D.A. Lowe, in the July 1982 issue of DEC PROFESSIONAL, writes:
Extensive research in the Home Office has determined that a large
percentage of minicomputer system program errors are being caused by
parastatic conductance resulting from differential spurving of the
hydroscoptic marselvanes located in the prefabulated amilite base of
the unilateral detractor mechanism.
Digital Equipment Corporation has been unable to offer any remedy
for this troublesome situation other than to recommend manestically
spacing the grouting brushes on the periphery of the nubbing purwell.
Although on the surface this would appear to alleviate the
problem, we have found that this leads to further complications
causing the regurgitative wennel sprocket to transmit microgriffage to
the anhydrous dangling pin, from whence it is modulated, amplified,
and splitnagled, thus causing trancendental hopper dadoscope failure.
This, in turn, causes quasipiestic depleneration of the bitum-ogeneous
sprandels, thus leading to an even higher level of high RMP peak
nivel-sheave voltage which further magnifies the amnesial slump.
It should be apparent that any successful solution has to be based
on the regeneration of low-ohmic nofers combined with a high degree of
medial interation of magneto-reluctance and resistance to
atmospherical rillarah.
Fortunately, we have discovered a simple and effective remedy
which involves merely modifying the spiral decommutator with the
installation of a rectabular extrusion bracket and trichotometric
indicator support. These items should be purchased (out of petty
cash) from any local supply house and installed immediately. Upon
installation, the above cited malfunctions should be reduced
significantly and you should experience greatly increased
non-reversible tremic amifacience.
Joe Bednorz The Lurking Horror
=========================================================
Kill -9 them all. Let init sort them out.
I'm working Saturday, as usual, and a guy walks into the office...
"I'm trying to get an e-mail account on the World Wide Web," he says.
After I stop, I tell him why I was laughing. And then he's PO'd at
me... (Sheesh. LART![1])
But this incident gets me thinking. Why does this luser think he has
any kind of a clue? Why? What could have implanted the idea in his
head that he, Mr. J. Random Luser, was competent to use the technobabble
reserved for people who know what they're talking about?
I developed a theory. It's somewhat related to the Anthropic Principle of
Cosmology. I believe I will call it the "Lusethropic Principle." Let me
tell you what it is...
* The easier computers are to use, the stupider the userbase will be.
There are two corollaries, which are (respectivly), "The weak lusethropic
principle" and "The strong lusethropic principle."
- The Strong Lusethropic Principle states: "The more idiot proof the
software, the more it encourages the user to be careless and not think.
Therefore, idiot-proof software actually encourages, contributes, and
actually CAUSES lusers to be stupid."
- The Weak Lusethropic Principle states: "As more idiot-proof software
becomes avalable, more idiots are able to use computers. Idiot-proof
software did not make or cause computer lusers; it simple allowed lusers
to use computers where they could not before."
Most of the time, I'm definitly in the "Weak Lusethropic Principle" camp.
I think that there were always lusers of some sort or another; it's just
that right now, they happen to be using computers.[2]
However, there are certain people[3] that, at times, punt me right into the
other camp...
-Ben
-----
[1] Why don't I bring my LART to work with me? Why? Why??[4]
[2] Read: MAKING MY LIFE HELL!
[3] COU-"email account on the world wide web"-GH!
[4] Oh yeah, it doesn't fit in my backpack...
--
"BGC: Because some of us believe women over 14 are still sexy."
=--------- http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~cantrick/home.html -------------=
*Ben Cantrick, diehard BGC otaku and Priss fan. ---> THE BGC DUBS SUCK! <---*
*Why Mac? "When I want to spend 50% of my time fighting an OS, I'll use VMS."*
On 12 May 1996, Ben Cantrick wrote: > I developed a theory. It's somewhat related to the Anthropic Principle of > Cosmology. I believe I will call it the "Lusethropic Principle." Let me > tell you what it is... > > * The easier computers are to use, the stupider the userbase will be. > > There are two corollaries, which are (respectivly), "The weak lusethropic > principle" and "The strong lusethropic principle." > > - The Strong Lusethropic Principle states: "The more idiot proof the > software, the more it encourages the user to be careless and not think. > Therefore, idiot-proof software actually encourages, contributes, and > actually CAUSES lusers to be stupid." > > - The Weak Lusethropic Principle states: "As more idiot-proof software > becomes avalable, more idiots are able to use computers. Idiot-proof > software did not make or cause computer lusers; it simple allowed lusers > to use computers where they could not before." This started me to thinking about a complaint a friend of mine (and myself, on numerous occassions) made regarding cheap hardware. I think that it now must become the Luser Programming Principle. It states: * The cheaper the hardware and RAM, the sloppier/looser the code. (For a proof of this principle, see Microsoft.) What's scary is if the Luser Programming Principle and the Strong/Weak Lusethropic Principles get combined. Cheap hardware, "idiot-proof" "visual" development packages, lusers with no understanding of computer internals coding. 'Nuff said. ____________________________________________________________________________ Mark P. Beckman | I write for Mark Beckman, not GE... Techinical Systems Analyst |----------------------------------------- GE Fleet Capital Services | "I'm a guru, not a god!!! beckman@bofh.fleet.capital.ge.com | That's a whole different beckman@vader.sithlords.com | career path!"
I knew it!! This explains everything!!
Important Theological Questions that are Answered
If we Think of God as a Computer Programmer.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q: Does God control everything that happens in my life?
A: He could if he used the debugger, but it's tedious to step
through all those variables.
Q: Why does God allow evil to happen?
A: God thought He eliminated evil in one of the earlier versions.
Q: Does God know everything?
A: He likes to think so, but He is often amazed to find out what
goes on in the daemon scripts.
Q: What causes God to intervene in earthly affairs?
A: If a critical error occurs, the system pages Him
automatically and He logs on from home to try to bring it up.
Otherwise things can wait until tomorrow.
Q: Did God really create the world in seven days?
A: He did it in six days and nights while living on Jolt and
candy bars. On the seventh day He went home and found out His
girlfriend had left Him.
Q: How come the Age of Miracles Ended?
A: That was the development phase of the project; now we are in
the maintenance phase.
Q: Will there be another Universe after the Big Bang?
A: A lot of people are drawing things on the white board, but
personally, God doubts that it will ever be implemented.
Q: Who is Satan?
A: Satan is an MIS director who takes credit for more powers
than he actually possesses, so nontechnical people are scared of
him. God thinks of him as irritating but irrelevant.
Q: What is the role of sinners?
A: Sinners are the people who find new and imaginative ways to
mess up the system when God has made it idiot-proof.
Q: Where will I go after I die?
A: Onto a DAT tape.
Q: Will I be reincarnated?
A: Not unless there is a special need to recreate you. And
searching those .tar files is a major hassle, so if there is a
request for you, God will just say that the tape has been lost.
Q: Am I unique and special in the universe?
A: There are over 10,000 major university and corporate sites
running exact duplicates of you in the present release version.
Q: What is the purpose of the universe?
A: God created it because He values elegance and simplicity, but
then the users and managers demanded He tack all this senseless
stuff onto it, and now everything is more complicated and
expensive than ever.
Q: If I pray to God, will He listen?
A: You can waste His time telling Him what to do, or you can
just get off His back and let Him code.
Q: What is the one true religion?
A: All systems have their advantages and disadvantages, so just
pick the one that best suits your needs and don't let anyone put
you down.
Q: Is God angry that Jesus was crucified?
A: Let's just say He's not going to any more meetings if He can
help it, because that last one with the twelve managers and the
food turned out to be murder.
Q: How can I protect myself from evil?
A: Change your password every month and don't make it a name, a
common word, or a date like your birthday.
Q: Some people claim they hear the voice of God. Is this true?
A: They are much more likely to receive email.
Q: What was Aramaic?
A: The original Higher Order MACRO Language.
Q: What does that make Ancient Hebrew?
A: Aramaic++
Q: Why don't we see God at work?
A: God works at interrupt level. When He wants to do something,
He suspends our processes, saves our registers and status, and
swaps us out. Then He works His will on the world. Then He
swaps us back in, restores our registers and status, and resumes
our execution. To us, things appear to change by magic.
---- End Included Message -----
***It has been determined that you can get far more***
***cooperation from a luser using a kind word and a 2X4***
***then with a kind word alone***
Its a Friday at TCP Towers again (see the post in b.g).... however here is
something fun the trolls here have been playing with:
(the start of) 101 Excuses for not doing real work:
1. Sweeping the dropped packets off the floor
2. Cleaning the packet filters
3. Removing the tokens from the ethernet
4. Dusting the shared libraries
5. Collecting freed inodes
6. De-linting the router
7. Emptying the bit-bucket
8. Reading /dev/zero
9. Pruning the directory tree
10. Cashing parity checks
11. Clearing sand from the shells
12. Checking pipes for leaks
13. Closing the gated
14. Waxing the routing table
15. Weaving threads together
16. Counseling a parent and its child process
17. Making sweaters out of the fibre
18. Cleaning the cobwebs from the web.
*sigh* ran out of steam there.... anyone have any more ?
--
Simon Burr | SysAdmin and Programmer, TCP Ltd
simes@tcp.co.uk/simes@bofh.org.uk | http://www.tcp.co.uk/staff/simes/
I *don't* speak for my company, my boss does that
Is your boss buzzword compliant ?
simes@tcp.co.uk (Simon Burr) wrote:
>Its a Friday at TCP Towers again (see the post in b.g).... however here is
>something fun the trolls here have been playing with:
>(the start of) 101 Excuses for not doing real work:
> 1. Sweeping the dropped packets off the floor
[...]
> 18. Cleaning the cobwebs from the web.
>*sigh* ran out of steam there.... anyone have any more ?
Sure:
19. Cleaning debris from the modem pool. <-- Nice summer job ;)
(Hehehe....1st post, since I am finally a SysAdmin! (thx, Trevor!))
Jason Weaver
Systems Administrator
jweaver@ac.net
In article <4ni28l$2ak@hades.tcp.co.uk>, Simon Burr wrote: >(the start of) 101 Excuses for not doing real work: > 1. Sweeping the dropped packets off the floor > 2. Cleaning the packet filters > 3. Removing the tokens from the ethernet > 4. Dusting the shared libraries > 5. Collecting freed inodes > 6. De-linting the router > 7. Emptying the bit-bucket > 8. Reading /dev/zero > 9. Pruning the directory tree > 10. Cashing parity checks > 11. Clearing sand from the shells > 12. Checking pipes for leaks > 13. Closing the gated > 14. Waxing the routing table > 15. Weaving threads together > 16. Counseling a parent and its child process > 17. Making sweaters out of the fibre > 18. Cleaning the cobwebs from the web. 19. Feeding the gopher 20. Eradicating bugs (or is that real work?) 21. Filling /dev/null Can't think of anymore, doc said I wasn't allowed anything with caffeine in it and it's still morning ... *sigh* gossamer
In article <4nl6os$9v@medoc.nijenrode.nl>, koos@pizza.hvu.nl says... > >: (the start of) 101 Excuses for not doing real work: > >N. Helping the server serve >N+1. emptying /dev/null N++ postmarking the e-mail N++ signing the syslog -- Don Read dread@i-link.net Austin TX sysop@calcasieu.com ---- "Ya jus' mash that butt'n, righ' jere" ---
Today's lesson on the internet....
Internet Q&A
1. How big is the Internet? When did it start? How did it grow?
The Internet is actually much smaller than most people think. It
is primarily composed of fiber optic cables no thicker than a
human
hair, which can be conveniently rolled up and stored in a foot
locker. Janitors at the National Science Foundation do this on
the
third Tuesday of every month when they wax the floors.
Since fiber optics are the size of human hairs, they also make
attractive wigs. The next time you watch a Sprint commercial,
you'll see that Candice Bergen's alleged hair is really the T4
backbone.
The earliest origins of the Internet can be traced to Ancient
Greece, where a loosely connected set of networks was used to
discuss exploration in the Black Sea. The Argonets, as they were
then called, were entirely subsidized by the government, and won
one of William Proxmire's first Golden Fleece awards.
The Internet grows hyperbolically, but is usually described
elliptically.
2. Who owns the Internet?
There is no one person or agency that owns the Internet. Instead,
parts of it are owned by the Illuminati and parts are owned by
Free
Masons.
3. What do the Internet addresses mean?
Precise meanings are often hard to determine. The address
baker.lib.washington.edu--which is sometimes written
baker@lib.washington.edu--seems to refer to a computer either
owned
by a baker or by someone named Baker. This can be deceiving
however; names like this actually refer to where a computer is
located. This one is on top of Mt. Baker.
In addition to names, computers on the Internet also have
numbers.
This is part of the whole right brain/left brain thing.
4. Tell me how to get on and off various lists and discussion
groups.
Getting off on various lists is currently the subject of pending
legislation.
5. What is "Netiquette?"
"Netiquette" is one of many cutesy neologisms created by
combining
two other words. In this case, "network" and "tourniquette"
combine to describe a program that shuts down a computer if it
starts transmitting information too fast.
6. What is "Flaming?"
Along with an improvisational approach to floating point
arithmetic, early Pentium chips were noted for generating heat.
While some hackers speak fondly of roasting marshmallows over
their
first P60s, others found themselves badly singed as the chips
caught fire. This "flaming" sometimes occurred while the user was
composing e-mail, resulting in poorly chosen or excessively
vitriolic verbiage.
7. What is "Bandwidth?"
As capacity on the Internet has increased, people have begun to
transmit material other than simple text. One notable example is
audio recordings of rock concerts. These audio files are much
larger than even very long books, so they have become a standard
unit of network usage. One Rolling Stone song equals one "band"
width, and so on.
8. Why can't I FTP to some places?
There are two main reasons for this. The first is that the site
you want to ftp files from is exercising a certain degree of
control over its network resources; in network parlance, this is
called "fascism."
The second reason is that the remote site may be dabbling with
such
network fads as gopher or the World Wide Web. This is called
"keeping up with the times."
9. What is the World Wide Web, Gopherspace, etc?
The World Wide Web, or WWW, is an experiment in generating
acronyms
that are much more difficult to pronounce than the words they
replace.
Gopherspace is an older network term. In response to the Soviet
space program's early use of dogs in space, NASA mounted a
program
to orbit a number of different rodents. The programmers involved
in this project adopted the motto "Gophers in space!" which has
since been shortened. The only actual gopher to go into orbit had
been digging up the carrots in Werner Von Braun's garden, and was
named Veronica after his daughter.
10. Why can't I get some WWW stuff via FTP?
It can be hard to say this, but some users of the Internet are
unable to do things because they are stupid. The comparatively
trivial task of getting an ftp client to do every single thing a
WWW browser can do is beneath this author's attention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tech Support, Nietzsche Style
Guidelines:
When a user is calling in need of help, don't forget that he is a
weakling.
Only a loser would need to come groveling, begging for crumbs of help
that
may fall from your godlike lips. And he KNOWS that he is a loser in
the race
of the weak and thestrong, that his kind is doomed to extinction.
Therefore,
showhim no mercy. Treat him with the utter contempt that he deserves.
It is
the law of nature that you should do so.
Key Phrases:
+"You aren't very smart, are you?"
+"I can't believe you call yourself a programmer!"
+"Our product is obviously too complex and advanced for you. Please
desist
>from using it -- you are soiling it."
More Guidelines: Nevertheless, there may come a time when you actually
must
help the user, even though he is sucking away your magnificent
intellectual
vitality with his grotesque shambling confusion. He is a lower form of
life
and you must make him feel it, lest he take on ambitions of evolving
to your
level. Key Phrases:
"Now I will read aloud the section of the manual that you failed to
comprehend." "What you've done in your function fool is the coding
equivalent of failing to empty your colostomy bag."
Even More Guidelines: Alas, upon occasion there comes a time when it
is
obvious that the compiler is at fault. This is no reason to let the
user
feel superior to anyone, however. The design of a compiler is still
far
beyond his limited mental capacities. His duty is to worship, not
criticize.
Key Phrases:
"The inner workings of the compiler are far beyond your antlike
comprehension." "That behavior is described in ANSI specification
21.11.45.7.3.8. You are familiar with that section, I assume..." "Our
software can behave in that manner only if it has been corrupted by
long
exposure to users of your caliber."
And Even More Guidelines: And finally, a user may eventually want you
to
code something for him, or send him an example. The user has asked
something
that is against the laws of nature. Such creatures as himself exist to
serve
you and not you him. Therefore such a request is impossible and
against
nature, and does not exist, and therefore never happened. Response is
not
possible.
***It has been determined that you can get far more***
***cooperation from a luser using a kind word and a 2X4***
***then with a kind word alone***
Timothy Hunt (tjh@xara.net) wrote:
> Hrm. Because my departure from PIPEX happened rather swiftly, I didn't
> manage to get a copy of the script I wrote to display the time on
> an HP printer. Anyone got a copy I could have?
This should work:
#!/usr/local/bin/perl5
($sec,$min,$hour,$mday,$mon,$year,$wday,$yday,$isdst) = localtime(time);
# space separated list of applicable printers below
@printers = qw( 283_laser );
# uncomment line below if your display is wide enough
# @days = qw( Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat );
@months = qw( Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec );
# fill in leading zero's if required
$textmday = $mday<10 ? "0$mday" : $mday;
$texthour = $hour<10 ? "0$hour" : $hour;
$textmin = $min<10 ? "0$min" : $min;
# swap two lines below if using the days
# $datestring = "$days[$wday] $textmday-$months[$mon]-$year $texthour:$textmin";
#$datestring = "$textmday-$months[$mon]-$year $texthour:$textmin";
$datestring="Out of photons";
$printstring = "\@PJL RDYMSG DISPLAY = \"$datestring\"\n";
foreach $printer (@printers)
{
open(PRINTCOMMAND, "|/usr/bin/lpr -P$printer");
print PRINTCOMMAND $printstring;
close PRINTCOMMAND;
# print $printstring;
}
I can't remember where I grabbed this from. This script will probally
need slight changes to work on your system.
Jeff
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Schave Advanced System Administrator
schave@maf.wisc.edu Model Advanced Facility
(608) 265-5092 University of Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lamont Alan Lucas (lamont@brando.ece.utexas.edu) wrote:
: In article <4p7puv$10dq@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
: Jeff Schave <schave@cae.wisc.edu> wrote:
: >$printstring = "\@PJL RDYMSG DISPLAY = \"$datestring\"\n";
: Wasn't there some sort of escape from PS to PCL code we were supposed to
: put in there as well? I've tried a couple of times here, but it always
: comes out with a piece of paper that has the message on it.
: Sigh. I should have known usefull information was too good to be true,
: thank got it didn't fry the printer.
I use ^[%-12345X@PJL RDYMSG DISPLAY = "** POWER IS OFF"
Finger my account (sailer@sun10.sep.bnl.gov) for the script
written my Mr. Hunt.
Tim
--
sailer@sun10.sep.bnl.gov
"Management decisions have no effect on the laws of physics."
-- anon
** Disclaimer: My views/comments/beliefs, as strange as they are, are my own.**
What happened with this list ??? Here comes a compiled version. Let's fill in the last 21 reasons..... > simes@tcp.co.uk (Simon Burr) 1. Sweeping the dropped packets off the floor 2. Cleaning the packet filters 3. Removing the tokens from the ethernet 4. Dusting the shared libraries 5. Collecting freed inodes 6. De-linting the router 7. Emptying the bit-bucket 8. Reading /dev/zero 9. Pruning the directory tree 10. Cashing parity checks 11. Clearing sand from the shells 12. Checking pipes for leaks 13. Closing the gated 14. Waxing the routing table 15. Weaving threads together 16. Counseling a parent and its child process 17. Making sweaters out of the fibre 18. Cleaning the cobwebs from the web. > rogers@gabriel.crhc.uiuc.edu 19. Damnit, I'm gaming, leave me alone! > jweaver@ac.net 20. Cleaning debris from the modem pool. <-- Nice summer job ;) > gossamer@glasswings.com.au (Bek Oberin) 21. Feeding the gopher 22. Eradicating bugs (or is that real work?) 23. Filling /dev/null > koos@pizza.hvu.nl 24. Helping the server serve 25. Emptying /dev/null > sean@fastnet.co.uk (Sean B Purdy) 26. Adding your excuse to the "101 Excuses for not doing real work" list. > traveler@empire.net (Ned Brickley) 27. Calling the pest control company to deal with all these bugs. > dread@i-link.net (Don Read) 28. Postmarking the e-mail 29. Signing the syslog > etxboom@aom.ericsson.se 30. Cut a cat. > dfloyd@io.com (Douglas R. Floyd) 31. Adding lightning power surge protection to the FDDI ring. > keelings@mts.net (s. keeling) 32. Vacuuming out the sockets. > Dave Phelps <davidp@netmanage.com> 33. Straightening out a dangling pointer 34. Clearing the wreckage from a crash > Nathan Green (ngreen@plains.nodak.edu) 35. Shh. Be quiet. I'm trying to put the processes to sleep. 36. Taking a walk along the PATH. 37. Building a syslog cabin. 38. Winding threads around a spooler. 39. Feeding /dev/mouse to the cat(1). 40. Giving someone the finger(1). 41. Ignoring Stop Signals. 42. Removing tarnish from the forks(2). > hartwig@hartwig.lfso.loral.com (Michael R. Hartwig) 43. Husking the kernel 44. Shelling the kernel > wbeckner@darkstar.rsa.lib.il.us (William Beckner) 45. Filling potholes in the Information Superhighway 46. Blowing compressed air into a congested router. > jim@aob.mn.org (Jim Anderson) 47. Polishing the forks 48. Cleaning the X-Windows > medwards@onramp.net (Mark Edwards) 49. Sorting /dev/null 50. Examining resumes to replace the old wtemp 51. Cooperating with Agent Mulder in his investigation of the X-Windows > dfloyd@io.com (Douglas R. Floyd) 52. larting the lusers 53. adding wood to the firewall 54. searching for my IPX socket wrench [1] 55. hanging the winsock 56. looking people up in the yellow pages 57. popping the kernels 58. emptying /dev/zero 59. wondering why its just a step for man(1) 60. gasp(1) > charles@fma.com (Charlie Stross) 61. Feeding the awks 62. listening to the C shell 63. making a wish 64. polishing the perl 65. putting stiffeners in the floppy disks 66. invoking daemons > clc@fma19.fma.com (Claudio Calvelli) 67. killing the zombies 68. making interrupt masks to wear for Halloween 69. inspecting the tickets (ok, that's kerberos' job I'm doing now) 70. refreshing the memory > traveler@empire.net (Ned Brickley) 71 Hammering in power spikes. > electel@junior.wariat.org (Electel T`iln'rve Litser) 72. Polishing the FDDI ring. 73. Checking for gas leaks around the SPARCs. ;) > peter@qimr.edu.au (Peter McCool) 74. Putting corn in the popper > etxboom@aom.ericsson.se 75. Follow the streams. 76. Climbing file trees. 77. Mounting sockets. 78. Visit luser meetings. 79. Crashing X Windows. ... ... 101. Compiling the "101 Excuses for not doing real work" list. Bo Sjoblom.
Joe Bamberg wrote:
> In article <4p8u4u$203@mailnews.kub.nl>,
> Perry Rovers <Perry.Rovers@IAEhv.nl> wrote:
> >On 7 Jun 1996 06:48:52 GMT Bo Sj|blom (etxboom@aom.ericsson.se) wrote in alt.sysadmin.recovery:
> >80. Commenting on RFC's
> >81. Discussing RFD's
> >82. Junking the junk newsgroup
> >83. Controlling the control newsgroup
>> 84. picking /dev/nit
# as you wish:
shearing the RAM
polishing the token ring.
listening (or waiting) for the token ring.
repairing the holes in the ether net.
grounding the arc net.
watching ISDN.
scanning for a virus.
waiting for a compile.
strengthening your grep.
feeding your awk.
feeding your cat.
feeding the GNU.
helping the man.
manning the system.
filtering your mail.
testing the hardness of a disk.
marking up (or down) HTML.
pinging the server.
cleaning up the GUI.
waiting for the tar to harden.
60 minutes wants to interview you and you have to get ready.
you're searching for R. Nixon's missing 18 minutes.
polishing the boot.
you're converting EMI to RFI.
the {choose one}: (Pope's, President's, CIA,s, Kremlin's) sysadmin. just
called for your help.
you're restarting the random number generator.
you're waiting for pi to be finished calculating.
--
Jeff Smoley
jeffics@gate.net
"The pen is mightier than the sword,
<=======================================}]|//////////////|[{o
but the sword hurts more."
news:31B8544F.3950@epnet.com dnewman@epnet.com (Dave Newman) wrote: >> How about >> "Real programmers canprogram in all of the languages on any system!" >> (Newton Love, circa 1991) > >I though it was "Real Programmers don't document, if it was > hard to program it should be hard to use" Lessee if I can remember (it's been about 10 years): Real programmers don't use logo Because turtles are for soup, not computers Real programmers don't use PL/1 Because anybody can be obscure in PL/1 Real programmers don't use BASIC Because 10 year olds use Basic Real programmers don't use COBOL Because accountants shouldn't be let *near* computers anybody remember any more? Anybody have the list (sorry, don't know where to get the FAQ on canonical lists...) --------------------- Aaron R. Kulkis akulkis@wae.gmpt.gmeds.com Unix Systems Administrator EDS/GM Powertrain GM Warren Technical Center Warren, Michigan, USA -------------------------------------------- There are 2 Kinds of planes: Fighters, and targets. There are 2 Kinds of boats: Submarines, and targets. There are 2 Kinds of O/S's: Unix, and brain-farts. --------------------------------------------
Al Castanoli wrote: > > On 11 Jun 1996 20:20:11 GMT, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <akulkis> wrote: > > [...] > > > Real programmers don't use BASIC > > Because 10 year olds use Basic > > [...] > "REAL PROGRAMMERS DON'T NUMBER PARAGRAPH NAMES "CONSECUTIVELY. "REAL PROGRAMMERS DON'T GRUMBLE ABOUT THE DISADVANTAGES "OF COBOL WHEN THEY DON'T KNOW ANY OTHER LANGUAGE. "REAL PROGRAMMERS DON'T NOTCH THEIR DESKS FOR EACH "COMPLETED SERVICE REQUEST. "REAL PROGRAMMERS ARE SECURE ENOUGH TO WRITE READABLE CODE, "WHICH THEY THEN SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY REFUSE TO EXPLAIN. "REAL PROGRAMMERS UNDERSTAND PASCAL. REAL PROGRAMMERS PUNCH UP THEIR OWN PROGRAMS. REAL PROGRAMMERS HAVE READ THE STANDARDS MANUAL "BUT WON'T ADMIT IT REAL PROGRAMMERS ALWAYS HAVE A BETTER IDEA REAL PROGRAMMERS CAN DO OCTAL, HEXADECIMAL AND "BINARY MATH IN THEIR HEADS. REAL PROGRAMMERS DON'T WRITE MEMOS. REAL PROGRAMMERS KNOW WHAT SAAD MEANS. REAL PROGRAMMERS DO NOT READ BOOKS LIKE 'EFFECTIVE LISTENING' AND 'COMMUNICATION SKILLS'. "REAL PROGRAMMERS DON'T WRITE COBOL. "COBOL IS FOR WIMPY APPLICATIONS PROGRAMMERS. REAL PROGRAMMERS DO NOT DOCUMENT. "DOCUMENTATION IS FOR SIMPS WHO CAN'T READ LISTINGS OR "OBJECT CODE. REAL PROGRAMMERS DON'T WRITE SPECS -- USERS SHOULD "CONSIDER THEMSELVES LUCKY TO GET ANY PROGRAMS AT ALL AND "TAKE WHAT THEY GET. REAL PROGRAMMERS DON'T COMMENT THEIR CODE. IF IT IS HARD "TO WRITE, IT SHOULD BE HARD TO UNDERSTAND. REAL PROGRAMMERS DON'T WRITE APLLICATIONS PROGRAMS; THEY "PROGRAM RIGHT DOWN ON THE BARE METAL. APPLICATION "PROGRAMMING IS FOR FEEBS WHO CAN'T DO SYSTEMS PROGRAMMING REAL PROGRAMMER'S PROGRAMS NEVER WORK THE FIRST TIME. BUT "IF YOU THROW THEM ON THE MACHINE, THEY CAN BE PATCHED INTO "WORKING IN 'ONLY A FEW' 30-HOUR DEBUGGING SESSIONS. REAL PROGRAMMERS DON'T WRITE IN FORTRAN. FORTRAN IS FOR "PIPE STRESS FREAKS AND CRYSTALLOGRAPHY WEENIES. REAL PROGRAMMERS DON'T WRITE IN BASIC. ACTUALLY, NO "PROGRAMMERS WRITE IN BASIC AFTER AGE 12. "REAL PROGRAMMERS DON'T WRITE IN PL/1. PL/1 IS FOR "PROGRAMMERS WHO CAN'T DECIDE WHETHER TO WRITE IN "COBOL OR FORTRAN. REAL PROGRAMMERS DON'T WRITE IN PASCAL, BLISS, OR ADA, OR "ANY OF THOSE PINKO COMPUTER SCIENCE LANGUAGES. STRONG "TYPING IS FOR PEOPLE WITH WEAK MEMORIES. REAL PROGRAMMERS DON'T WRITE COBOL. "COBOL IS FOR WIMPY APPLICATIONS PROGRAMMERS.
Real Programmers: are not baffled by complex hardware, such as the telephone say "I don't know" when they don't. know who does what in operations. always leave the user smiling. know what they are doing. know each of the unique names by which operations, programming, users, and management refer to the same system. can maintain a cooperative relationship with quality assurance. are not intimidated by contractors. don't need the manuals. dont' work on weekends. can't write JCL. don't tell war stories about the good old days. dress for success when they have a walk-through.
>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Stapleton <mstaple@insync.net> writes:
> Good news, pals and gals!
> Per Reuters, a U.S. Federal court in Philadelphia has issued a temporary
> injunction against the Communications Decency Act, citing its
> unconstitutionality.
> Per Reuters:
> '``As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet
> deserves the highest protection from government intrusion,'' the three-judge
> panel said in imposing a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the
> statute signed into law by President Clinton in February.'
The quote I liked best from the decision (so far, I haven't read the
whole thing yet) was that the strength of the Internet is chaos.
I guess that this means it is time to change my .sig...
--
--
Buddha Buck bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu
"She was infatuated with their male prostitutes, whose members were
like those of donkeys and whose seed came in floods like that of
stallions." -- Ezekiel 23:20
Jesper Nilsson // dat92jni@ludat.lth.se or jesper@df.lth.se