[29531] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 775 Volume: 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Mon Aug 20 14:14:18 2007
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Mon, 20 Aug 2007 Volume: 11 Number: 775
Today's topics:
MI5 Persecution: No Justice 20/11/96 (9512) MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
MI5 Persecution: Silly-billy 6/7/96 (951) MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
MI5 Persecution: Striking out action 10/3/97 (11958) MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
MI5 Persecution: Usual targets of such abuse 10/10/96 ( MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
MI5 Persecution: WTGROMT 18/11/96 (8289) MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
Re: Pass by reference question <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Re: Perl and JSP xhoster@gmail.com
Problem Creating Socket : Permission Denied <viveklinux@gmail.com>
Re: set enviorment varibale (Jens Thoms Toerring)
Re: Symbolic representation of logical operators (Randal L. Schwartz)
Re: Symrefs <noreply@gunnar.cc>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 Aug 2007 16:18:17 GMT
From: MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
Subject: MI5 Persecution: No Justice 20/11/96 (9512)
Message-Id: <m07072016181482@4ax.com>
(sent 20/11/96)
Subject: No Justice for those with mental illness
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.legal
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Summary:
Keywords:
Well, the "legal option" has just foundered on the rock of lawyers refusing to
deal with me on the grounds that my perception of harassment must be due to the
disease.
So we're back to square one again, the same place we were two years ago.
Now perhaps one of our uk.legal participants can clarify this point. To me it
seems illogical that lawyers should have the final say on whether you are
allowed to proceed with a civil case or not. Is there a default mechanism or
agency for cases such as mine where it is difficult to find a solicitor to
represent you? What exactly is the "official Solicitor"? What is it possible to
do if you can't find a lawyer to represent you?
A chance to get a useful response out of the uk newsgroups! perhaps they can be
good for something else besides spamming.
..........................................................................
Represent yourself....like the defendants in the McLibel trial.
you will need to read some law..but you CAN legally represent yourself I
believe.
Mike W.
..........................................................................
From: burridge@osiris.win-uk.net (Paul Burridge)
Yes, a lot of people do this nowadays. Saves on legal fees too. Lots
of reading up required first, though.
-- Paul
..........................................................................
(posted 30/11/96 from bu765)
Subject: Re: No Justice for those with mental illness
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.legal
Followup-To: uk.misc,uk.legal
References: <E173G8.1oy.0.bloor@torfree.net> <5711vp$tfu@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk> <3311@os$
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Distribution:
burridge@osiris.win-uk.net (Paul Burridge) wrote:
>>Represent yourself....like the defendants in the McLibel trial.
>>you will need to read some law..but you CAN legally represent yourself I
>>believe.
>>Mike W.
>
>Yes, a lot of people do this nowadays. Saves on legal fees too. Lots
>of reading up required first, though.
What can I do to get competent legal help though? If the case is on the face of
it so bizarre that no solicitor would represent me or talk to me, then surely
there must be a default mechanism? What is the "official Solicitor" that's been
mentioned?
..........................................................................
All you need do is go to a good library & read up about it - that's what
the McLibel 2 did.
--
Ban Everything or Ban Nothing !
http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/ ISO 1386-C compliant .sig
All words written in the above posting are my opinions
..........................................................................
9512
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
------------------------------
Date: 20 Aug 2007 13:36:34 GMT
From: MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
Subject: MI5 Persecution: Silly-billy 6/7/96 (951)
Message-Id: <m07072013363183@4ax.com>
From: Mike_Corley_Fan_Club@Nut_house.org (Old_500)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.legal,uk.media,alt.radio.uk,rec.arts.tv.uk.misc
Subject: MC Exposed as a Fraud
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 1996 17:01:05 GMT
Organization: Anti-Nuts Inc.
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <31de9b91.11926469@news.dircon.co.uk>
References: <Du4LqI.32o.0.bloor@torfree.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gw5-055.pool.dircon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/16.227
Sad, confused and emotional disturbed Mike Corley wrote:
{ snip }
Because he has made himself into a martyr and now he finds it impossible to
back down. Mike's big secret has now been exposed. He made everything up.
Every time Mike makes allegations against the police, MI5,
Tom-Dick-and-Harry etc. those organisations have taken people off vitally
important work to ascertain whether or not there was any substance in Mike's
ranting allegations.
When I'm told by someone who really does know such things that there was
never any plot to get Mike then I trust that person sufficiently enough to
accept his word.
The problem is Mike has escalated matters to an extreme level and like many
silly billys he will find it impossible to give up all his self created crap
and to live a normal life. After all what can Mike do now this crap has
been exposed as untrue ? What new cause can Mike dedicate himself to ?
(Some might read that as: who else can Mike now start upsetting ?)
So Mike write to John Major, c/o the Private Secretary, 10 Downing Street,
London SW1A 2AA and ask the Prime Minister to help you. I'd normally
disclose his fax numbers but if I did that you might jam up the lines with
abusive postings just like you do here on Usenet.
Is anyone interested in joining with me to do a mass e-mailing of protests
to Anon Penet and to Toronto Free Net in an attempt to flood their computer
systems thus forcing them to seriously consider pulling the plug on Mike ?
I'm not sure but is my proposal called a "flame" ?
======================================================================
From: BigEars@technocom.com (Big Ears.)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.legal,uk.media,alt.radio.uk,rec.arts.tv.uk.misc
Subject: Re: MC Exposed as a Fraud
Date: Sat Jul 6 17:34:46 1996
John Youles commented:
> I've found that torfree.net don't respond, perhaps if they got a high
> enough number of complaints they might take notice. See their web pages
> for email addresses.
Perhaps we should give Mike 7 days from today (6 July 96) to come to his
senses and they start a massive multiple E-mailing campaign to Toronto Free
Net. If all us victims send multiple copies of E-mails to the right
addresses in Toronto then perhaps the Canadians will begin to get the
appropriate message.
Copy e-mailed to Mike, just so he knows what is coming if he persists.
Big Ears. Posted to uk.misc
==================================================================
Please think of the people sleeping in shop doorways every night
==================================================================
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm wasting MI5's time! I should be arrested!
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.legal,rec.arts.tv.uk.misc,alt.journalism,alt.journalism.print,$
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Summary:
Keywords:
It's such a pity that the Security Service has no powers of arrest. How are
they supposed to implement a proper secret police state without the ability to
snatch Joe Citizen off the street whenever they feel like it?
"Old_500" aka "Big Ears" aka "PC Plod" wrote:
>Every time Mike makes allegations against the police, MI5,
>Tom-Dick-and-Harry etc. those organisations have taken people off vitally
>important work to ascertain whether or not there was any substance in Mike's
>ranting allegations.
I see. So they're not wasting six years of manpower to persecute you. They're
wasting six years of manpower to prove I'm _not_ being persecuted.
I wish I was clever enough to think of something like that. I really, really do.
>When I'm told by someone who really does know such things that there was
>never any plot to get Mike then I trust that person sufficiently enough to
>accept his word.
Come on "Big Ears", why don't you admit that you made this posting? This is
exactly the same line you were feeding me a few months ago. The posts are from
the same news server, it's even the same newsreading software (Forte Agent
99e/16.227).
I'm afraid that if you friend "in the know" denied the existence of a plot then
he was being, as they say, economical with the truth. Judging by the extreme
reaction in London in May, and the panic you're showing now, as well as the
replay post yesterday, I would say that things are hotting up again. But for
you this time, not for me. I am out of harm's way, and there is very little you
can do as long as I stay out of the UK.
951
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
------------------------------
Date: 20 Aug 2007 17:07:09 GMT
From: MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
Subject: MI5 Persecution: Striking out action 10/3/97 (11958)
Message-Id: <m07072017070265@4ax.com>
Subject: "Scandalous, Frivolous or Vexatious"
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.legal
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Summary:
Keywords:
A couple of weeks ago I issued a summons against the BBC in my local county
court, for the tort of private nuisance caused by the spying by their
newsreaders on my home. My argument was that their spying had prevented me
watching the news at home, and therefore interfered with my normal use of my home.
The BBC's Litigation Dept at White City have replied not with a defence, but
with an application for my claim to be struck out because;
(a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action; and/or
(b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious.
Their application will be heard next week. They have not made any affidavit in
support of their application, nor have they given particulars as to why they
consider my summons to be unarguable in law, which would be a necessary
condition for there to be no reasonable cause of action.
I am more worried about point (b). Allegations are scandalous (says Stuart
Sime's book) if they impute dishonesty against another party; which my
allegations do, against the BBC's newsreaders. As for frivolous or vexatious, I
think that will be up to me to make a good argument for the effect the BBC's
spying has had on my life, and up to the district judge's opinion of my case.
Apparently seeking to have a claim struck out in this way is common practice
when the plaintiff is a litigant-in-person. Even if it is struck out, there is
always the opportunity to appeal. I think we could be in for a fight next week.
..........................................................................
Sun, 02 Mar 1997 20:38:59 uk.legal Thread 52 of 54
Lines 13 Re: "Scandalous, Frivolous or Vexatious" Respno 1 of 1
Kate@carterce.demon.co.uk KKKKatie
In article <NQoVQiAnHgGzEwl3@solicit.demon.co.uk>
andy@solicit.demon.co.uk "Andrew Nichols" writes:
> Well, that'll liven up the dear old District Judge. Almost worth taking
> the day off to see how Mike fares.
almost worth taking a day off to see if he exists
Kate
--
Just back from the US - you've got to love a country that puts
"Vertical Clearance Impeded" for "Low Bridge"
..........................................................................
Subject: Re: "Scandalous, Frivolous or Vexatious"
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.legal
References: <E6FEFJ.IE7.0.bloor@torfree.net> <NQoVQiAnHgGzEwl3@solicit.demon.co.uk><8$
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Distribution:
burridge@osiris.win-uk.net (Paul Burridge) wrote:
>Almost worthwhile taking the day off to go and punch him in the
>face for all abuse he's given us on these groups. Which court is it?
Thank you for your kind thought.
I'm not telling you which court it is. I don't want to be hounded by irate
uk-miscreants!
As for raising eyebrows, the member of staff who took the summons form didn't
change their facial expression at all. Seen it all before, no doubt.
..........................................................................
In article <857597450snz@adams.demon.co.uk>,
Derek Tidman <Derek@adams.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <E6JAxt.EFK.0.bloor@torfree.net>
> bu765@torfree.net "Mike Corley" writes:
>
>-I'm not telling you which court it is. I don't want to be hounded by irate
>-uk-miscreants!
>-
>-As for raising eyebrows, the member of staff who took the summons form didn't
>-change their facial expression at all. Seen it all before, no doubt.
>
>Take no notice Mike, some people are like that. I hope
>you finally get this matter into court.
I'm not so fond of the threats of violence against the persistent (yet
quiet for a bit, and probably soon to restart..) spammer that is Mike
Corley. Yet, encouraging the fantasies of the mentally ill isn't
exactly healthy either. Do you go up to homeless mad people as say
things like: "They're coming to get you", or "Look out behind you?".
Smid
..........................................................................
Quite the contary Mike. Your recent posts have been no problem. By
explaining things rationally, and not spamming us, you have made more
friends than you know.
I hope that you sort out your problem, sincerely.
--
***********************************************************************
I'm Alan Packer and I move in a very mysterious way. If replying to me
..........................................................................
In article <857686006snz@adams.demon.co.uk>,
Derek Tidman <Derek@adams.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5fmdc7$gga$1@ftel.ftel.co.uk>
> J.J.Smith@ftel.co.uk "John J Smith" writes:
>
>I think it's good for Mike to vent his anger and frustration on
>these two newsgroups. Consider it to be part of your duty to
>the comunity in general.
Yep. Just not, the, I think 180 posts, one week, when his illness
got really bad. Oh yeah, and there was only three real posts,
just repeated 60 times.
>Mike does a first class job of drawing out the real personality
>of the person hiding behind a node name. The way people react
>to Mike gives it all away.
Erm, explain this rather dubious statement.
>As for you. Don't you think it's a trifle condescending to refer
>to people as mad. I know they are homeless and without internet
>access, but maybe they are just eccentric.
Congratulations. This is my first real flame for about a year.
I try to control my anger when I come across another uninformed
naive idiot on usenet, but sometimes it goes free. We've had Corley
for well over three years now, and his constant spams of various degrees
have killed a couple of usenet groups I really rather lied. uk.media,
to name but one. I gets my goat to read another useless fucker
thinking he is a harmless eccentric.
Mike is mentally ill. He is unwilling to deal with it. He seems to
think that uk.misc is some sort of forum that MI5 reads. And it
should be avenged. He's mailbombed a large quantity of people,
because they opposed his spamming.
1. He thinks MI5 watches him through his television
2. He thinks all references to mad people, refer to him
3. He thinks all people shouting, are shouting at him.
4. He's been diagnosed as mentally ill, just not a paranoid
schizophrenic.
5. He gives not a shit about any newsgroups he abuses.
6. He goes through quiet periods, then _very_ nasty periods.
7. All evidence of this great conspiracy is laughable, to say the
least.
8. He gives internet/usenet a bad name to the media. Including
mailbombing Chris Tarrant and faxing various celebrities.
I do not condescend to him. I actually know what he does, and has done
in the past, and am frankly not too respectful of him. He can be openly
referred to as "mad" because he is. Let's check my mailbox saves:
Repost of when I thought I'd seen the last of loopy mike:
>>J.J.Smith@ftel.co.uk (John J Smith) wrote:
>>Actually, I see uk.misc as a source of occasional interesting information,
>>and I like jokes. Some people can laugh, you see.
>>
>>And as for you spams, exactly how much good have they done so far?
>
>Not much. I thought they might, but the realization has arrived that this
>particular avenue of exploration is at a dead end.
>
>WTGROMT (well that's got rid of me then!)
Have you actually visited his web page, and read the massive conspiracy
that is supposed to be against him? Apparently MI5 watch him, but for
no reason. They do it for a laugh. Because they can. It costs them a lot
of money, but they still do it. Reality is but a memory for this man.
>Anyway I understood the UKMTC members upset Mike Corely , but
>I could be wrong.
Heaven forbid.
Smid
..........................................................................
From: burridge@osiris.win-uk.net (Paul Burridge)
In article <33207CAA.1097@sos.bangor.ac.yuk>, David Roberts (oss108@sos.bangor.ac.yuk) writes:
>Derek Tidman wrote:
>
>> Anyway I understood the UKMTC members upset Mike Corely , but
>> I could be wrong.
>
>There was a pitched battle between MC and "the artist formerly
>known as Big Ears" but that was before the UMTC by which time
>MC had seen the light and stopped spamming.
He hadn't seen the light at all. His level of spamming had got to
such outrageous proportions that we had to mount a concerted
attempt to get his account(s) closed. The reason for the lack of
spam lately is that Mike has been furiously swotting up on Law so
he can bring an action as a LIP against the BBC (all solicitors
having quite rightly and honourably declined to act for him). When
this course of action is exhausted without result, I confidently
predict that we will once again be the innocent victims of his ire
and the spamming will commence again.
..........................................................................
11958
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
------------------------------
Date: 20 Aug 2007 15:18:04 GMT
From: MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
Subject: MI5 Persecution: Usual targets of such abuse 10/10/96 (5843)
Message-Id: <m07072015180084@4ax.com>
Subject: Re: MI5 says "Kill Yourself"
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.media
References: <zlsiida.4248.3258FE24@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> <53eeev$cmg@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <5$
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Distribution:
iain@hotch.demon.co.uk (Iain L M Hotchkies) wrote:
>Indeed. If you've ever had a 'conversation' with someone suffering
>from florid schizophrenia, you'll know how difficult it can be to
>'argue' with them.
I don't have florid symptoms. But I'm in a difficult situation, because those
people who don't know, aren't going to believe, and those who do, they just go
along with the crowd. It's never a good idea to go against the grain, and the
grain here is defined by interests in the establishment and the media. Even
people who could say out loud what was happening won't, because then there's a
risk that they'll be seen as traitors and ostracised.
Usually this type of 'hidden abuse' is racial and targetted at a racial
minority within a country. You keep the minorities out of the good jobs, but
you don't admit discrimination exists. It happens everywhere, not just in
Britain. The persecution that is going on now is in reality a refined form of
racism. Instead of "nigger" it's "nutter", and abusing the mentally ill is
still socially acceptable today. In 50 years it might not be, but today there
isn't any social or legal sanction against it.
So really they've refined racial harassment down to a minority of one. The
words may be different, but the methods are the same.
5843
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
------------------------------
Date: 20 Aug 2007 15:58:43 GMT
From: MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
Subject: MI5 Persecution: WTGROMT 18/11/96 (8289)
Message-Id: <m07072015584047@4ax.com>
Subject: Re: MIKE AND THE DOWNFALL OF UK.LEGAL
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.media
Followup-To: uk.misc,uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.media
References: <DytvBE.9J.0.bloor@torfree.net> <Dzt3oG.EE2.0.bloor@torfree.net> <54q3pd$$
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Distribution: world
J.J.Smith@ftel.co.uk (John J Smith) wrote:
>Actually, I see uk.misc as a source of occasional interesting information,
>and I like jokes. Some people can laugh, you see.
>
>And as for you spams, exactly how much good have they done so far?
Not much. I thought they might, but the realization has arrived that this
particular avenue of exploration is at a dead end.
WTGROMT (well that's got rid of me then!)
.......................................................................
Subject: Re: MIKE AND THE DOWNFALL OF UK.LEGAL
From: wooding@cf.ac.uk ()
Date: 1996/11/04
Message-Id: <E0CFFH.1J9@cf.ac.uk>
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: thor.cf.ac.uk
Sender: news@cf.ac.uk (Usenet News user)
References: <DzuwML.F4o.0.bloor@torfree.net> <DzzBs1.n3v@ftel.co.uk> <E05GoF.Ku.0.bloor@torfree.net>
Organization: University of Wales College at Cardiff
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.media
In article <E05GoF.Ku.0.bloor@torfree.net> bu765@torfree.net (Mike Corley) writes:
>J.J.Smith@ftel.co.uk (John J Smith) wrote:
>>Actually, I see uk.misc as a source of occasional interesting information,
>>and I like jokes. Some people can laugh, you see.
>>
>>And as for you spams, exactly how much good have they done so far?
>
>Not much. I thought they might, but the realization has arrived that this
>particular avenue of exploration is at a dead end.
Oh please let this be true and not just another wind-up!
>WTGROMT (well that's got rid of me then!)
Mike, without the spamming I'm sure you are welcome to stay around, being
one of the colourful "characters" of uk.misc.
Have a custard cream.
Dave.
.......................................................................
8289
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:07:32 +0200
From: "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Subject: Re: Pass by reference question
Message-Id: <slrnfcjf25.jcc.hjp-usenet2@zeno.hjp.at>
On 2007-08-13 12:07, Jens Thoms Toerring <jt@toerring.de> wrote:
> Josef Moellers <josef.moellers@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote:
>> Jens Thoms Toerring wrote:
>> > grocery_stocker <cdalten@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>If perl can pass stuff by reference, then why do you have to
>> >>deference it.
>> >
>> > No, you can't. Perl only allows to pass scalars to functions and
>> > those are passed by value.
>
>> Why, then, does the following script print "Bar"?
>
>> sub f($) {
>> $_[0] = 'Bar';
>> }
>> my $v = 'Foo';
>> f($v);
>> print "$v\n";
>
[...]
> It tells me that I obviously I was writing BS, at least when I
> didn't mention that using prototypes changes the picture.
No, prototypes have nothing to do with it. If you omit the "($)", the
program behaves exactly the same. Perl always passes parameters by
reference, that is, the elements of @_ are *aliases* of the arguments,
not *copies*. Thus, when you modify a member of @_, you modify the
arguments in the caller.
The usual construct
sub foo {
my ($bar, $baz) = @_;
...
}
simulates passing by value by explicitely making a copy of the
parameters. Now you can modify $bar and $baz to your heart's content
without worrying about changing the arguments in the caller.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | I know I'd be respectful of a pirate
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | with an emu on his shoulder.
| | | hjp@hjp.at |
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Sam in "Freefall"
------------------------------
Date: 20 Aug 2007 15:29:29 GMT
From: xhoster@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Perl and JSP
Message-Id: <20070820112930.731$wp@newsreader.com>
Saran.j.jegan@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> we have developed an web based application for monitoring
> and controlling some machines using Java & JSP in apache tomcat, now
> we have planned to replace some java programs such as serial port
> communications and socket level communication with CGI scripts using
> perl & c , Hope it will be faster than old java codes,
I see no reason to think that a *good* Perl implementation would be faster
than a *good* Java implementation. And for sockets, I would expect that
the bottleneck is at the system level anyway (or at least, I assume that if
the bottleneck wasn't at the system level, it wouldn't be related to the
sockets in the first place, but at what you are using the sockets to do,
and since you specifically mention sockets and not what you are using the
sockets to do....), and so even C probably wouldn't make much of a
difference.
> Am in need to
> know inserting CGI is advisable and whether it will be faster &
> reliable, can any suggest your experience in similar cases
You can write slow and unreliable code in any language.
My Perl-CGI tends to be more reliable than the JSP I've seen, and when
speed was considered an important design criteria, my CGI were generally
faster than the equivalent JSP I've seen. I suspect that this is largely
because I'm a better programmer than the people writing the JSPs are. Some
of it may be that with Perl's flexibility and speed-of-programming, I could
try various techniques and choose the best one, while that is more
difficult with JSP (at least for me).
For some kinds of things, achieving high performance will require mod_perl
rather than Perl CGI, so if you are unwilling to use mod_perl or its
equivalent than that is one check for JSP. Also, if you are using Windows
servers, I think that would be another check for JSP.
But mostly it comes down to asking yourself what language are your best
programmers best at programming?
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:23:27 -0000
From: vivekian <viveklinux@gmail.com>
Subject: Problem Creating Socket : Permission Denied
Message-Id: <1187623407.903545.183120@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
Hi,
I have a cgi script which opens a telnet session to a switch. The
script is listed below. It executes fine on command line. When i call
it via a web browser, the error log shows the following error :
problem creating socket: Permission denied at /var/www/html/vlab/cgi-
bin/init_lab.cgi line 10
Other scripts which don't have sockets execute fine.
The file permissions for init_lab.cgi are :
-rwxrwxrwx 1 apache tspradhan 634 2007-08-20 00:48 init_lab.cgi
Not sure what is being missed here.
#!/usr/bin/perl
use CGI ;
use Net::Telnet ();
my $passwd = "network" ;
$t = new Net::Telnet (Timeout => 2);
$t->open("192.168.1.1");
$t -> waitfor ('/Enter password: /');
$t -> print ('network') ;
$t -> waitfor ('/Enter Selection: /') ;
$t -> put ('V') ;
$t -> waitfor ('/Enter Selection: /') ;
$t -> put ('C') ;
$t -> waitfor ('/Select \[1 \- 4\]: /') ;
$t -> print ('1') ;
$t -> waitfor ('/Enter Selection: /') ;
$t -> put ('M') ;
$t -> waitfor ('/Enter port numbers: /') ;
$t -> print ('1-16') ;
$t -> close ;
exit(0);
Thanks in advance,
vivekian
------------------------------
Date: 20 Aug 2007 15:10:41 GMT
From: jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring)
Subject: Re: set enviorment varibale
Message-Id: <5itp7hF3qs1pjU1@mid.uni-berlin.de>
chinmoy.chittaranjan@gmail.com wrote:
> I am very new to perl .Actually i want to set a enviorment
> variable thorugh perl script .
> e.g.->set build =1;means this variable will be set by my perl script.
> So could you please help on this matter ?
As you has been told to set an environment variable assign to the
%ENV hash. But the way you write it I suspect that you want to set
an environment variable in the shell (or other process) you called
the script from, using that script. And that's something that can't
be done, you can only set an environment variable for the process
you're currently running (and for the child processes it may start
later) but never for its parent process, i.e. the process that
started the script.
Regards, Jens
--
\ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ jt@toerring.de
\__________________________ http://toerring.de
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:59:48 -0700
From: merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Symbolic representation of logical operators
Message-Id: <86r6lyrvjv.fsf@blue.stonehenge.com>
>>>>> "Ruud" == Ruud <rvtol+news@isolution.nl> writes:
Ruud> I guess you could use:
Ruud> !!$v1 ^ !!$v2
Or more simply:
$v1 ? !$v2 : $v2
This will have the proper truth-iness, although there's no easy way to
preserve "last expression evaluated" as with the other short-circuit
operators.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:10:04 +0200
From: Gunnar Hjalmarsson <noreply@gunnar.cc>
Subject: Re: Symrefs
Message-Id: <5iti5mF3qp6v1U1@mid.individual.net>
Michele Dondi wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:59:05 +0200, Gunnar Hjalmarsson
> <noreply@gunnar.cc> wrote:
>
>>> The general rule is: don't use symrefs if you don't know what you're
>>> doing. But if you know what you're doing and you're doing it properly,
>>> then what's the problem.
No, I did not write that. Please include proper attributions when quoting.
>> I'm not sure; Was rather referring to the numerous opinionated posters
>> in this group who basically say: "Do not use symrefs - they are bad".
>
> Yes of course: if you see the OP has no clue then you just tell her
> not to use symrefs, they're bad. It's a first order approximation. The
> next few terms are null, and then at some point you have a non-null
> one: that's precisely where they *are* useful.
You can never tell for sure that an OP "has no clue", and in any case
it's rude to disdain him/her that way. Besides, clpmisc is read by
hundreds of people, not just the OP.
If a question actually requires a less rigid answer, and you don't want
or have the time or whatever to provide that answer, you'd better keep
your mouth shut. ;-)
--
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 2001 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
#The Perl-Users Digest is a retransmission of the USENET newsgroup
#comp.lang.perl.misc. For subscription or unsubscription requests, send
#the single line:
#
# subscribe perl-users
#or:
# unsubscribe perl-users
#
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
NOTE: due to the current flood of worm email banging on ruby, the smtp
server on ruby has been shut off until further notice.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
#To request back copies (available for a week or so), send your request
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu with the command "send perl-users x.y",
#where x is the volume number and y is the issue number.
#For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
#perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
#sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
#answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V11 Issue 775
**************************************
