete the Persons 2 - N sections, fill that answer in with
> "Pimpin'!", then cross that out and continue "LEGITIMATE BUSINESS
> ACTIVITES". Although upon counting, that wouldn't quite fit. Blast.
When I was living at home in the UK, the census form
arrived and my father filled it out. He said on completing it:
"They must think we are a bunch of wogs living here. My wife was
born in Pakistan and my daughter was born in India."
Recenty I had to fill in the US long census form, an
opportunity to poison yet another database.
Anyhow, I wasted 45 mins filling it in, but the
government lost it and kept calling me at home to nag me. They
gave up calling, which may mean they found my forms.
--
As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act
and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Barack Obama - 2 Aug 2007
Garrett Wollman
Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
> Recenty I had to fill in the US long census form, an
>opportunity to poison yet another database.
No, you didn't. There is no "long census form" any more. Everyone
got the same form last year (modulo differences in language and/or
writing system).
The data that the old "long form" collected is now being done as a
part of a separate survey that is done annually, with a smaller sample
ratio than the long form (1 in 50 versus 1 in 6). It's still
mandatory to respond, and beneficial to the community one lives in for
the responses to be truthful.
Graham Reed
> I was very pleased to see that the number of non-straight people tripled
> from the previous year's paper survey to the new on-line one.
Errr... is this service available generally, and can it be targetted?
...and if so, do you know where I can get Rohypnol cheap?
Actually, never mind, with the Rohypnol I probably don't need to worry
about orientation after all.
--
"If you only do anything once, it's always your personal best."
-- Rick Mercer
SteveD
>[1] Gur pbzcnal unq byq Pnoyrgeba rdhvczrag ba juvpu gur ybpny pybpxf
>qevsgrq onqyl. Bar bs zl "bgure qhgvrf nf nffvtarq" jnf gb erfrg gur
>gvzr ba gurz. Nyy 125 bs gurz. Qnvyl. N qnl yngre V unf n Crey fpevcg
>gung jbhyq ybbx ng gur ybpny gvzr ba zl qrfxgbc naq chfu vg bhg gb gur
>argjbex uneqjner ivn FAZC. Vg ena ng 0200 naq rira jvgu ubj onqyl vg jnf
>pbqrq bayl gbby 30f gb erfrg gurz nyy.
And, of course, would only work if you'd been personally logged in the
previous day. Because you wouldn't want anyone filling in for you to have
to learn nonstandard procedures (or lack thereof). It's just thoughtful.
-SteveD
Alan J Rosenthal
>I'm assured it's "voluntary".
I think that that means that after you fill it out, you are deemed to have
been a volunteer.
Cipher
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:24:55 -0500, Cipher wrote:
>> [1] Gur pbzcnal unq byq Pnoyrgeba rdhvczrag ba juvpu gur ybpny pybpxf
>> qevsgrq onqyl. Bar bs zl "bgure qhgvrf nf nffvtarq" jnf gb erfrg gur
>> gvzr ba gurz. Nyy 125 bs gurz. Qnvyl. N qnl yngre V unf n Crey fpevcg
>> gung jbhyq ybbx ng gur ybpny gvzr ba zl qrfxgbc naq chfu vg bhg gb gur
>> argjbex uneqjner ivn FAZC. Vg ena ng 0200 naq rira jvgu ubj onqyl vg jnf
>> pbqrq bayl gbby 30f gb erfrg gurz nyy.
>
AGC rkvfgrq, ohg guvf cnegvphyne xvg qvqa'g xabj vg, urapr gur
jbex-nebhaq. Fnqyl, bapr V jnf ab ybatre gurer, gurl punatrq gur
pbzzhavgl fgevatf naq vg ab ybatre jbexrq - naq ab bar ryfr cebtenzzrq
va Crey. Bbcfvr.
djc
> The .uk census form has a question which asks for one's job title and
> then follows up with "Briefly describe what you do in your main job".
> total.
1234567890123456789012345678901234
Dance daily with the fuck-up fairy
I have a rant simmering but but has yet to reach the full rot-rage.
Should I vent harmlessly hereabouts or were it better to reach
criticality in the vicinity of the irritant...
--
djc
Shmuel Metz
at 02:43 PM, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> said:
>Pfft. You'll be talking about SNOBOL next,
No, too modern.
>or something equally obsolete.
Be glad it wasn't GATE or TASS. If you recognize either then you're
definitely an AK.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> ISO position
Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+bspfh to contact me.
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
Shmuel Metz
at 04:42 PM, Willem <wil...@turtle.stack.nl> said:
>'==' is unambiguous.
Only in context, but in context "=" is unamgiguous. Your C bias is
showing.
Shmuel Metz
at 04:51 PM, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> said:
>Exactly. When one uses '==' there is zero possibility of confusion.
AT least not on the part of those who know only C. For those that know
multiple languages, "==" is as bad as "=" without the context.
Shmuel Metz
at 06:23 PM, Lionel <imag...@gmail.com> said:
>Feh. The only person who could possibly consider EBCDIC even halfway
>sane is someone who grew up with Baudot.
C 'EBCDIC' 'ASCII'
ACSS