I am posting this message here again, because I received only one

(positive) reply. If you have an opinion about this article or some smart

comment to make, or something to add - please post it here or send it to

me in private E-mail. But I'd like to hear something.



Here goes:



--------



Perl - There's more than one way to do it.



C++ - There are 5 ways to do it, 3 out of which are not supposed to work.



Visual Basic - The only way to do it is to use a third party component.



ANSI C - There is usually one way to do it, but there's more than one way to

optimize it.



Java - There's barely one way to do it.



Python - There's only one way to do it. The one true way of doing it.



COBOL - The only way to do it is to use something else.



Common LISP - There is a infinite series of ways to do it, increasing in

elegance, and decreasing in legibility.



Scheme - You have to chart either one of the ways to do it.



Haskell - You can think of any number of ways to do it, but only one

will have a reasonable time or space complexity.



HTML - There are many ways to do it. Most of them should be avoided at all

costs, and the other ones should better be precossed with something else.



The C Preprocessor - There's not supposed to be a way to do it.



Bash - There are several ways to do it. Now one has to find a way to decide

which way to do it.



C Shell - The only way to do it does not work.



-------------



Regards,



	 Shlomi Fish







----------------------------------------------------------------------

Shlomi Fish        shlomif@...

Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/

Home E-mail:       shlomif@...



"Let's suppose you have a table with 2^n cups..."

"Wait a second - is n a natural number?"

On Mon, 13 May 2002, Shlomi Fish wrote:



> I am posting this message here again, because I received only one

> (positive) reply. If you have an opinion about this article or some smart

> comment to make, or something to add - please post it here or send it to

> me in private E-mail. But I'd like to hear something.



sometimes, the lack of replies, is a reaction on its own merits...



--

guy



"For world domination - press 1,

  or dial 0, and please hold, for the creator." -- nob o. dy

hear hear.



-----Original Message-----

From: guy keren [mailto:choo@...]

Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 10:01 AM

To: Hackers-IL

Subject: Re: [hackers-il] Ways to do it - Take 2







On Mon, 13 May 2002, Shlomi Fish wrote:



> I am posting this message here again, because I received only one

> (positive) reply. If you have an opinion about this article or some smart

> comment to make, or something to add - please post it here or send it to

> me in private E-mail. But I'd like to hear something.



sometimes, the lack of replies, is a reaction on its own merits...



--

guy



"For world domination - press 1,

  or dial 0, and please hold, for the creator." -- nob o. dy







To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

hackers-il-unsubscribe@egroups.com







Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/







*

  *******************************************************

This email has been scanned by Port Authority.



********************************************************

I fail to understand the two of you. First Guy gives me a cryptic message

about "lack of replies". I cannot deduce from it his opinion or what he

thinks the opinions of the list are. Then, Arik says "hear hear". And

again, I cannot deduce his opinion about Guy's opinion, his opinion about

Guy's opinion about the list's opinions, or his opinion about the original

posting.



Can you please be a bit more direct and clear? Also, please aboid

collectivism and speak only for yourself. Whatever, I'll try to post this

piece somewhere else like rec.humor.funny or use Perl (or Advogato ?).



Regards,



	 Shlomi Fish



On Mon, 13 May 2002, Arik Baratz wrote:



>

> hear hear.

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: guy keren [mailto:choo@...]

> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 10:01 AM

> To: Hackers-IL

> Subject: Re: Ways to do it - Take 2

>

>

>

> On Mon, 13 May 2002, Shlomi Fish wrote:

>

> > I am posting this message here again, because I received only one

> > (positive) reply. If you have an opinion about this article or some smart

> > comment to make, or something to add - please post it here or send it to

> > me in private E-mail. But I'd like to hear something.

>

> sometimes, the lack of replies, is a reaction on its own merits...

>

> --

> guy

>

> "For world domination - press 1,

>  or dial 0, and please hold, for the creator." -- nob o. dy

>

>

>

> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

> hackers-il-unsubscribe@egroups.com

>

>

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>

>

>

> *

>  *******************************************************

> This email has been scanned by Port Authority.

>

> ********************************************************

>

>

>

> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

> hackers-il-unsubscribe@egroups.com

>

>

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>

>







----------------------------------------------------------------------

Shlomi Fish        shlomif@...

Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/

Home E-mail:       shlomif@...



"Let's suppose you have a table with 2^n cups..."

"Wait a second - is n a natural number?"

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 08:05:35AM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:

>

> I fail to understand the two of you. First Guy gives me a cryptic message

> about "lack of replies". I cannot deduce from it his opinion or what

> he



What's cryptic about it?



Let us assume that each message sent to the list, N people read. Past

experience shows that a certain percent of those N people, which we

shall denote by n, reply to the message. We can postulate that if a

message is interesting, n will be relatively large. We can also

postulate that if the message is irrelevant to the list (and the list

members behave!), n will be relatively small.



You posted a message twice. That means that N people have, with a high

probability, seen it twice. Yet n, for those two message --> 0.



guy says "sometimes, the lack of replies, is a reaction on its own

merits". Translated into plain english, that means "sometime, the lack

of replies, is a reaction on its own merits". Translated into even

plainer english, that means "consider that if no one replies, maybe no

one considered the post worthy of replying to?"



Hope this helps,

Muli.

--

The ill-formed Orange

Fails to satisfy the eye:       http://vipe.technion.ac.il/~mulix/

Segmentation fault.             http://syscalltrack.sf.net/

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 08:46:21AM +0300, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:

> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 08:05:35AM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:

> >

> > I fail to understand the two of you. First Guy gives me a cryptic message

> > about "lack of replies". I cannot deduce from it his opinion or what

> > he



Muli answered, but since we're deep in meta-land I thought I'd represent

an alternative view.



> Let us assume that each message sent to the list, N people read. Past

> experience shows that a certain percent of those N people, which we

> shall denote by n, reply to the message. We can postulate that if a

> message is interesting, n will be relatively large.



For me, this was not the case. The original message was not

un-interesting -- on the contrary, I found it mildly amusing (which

is good - it's better than most of the supposedly amusing stuff I read

on the internet). Other people might have a different taste. But I found

in the post nothing of interest to REPLY to. There was nothing for me to

say anything about, and if I am to judge by the reactions, neither did

anyone else.



Now, this is a discussion group. I don't find anything inherently wrong

with standalone presentations of wit, but in the end of the day something

had better contribute towards good old fashioned discussion threads, at

least on hackers-il.



Your SECOND post, on the other hand, was quite annoying, because

essentially it placed the blame of not finding discussion interest in

your post on US. You should look in yourself instead, and try to estimate

possible reactions. If you use the list as body of critics for your work

then you chose the wrong place, because you will need to be more and

more aggressive just to actually get this criticism, and this criticism

will therefore tend to be more and more artificially negative. Sounds

familiar?

On Wed, 15 May 2002, Adi Stav wrote:



> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 08:46:21AM +0300, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:

> > On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 08:05:35AM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:

> > >

> > > I fail to understand the two of you. First Guy gives me a cryptic message

> > > about "lack of replies". I cannot deduce from it his opinion or what

> > > he

>

> Muli answered, but since we're deep in meta-land I thought I'd represent

> an alternative view.

>

> > Let us assume that each message sent to the list, N people read. Past

> > experience shows that a certain percent of those N people, which we

> > shall denote by n, reply to the message. We can postulate that if a

> > message is interesting, n will be relatively large.

>

> For me, this was not the case. The original message was not

> un-interesting -- on the contrary, I found it mildly amusing (which

> is good - it's better than most of the supposedly amusing stuff I read

> on the internet). Other people might have a different taste. But I found

> in the post nothing of interest to REPLY to. There was nothing for me to

> say anything about, and if I am to judge by the reactions, neither did

> anyone else.

>



OK. But a "nice" or "very nice" or "not bad" could go a long way. It's

like giving a lecture, and nobody asks any questions. One cannot tell if

they understand it or not.



> Now, this is a discussion group. I don't find anything inherently wrong

> with standalone presentations of wit, but in the end of the day something

> had better contribute towards good old fashioned discussion threads, at

> least on hackers-il.

>



I don't see it solely as a discussion group. It's also a place for

announcements, URLs, (like you said) hacks, and whatever else is

considered on-topic here. I believe this thread could have started a

discussion. Obviously I don't know many languages enough to parody them

the way I intended (pardon the pun), so people could have added more, or

added more entries to the list.



> Your SECOND post, on the other hand, was quite annoying, because

> essentially it placed the blame of not finding discussion interest in

> your post on US. You should look in yourself instead, and try to estimate

> possible reactions.



I did not try to put the blame on you. I was simply afraid that the

meta-thread of all those "wanna-be hackers" people shadowed my original

post as people were too involved in it. I was just trying to get some

discussion (or expression of opinions) going. Sorry if you were offended

in the process.



> If you use the list as body of critics for your work

> then you chose the wrong place, because you will need to be more and

> more aggressive just to actually get this criticism, and this criticism

> will therefore tend to be more and more artificially negative. Sounds

> familiar?

>



Understood. Do you know any computer forum where I can post such jokes and

get some reactions and commentary instead?



Regards,



	 Shlomi Fish



>

> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

> hackers-il-unsubscribe@egroups.com

>

>

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>

>







----------------------------------------------------------------------

Shlomi Fish        shlomif@...

Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/

Home E-mail:       shlomif@...



"Let's suppose you have a table with 2^n cups..."

"Wait a second - is n a natural number?"

On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 08:05, Shlomi Fish wrote:

>

> I fail to understand the two of you. First Guy gives me a cryptic message

> about "lack of replies". I cannot deduce from it his opinion or what he

> thinks the opinions of the list are. Then, Arik says "hear hear". And

> again, I cannot deduce his opinion about Guy's opinion, his opinion about

> Guy's opinion about the list's opinions, or his opinion about the original

> posting.



Shlomi,



Have you ever considered taking a Turing test? ;-)





Gilad

--

Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...>

http://benyossef.com

"Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia!"

On 15 May 2002, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:



> On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 08:05, Shlomi Fish wrote:

> >

> > I fail to understand the two of you. First Guy gives me a cryptic message

> > about "lack of replies". I cannot deduce from it his opinion or what he

> > thinks the opinions of the list are. Then, Arik says "hear hear". And

> > again, I cannot deduce his opinion about Guy's opinion, his opinion about

> > Guy's opinion about the list's opinions, or his opinion about the original

> > posting.

>

> Shlomi,

>

> Have you ever considered taking a Turing test? ;-)

>



<sarcasm>

Sure I did. I sat at one point of an IRC channel, and someone

tested me. Eventually it was discovered that I am a computer, but it

turned out the other side was an Eliza program. Strangely enough, I could

not detect that the latter fact was true.

</sarcasm>



Does this answer your question? Do you qualify naive or

common-sense-deprived as computer-like? Is the human mind not

a Turing-complete computer? Aren't humans equivalent to computers

according to Church's Thesis? Would it be possible for a human to make it

look like he is a computer? (say, by replying "yes" all the time)



Regards,



	 Shlomi Fish



There is no IGLU Cabal! None of them could pass the Turing test. But

stranegely enough a computer program they coded, could.



>

> Gilad

> --

> Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...>

> http://benyossef.com

> "Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia!"

>

>

>

> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

> hackers-il-unsubscribe@egroups.com

>

>

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>

>







----------------------------------------------------------------------

Shlomi Fish        shlomif@...

Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/

Home E-mail:       shlomif@...



"Let's suppose you have a table with 2^n cups..."

"Wait a second - is n a natural number?"

On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 09:44, Shlomi Fish wrote:

> On 15 May 2002, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:

>

> > On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 08:05, Shlomi Fish wrote:

> > >

> > > I fail to understand the two of you. First Guy gives me a cryptic message

> > > about "lack of replies". I cannot deduce from it his opinion or what he

> > > thinks the opinions of the list are. Then, Arik says "hear hear". And

> > > again, I cannot deduce his opinion about Guy's opinion, his opinion about

> > > Guy's opinion about the list's opinions, or his opinion about the original

> > > posting.

> >

> > Shlomi,

> >

> > Have you ever considered taking a Turing test? ;-)

>

> Does this answer your question? Do you qualify naive or

> common-sense-deprived as computer-like?



No. I qualify "having trouble parsing communication because unawarness

to implicit cues delivering social context" as computer like. Sometimes

what humans *don't* say or how they say it is much more important then

what they do say.



Hackers are nutorious for  missing out these sublte cues and getting

confused when they fail to parse the explicit communication because of

lack of the underlying context.



I am not trying to be flame you or some such all, you've asked for a

striaght out explenation and that's what I've supplied. As a matter of

fact I had the very same problem for a long time and sometiems still do.

The good news is you CAN learn this skill.



The even better news is that once you do you'll discover tha because

you've learned in an explicit aware manner what most people absorve with

their mother's milk you are much aware of these social cues and

sub-contexts then most people are. This can enable you to 'read' someone

you're communicating with and learn more then he or she wanted to reveal

about their motives and reasons for behaviour. Sometimes you can even

manipulate this hidden channel of  communication to help you pursade

people by 'speaking' in the right way that will work with your

counterpart; sort of modern days 'speaking with tounges' from the bible.

note that I am NOT talking about saying somthing else to please the

lsitener - I am talking about saying it in a different way to please the

listener (presentation, not content). Don't be confused.



This is a very big aqnd interesting field that deals with the

dissmenation of ideas, memes, thought viruses and meta viruses. If

you're really interested, go read 'Snow Crash' and search for Neuro

Lingual Programing (Warning: there are a lot of bullshitters in this

field, just like anything else. Don't take anything for granted).



>

> There is no IGLU Cabal! None of them could pass the Turing test. But

> stranegely enough a computer program they coded, could.



LOL



--

Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...>

Code mangler, senior coffee drinker and VP SIGSEGV

Qlusters ltd.



"To err is human. To realy fsck up you need a computer. For

  those really large scale disastears, an SSI cluster is a must."

On 15 May 2002, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:



> On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 09:44, Shlomi Fish wrote:

> > On 15 May 2002, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:

> >

> > > On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 08:05, Shlomi Fish wrote:

> > > >

> > > > I fail to understand the two of you. First Guy gives me a cryptic

message

> > > > about "lack of replies". I cannot deduce from it his opinion or what he

> > > > thinks the opinions of the list are. Then, Arik says "hear hear". And

> > > > again, I cannot deduce his opinion about Guy's opinion, his opinion

about

> > > > Guy's opinion about the list's opinions, or his opinion about the

original

> > > > posting.

> > >

> > > Shlomi,

> > >

> > > Have you ever considered taking a Turing test? ;-)

> >

> > Does this answer your question? Do you qualify naive or

> > common-sense-deprived as computer-like?

>

> No. I qualify "having trouble parsing communication because unawarness

> to implicit cues delivering social context" as computer like. Sometimes

> what humans *don't* say or how they say it is much more important then

> what they do say.

>



OK.



> Hackers are nutorious for  missing out these sublte cues and getting

> confused when they fail to parse the explicit communication because of

> lack of the underlying context.

>

> I am not trying to be flame you or some such all, you've asked for a

> striaght out explenation and that's what I've supplied. As a matter of

> fact I had the very same problem for a long time and sometiems still do.

> The good news is you CAN learn this skill.

>



Ack.



In any case, I like explicit and direct communication. I don't believe in

cues, subtle hints, etc. because they can be misleading, and like you

said, requires training and an _explicit_ cognitive process of

interpreting them. If you want to convey a clear message, don't rely on

any of them. Say what you want to convey, and if you don't - don't wonder

that people don't understand you or misinterpret you.



> [ Snipped ... ]

> > There is no IGLU Cabal! None of them could pass the Turing test. But

> > stranegely enough a computer program they coded, could.

>

> LOL

>



Actually, it sounds paradoxical but I'm not sure it is. Somehow, humans

bootstrap their intelligence and consciousness from the time they are

babies, in which they are neither. Also, humans developed (or evolved)

various important cognitive skills, starting at a point that they were far

less capable. And now we have a hard time instructing a computer to do the

same.



Regards,



	 Shlomi Fish



> --

> Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...>

> Code mangler, senior coffee drinker and VP SIGSEGV

> Qlusters ltd.

>

> "To err is human. To realy fsck up you need a computer. For

>  those really large scale disastears, an SSI cluster is a must."

>

>

>

>

>

>

> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

> hackers-il-unsubscribe@egroups.com

>

>

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>

>







----------------------------------------------------------------------

Shlomi Fish        shlomif@...

Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/

Home E-mail:       shlomif@...



"Let's suppose you have a table with 2^n cups..."

"Wait a second - is n a natural number?"

Why not write a program that will write either 'nice', 'very nice', or 'not

bad'? It will not pass the turing test, but it will give you the kind of input

you are looking for. Why force our hand to supply it? I think rec.humor.funny

would be a better audience to your jests.



-- Arik



-----Original Message-----

From: Shlomi Fish [mailto:shlomif@...]

Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 9:06 AM

To: hackers-il@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [hackers-il] Re: Cryptic Opinions [was RE: Ways to do it - Take 2]





[snip]



OK. But a "nice" or "very nice" or "not bad" could go a long way. It's

like giving a lecture, and nobody asks any questions. One cannot tell if

they understand it or not.







********************************************************

This email has been scanned by Port Authority.



********************************************************

Shlomi Fish wrote:



[snip]



> In any case, I like explicit and direct communication. I don't believe in

> cues, subtle hints, etc. because they can be misleading, and like you

> said, requires training and an _explicit_ cognitive process of

> interpreting them. If you want to convey a clear message, don't rely on

> any of them. Say what you want to convey, and if you don't - don't wonder

> that people don't understand you or misinterpret you.

>

I'm afraid that your beliefs in the matter means nothing to the people

you interact with, at least in the first stages where they don't know

you and have to create their first impression of you.



Although some people will appreciate your straightforward, direct and

unambiguous communications, others (the majority of people on the

planet, it seems) would not.



And by *purposely* ignoring the subliminal channel of your

communications, you not only open the door for misinterpretation, you

perpetuate the misinterpretation. You are transmitting something on that

channel, like it or not. By just ignoring it you may be more sincere. By

purposefully transmitting a stream of zeroes on that channel you deliver

a stong message of reluctance to adhere to the conventions of society,

and that message is received VERY badly by a high precentage of the

people around you. Subliminally, but strong enough for them not to like

you, or have a bad impression of you.



Maybe less so in the Technion, but the people who find themselves in the

Technion care much less about social conventions, by definition :-)



Gilad has stated the best solution IMHO - go learn NLP. I know it has

changed the way I look at life. I think NLP can be classified as actual

hacking. It's a skill for maniplating a system - for fun and/or profit.

Much like social engineering, it deals with wetware.



I still got a lot to learn myself, since I make a lot of mistakes daily.

At least I know when I do.



Take care.



-- Arik

Please, if you want to discuss Shlomi's psychology (or anyone elses), do it

off the list.

If you have any general principles, explain them without telling other

people how to live their life.



You can alway open  shrinks-il :-)



> -----Original Message-----

> From: Arik Baratz [mailto:arikb@...]

> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:48 PM

> To: hackers-il@yahoogroups.com

> Subject: Re: [hackers-il] Re: Re: Cryptic Opinions [was RE: Ways to do

> it - Take 2]

>

>

>

> Shlomi Fish wrote:

>

> [snip]

>

> > In any case, I like explicit and direct communication. I

> don't believe in

> > cues, subtle hints, etc. because they can be misleading,

> and like you

> > said, requires training and an _explicit_ cognitive process of

> > interpreting them. If you want to convey a clear message,

> don't rely on

> > any of them. Say what you want to convey, and if you don't

> - don't wonder

> > that people don't understand you or misinterpret you.

> >

> I'm afraid that your beliefs in the matter means nothing to

> the people

> you interact with, at least in the first stages where they don't know

> you and have to create their first impression of you.

>

> Although some people will appreciate your straightforward, direct and

> unambiguous communications, others (the majority of people on the

> planet, it seems) would not.

>

> And by *purposely* ignoring the subliminal channel of your

> communications, you not only open the door for misinterpretation, you

> perpetuate the misinterpretation. You are transmitting

> something on that

> channel, like it or not. By just ignoring it you may be more

> sincere. By

> purposefully transmitting a stream of zeroes on that channel

> you deliver

> a stong message of reluctance to adhere to the conventions of

> society,

> and that message is received VERY badly by a high precentage of the

> people around you. Subliminally, but strong enough for them

> not to like

> you, or have a bad impression of you.

>

> Maybe less so in the Technion, but the people who find

> themselves in the

> Technion care much less about social conventions, by definition :-)

>

> Gilad has stated the best solution IMHO - go learn NLP. I know it has

> changed the way I look at life. I think NLP can be classified

> as actual

> hacking. It's a skill for maniplating a system - for fun

> and/or profit.

> Much like social engineering, it deals with wetware.

>

> I still got a lot to learn myself, since I make a lot of

> mistakes daily.

> At least I know when I do.

>

> Take care.

>

> -- Arik

>

>

>

> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

> ---------------------~-->

> Tied to your PC? Cut Loose and

> Stay connected with Yahoo! Mobile

> http://us.click.yahoo.com/QBCcSD/o1CEAA/sXBHAA/saFolB/TM

> --------------------------------------------------------------

> -------~->

>

> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

> hackers-il-unsubscribe@egroups.com

>

>

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/