On 21 March 2013 17:48, Will Crawford wrote:
>> GM: There is another loud bang and some crunching sounds, as DD's new
>> clone arrives. He lands upside down and may or may not have taken some
>> damage to the head. He thinks he's just fine though.
>>
>
> Is this first or second edition paranoia?
>
On 21 Mar 2013, at 17:48, Will Crawford wrote:
> Is this first or second edition paranoia?
> /me looks both ways and shuffles behind the nearest cover.
It might be Paranoia XP…
I've had a lot of fun playing non-Paranoia-Paranoia:
http://www.bullypulpitgames.com/wiki/index.php?title=Alpha_Comple
On 21 March 2013 17:28, David Cantrell wrote:
> GM: There is another loud bang and some crunching sounds, as DD's new
> clone arrives. He lands upside down and may or may not have taken some
> damage to the head. He thinks he's just fine though.
>
Is this first or second edition paranoia?
/me lo
On 21 Mar 2013, at 17:28, David Cantrell wrote:
> GM: There is another loud bang and some crunching sounds, as DD's new
> clone arrives. He lands upside down and may or may not have taken some
> damage to the head. He thinks he's just fine though.
Uh oh. We appear to have arrived in Paranoia terr
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 03:04:53PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2013, at 14:46, David Dorward wrote:
> > For a moment I thought that was a Palladium game and nearly took more SAN
> > damage, but it appears to be a WEG d6er so phew.
> GM: You take unknown points of SAN damage.
> DD: You
On 21 Mar 2013, at 15:04, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> GM: You take unknown points of SAN damage.
> DD: You can't do that.
Oi! I've been very good at avoiding being a rules lawyer over the last few
years!
On 21 Mar 2013, at 14:46, David Dorward wrote:
>
> For a moment I thought that was a Palladium game and nearly took more SAN
> damage, but it appears to be a WEG d6er so phew.
>
GM: You take unknown points of SAN damage.
DD: You can't do that.
GM: Maybe i didn't?
DD: I go speak to a psycholog
On 21 Mar 2013, at 14:17, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2013, at 12:00, David Cantrell wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:18:50AM +, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>>> I was using "Server-Side JavaScript"
>> Please don't ever mention that abomination again. I just lost a SAN
>> point.
> You kno
On 21 Mar 2013, at 12:00, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:18:50AM +, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>
>> I was using "Server-Side JavaScript" (the moral equivalent of mod_perl) to
>> write web applications using Netscape's Enterprise Web Server back around
>> 1998. So JS has been mo
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:18:50AM +, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> I was using "Server-Side JavaScript" (the moral equivalent of mod_perl) to
> write web applications using Netscape's Enterprise Web Server back around
> 1998. So JS has been more than just a web browser thing for a lot longer
> than
Quoting Richard Foley :
We need people with voting facilities (accounts) on Wikipedia to vot up Perl.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Perl#Move_to_.22Perl_.28programming_language.29.22
I note that this proposal has been withdrawn. The original proposer
has realised that it runs contrary t
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 01:00:04PM +0800, AJ Dhaliwal wrote:
> AFAIK JS was first created to manipulate the HTML DOM. Then
> Microsoft invented AJAX and that is what really pushed JS into the
> limelight. So JS had a very limited defined role as scripting
> language in its beginning. Maybe "JUST a
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 09:17:14AM +, James Laver wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2013, at 08:08, Mallory van Achterberg
> wrote:
>
> > However Javascript, while starting out lacking a lot, today has filled
> > in many of the gaps. It never fixed its basic retardation, but
> > libraries exist to fix it.
On 21 Mar 2013, at 08:08, Mallory van Achterberg
wrote:
> However Javascript, while starting out lacking a lot, today has filled
> in many of the gaps. It never fixed its basic retardation, but
> libraries exist to fix it.
JavaScript is an implementation detail of jQuery*. If something similar
Quack - quack!
:-)
--
Ciao
Richard Foley
http://www.rfi.net/books.html
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:18:31AM -0500, Avleen Vig wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Dave Cross wrote:
> > Quoting Richard Foley :
> >
> >> I understand what you mean here, but there is room to wriggle.
> >
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 01:00:04PM +0800, AJ Dhaliwal wrote:
> AFAIK JS was first created to manipulate the HTML DOM. Then
> Microsoft invented AJAX and that is what really pushed JS into the
> limelight. So JS had a very limited defined role as scripting
> language in its beginning. Maybe "JUST a
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:00 PM, AJ Dhaliwal wrote:
> Perl on the other hand was born with UNIX and "had a sordid past" tied to
> the guts of this system. Its role was relatively much wider than JS. And its
> potential.
Funny that Javascript is closer to Perl in behaviour than any other
language
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Dave Cross wrote:
> Quoting Richard Foley :
>
>> I understand what you mean here, but there is room to wriggle.
>
>
> I don't want room to wriggle here. I don't want the Perl community resorting
> to borderline underhand SEO tactics. I want us to follow the spirit
On 20/03/13 19:13, Richard Foley wrote:
I think perhaps you meant "JUST a scripting language", with the implied
aloofness intact ;-)
AFAIK JS was first created to manipulate the HTML DOM. Then Microsoft
invented AJAX and that is what really pushed JS into the limelight. So
JS had a very limite
"underhand" is a little harsh...
--
Ciao
Richard Foley
http://www.rfi.net/books.html
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 01:05:36PM +, Dave Cross wrote:
>
> I don't want the Perl community resorting to borderline underhand SEO
> tactics. I want us to follow the spirit of the Wikipedia rules, not just
On 20/03/2013 13:05, Dave Cross wrote:
Secondly, I don't think anyone was suggesting we remove the Perl page
from WP, rather that we make one the main page and the other point to
it. In effect having both pages/solutions at once and having our cake
and eating it too.
That what we currently
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:30:24PM +0100, Richard Foley wrote:
> I think the original proposer is suggesting that it has more to do with one of
> the many things we might be able to do to help to raise the perception of Perl
> in the wider world.
Tiobe rankings aren't something that Wikipedia sho
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 04:58:38PM +0800, AJ Dhaliwal wrote:
> Good points. I wonder about node.js. JS was designed to be a scripting
> language. Aren't they pushing it too far with node.js?
So was perl, but it seems to do OK.
--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic
S
Quoting Richard Foley :
I understand what you mean here, but there is room to wriggle.
I don't want room to wriggle here. I don't want the Perl community
resorting to borderline underhand SEO tactics. I want us to follow the
spirit of the Wikipedia rules, not just the letter.
Secondly, I
Speaking for myself, I'm not actually "in favour" of the rename, I just happen
to think it is a proposal which has some very serious merit, with regard to
promoting the Perl programming language in the wider world.
I know what Perl is and I don't need any such change. In fact I quite like to
see a
Dave Cross writes:
> In English, there is one meaning of the word "Perl" that stands head
> and shoulders above any others. Therefore, under Wikipedia's rules,
> the page about that meaning should simply be called "Perl".
I agree.
> No matter what SEO benefits we might get, the Perl community sh
On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 13:08 +0100, Richard Foley wrote:
> Secondly, I don't think anyone was suggesting we remove the Perl page from WP,
> rather that we make one the main page and the other point to it. In effect
> having both pages/solutions at once and having our cake and eating it too.
Not qui
I understand what you mean here, but there is room to wriggle. Firstly is
Wikipedia's own "rulings" on disambiguation and page titles:
There are generally three methods employed to avoid using an ambiguous title:
Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the
su
Quoting Richard Foley :
Looking down our noses and saying "WE don't need to disambiguate because WE
know what we mean", (capitals are mine), is all very well, and I for one
understand that there is no NEED for us to disambiguate Perl the programming
language. However, the question is probably be
I think the original proposer is suggesting that it has more to do with one of
the many things we might be able to do to help to raise the perception of Perl
in the wider world. WE all know what "Perl" is, but when someone does a
specific search on the 'net, for instance relating to this Tiobe rank
I think perhaps you meant "JUST a scripting language", with the implied
aloofness intact ;-)
--
Ciao
Richard Foley
http://www.rfi.net/books.html
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:58:53AM +, DAVID HODGKINSON wrote:
>
> On 20 Mar 2013, at 08:58, AJ Dhaliwal wrote:
> >>
> > Good points. I wonder
On 20 Mar 2013, at 08:58, AJ Dhaliwal wrote:
>>
> Good points. I wonder about node.js. JS was designed to be a scripting
> language. Aren't they pushing it too far with node.js? I admit I have only
> heard about it and don't have an in depth understanding of their approach.
Perl was a "script
perl also has a dark and sordid past shoving stuff for big systems through 1800
baud modems. They're well matched.
On 20/03/2013, at 8:55 PM, Mallory van Achterberg wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 04:58:38PM +0800, AJ Dhaliwal wrote:
>> ...
>> Good points. I wonder about node.js. JS was designe
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:07:43AM +, James Laver wrote:
>
> * The one where I didn't spend the entire time being heckled by people who've
> been programming perl since the 0.1 release. The one where I had the audience
> chanting "web scale" at me. Such fun.
WEB SCALE
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 04:58:38PM +0800, AJ Dhaliwal wrote:
>...
> Good points. I wonder about node.js. JS was designed to be a
> scripting language. Aren't they pushing it too far with node.js? I
> admit I have only heard about it and don't have an in depth
> understanding of their approach.
Jav
On 20 Mar 2013, at 08:47, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> Now throw in node.js and recently you could build another argument for the
> importance of JS.
Someone didn't see my talk at LPW.* I think the hype will blow over eventually
because people will figure out that cooperative multitasking makes thi
On 20/03/13 16:47, Greg McCarroll wrote:
On 20 Mar 2013, at 08:20, AJ Dhaliwal wrote:
"It is possible that Perl became less of the duct tape of the
internet because of JavaScript."
Didn't know Perl ever competed with Javascript?
I think at a certain point UI/UX became more important tha
On 20 Mar 2013, at 08:20, AJ Dhaliwal wrote:
"It is possible that Perl became less of the duct tape of the
internet because of JavaScript."
Didn't know Perl ever competed with Javascript?
I think at a certain point UI/UX became more important than just
serving up information, Flickr m
I spent five minutes I didn't have reading that page and it seems the
proposer wants to disambiguate Perl to follow the example of the German
Wikipedia site.
Something I found interesting in their discussion:
"It is possible that Perl became less of the duct tape of the internet
because of J
Quoting Richard Foley :
We need people with voting facilities (accounts) on Wikipedia to vot up Perl.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Perl#Move_to_.22Perl_.28programming_language.29.22
The proposal here seems to be to rename the Wikipedia article "Perl"
to "Perl (Programming Language)"
We need people with voting facilities (accounts) on Wikipedia to vot up Perl.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Perl#Move_to_.22Perl_.28programming_language.29.22
As you can see from the following Tiobe info:
http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
This is an i
41 matches
Mail list logo
