On 18 Ιούν, 00:40, Ryan D. [email protected] wrote:
[…]
Much more like you’re an approximately 45 year old living with (and off) his
mother who has never worked
[…]
Please keep relatives out.
.
2011/6/17 Ilias L. [email protected]
Have fun, confused soul!
Ilias,
So far I have refused dignifying any of your threads any of your threads
with a response as you are an obvious troll and I find your posting
style
puerile and asinine.
But now I really have to take offense. Your usage of the word “gay” is
highly offensive and does not belong on this mailing list.
This is me politely asking you to go away and leave us all alone. No one
wants you here. Please stick to your word and stop posting if you really
mean it when you say this thread is closed.
- Salk
2011/6/17 Salk Pugh-Pitt [email protected]
While I can’t defend what Ilias is doing here, I think you may have
misjudged him in this one particular instance. I don’t think Ilias meant
to
use the word “gay” offensively, but is using it in a valid context,
which is
to indicate that something is homosexual, i.e. sexually attracted to
members
of the same gender, or loved by those who do.
For example, rainbows are often used as a symbol of gay pride. Rainbow
imagery is also highly correlated with unicorns. I don’t think what
Ilias is
saying is too much of a stretch.
Just my two cents.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:32 PM, A. Stroh Turph
[email protected]wrote:
is
saying is too much of a stretch.Just my two cents.
Is this really worth defending Ilias over? And especially when so many
people are celebrating gay pride this weekend, I think this is in
extremely
bad taste.
Also I don’t buy what you are saying. There’s nothing inherently
homosexual
about unicorns and while your point is valid that the rainbow is a
symbol of
gay pride, unicorns are not.
- Salk
2011/6/17 Ilias L. [email protected]
Please refrain from changing original content.
Not every person reads the whole thread.
The only valid response from you in this case is an apology. Don’t try
to
weasel out of your disparagement of gays. However, given how much you’ve
done on this mailing list that you should apologize for, when instead
you
just continue trolling and remaining highly offensive, I think that’s
far
more than any of us can expect.
Ilias, the best thing you can do right now is go away and never come
back,
but if you’d like to apologize before you go, I’d gladly accept it.
- Salk
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Salk Pugh-Pitt
[email protected]wrote:
Is this really worth defending Ilias over? And especially when so many
people are celebrating gay pride this weekend, I think this is in extremely
bad taste.
You’re probably right it isn’t worth defending Ilias over. That said…
Also I don’t buy what you are saying. There’s nothing inherently homosexual
about unicorns and while your point is valid that the rainbow is a symbol
of
gay pride, unicorns are not.
I think we just need to agree to disagree here. Personally, I think
unicorns
are pretty gay myself.
On 18 , 01:23, Salk Pugh-Pitt [email protected] wrote:
2011/6/17 Ilias L. [email protected]
[…]
I’m a 13year old kid, and even I can recognize that unicorns are gay.
[…]
Original text:
"I’m a 13year old kid, which likes to play with the regulars on the
language forums. "
But now I really have to take offense. Your usage of the word “gay” is
highly offensive and does not belong on this mailing list.
[…]
Please refrain from changing original content.
Not every person reads the whole thread.
.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:07 PM, A. Stroh Turph
[email protected]wrote:
I think we just need to agree to disagree here. Personally, I think
unicorns
are pretty gay myself.
Now you’re being just as offensive as Ilias. I’ll ask you to
respectfully
cut it out.
If you really think that unicorns are a symbol of gay pride like
rainbows
are, then find me one gay person who is using them in that context.
- Salk
Hi,
In message “Re: RFC - One word alias for require_relative”
on Sat, 18 Jun 2011 06:40:36 +0900, Ilias L.
[email protected] writes:
|Solutions:
|
|require! ‘lib/alter’ # 2011-06-17 by Gary W.
|involve ‘lib/alter’ # 2011-06-16 by Sam D.
|locally ‘lib/alter’ # 2011-06-11 by Rob B.
|uniload ‘lib/alter’ # my
|request ‘lib/alter’ # my
|include ‘lib/alter’ # my
|relative ‘lib/alter’ # my
|I like the word “involve” more, but as “require!” reminds clearly the
|original “require”, it’s the first choice.
Unfortunately the general rule for the “!” in the method name, at
least in the standard library, is that it means “more dangerous than
the version without bang”. Since require! does not follow this rule,
and not worthy to change the rule. So it’s no chance to have require!
in the standard library.
matz.
On 18 , 02:03, Salk Pugh-Pitt [email protected] wrote:
done on this mailing list that you should apologize for, when instead you
just continue trolling and remaining highly offensive, I think that’s far
more than any of us can expect.Ilias, the best thing you can do right now is go away and never come back,
but if you’d like to apologize before you go, I’d gladly accept it.
See, the rest of the “Freak-Show” sabotages my thread at least with
their real names.
Now, the most important things is:
The technical topic survived, despite the collaborative effort to
destroy it.
I have the result.
require!
Good night, weakest of the “freak-show”.
.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Salk Pugh-Pitt
[email protected]wrote:
If you really think that unicorns are a symbol of gay pride like rainbows
are, then find me one gay person who is using them in that context.
I’m not sure this really counts, and I’m a bit worried about posting it
as
it’s probably NSFW, but here you go:
On 18 , 02:30, Yukihiro M. [email protected] wrote:
|uniload ‘lib/alter’ # my
and not worthy to change the rule. So it’s no chance to have require!
in the standard library.
I’ve read somewhere that it’s a security risk to have the local
directory in the library path (which “require” accesses). Thus
“require_relative” became necessary.
require_relative has the local directory in it’s “path”, thus it is
somehow “more dangerous than the version without bang”. It is “more
powerful than the version without bang” - and thus “more dangerous”.
Thus it looks like it follows the “!” rule!
But even if not, the “!” rule could be extended
“!” for object-methods is used as usual, to indicate that a method
“modifies the
object” or that it is “more dangerous”.
“!” for “flat” functions (e.g. “flat” Kernel functions which do not
operate strictly on an object) is used to indicate:
- “you should know what you do, possible risks” (= more dangerous),
or - “more powerful implementation”, (essentially this means: more
dangerous).
.
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 08:30:32AM +0900, Yukihiro M. wrote:
Unfortunately the general rule for the “!” in the method name, at
least in the standard library, is that it means “more dangerous than
the version without bang”. Since require! does not follow this rule,
and not worthy to change the rule. So it’s no chance to have require!
in the standard library.
I take it you mean more “dangerous” in terms of the effects on data
manipulated within the program (tendency to corrupt data when used
incautiously, having potentially unexpected side effects, and so on),
and
not in terms of the potential dangers outside of the program itself. Is
that a reasonable assumption?
2011/6/18 David M. [email protected]:
This isn’t even particularly far-fetched. I realize it doesn’t apply to you,
being on Windows and all, but this is a use case Ruby fits particularly well.
This can apply to Windows, too, but it a) is limited to the current
user context (no setuid root idiocy here!), and b) would take the form
of malicious DLLs, rather than scripts.
For example:
Alice creates a neat, useful app and, nice as Alice is, she includes a
version sqlite.dll in her app’s root directory. You install the app,
and launch it. Ruby requests the sqlite.dll, and Windows goes looking
for it, starting in “.”.
Unfortunately, Alice was lying about being nice, and this DLL is now
downloading and installing a backdoor.
By contrast, requiring relative to the current file isn’t dangerous at all.
Well, less dangerous. There’s always a risk associated with loading
external data that isn’t created by the user doing the requiring.
–
Phillip G.
A method of solution is perfect if we can forsee from the start,
and even prove, that following that method we shall attain our aim.
– Leibnitz
On Friday, June 17, 2011 08:35:35 PM Ilias L. wrote:
On 18 , 02:30, Yukihiro M. [email protected] wrote:
Hi,
In message “Re: RFC - One word alias for require_relative”
on Sat, 18 Jun 2011 06:40:36 +0900, Ilias L.
[email protected] writes:
[snip]
directory in the library path (which “require” accesses). Thus
“require_relative” became necessary.require_relative has the local directory in it’s “path”,
We’ve been over this, and I honestly thought you understood last time.
require_relative is relative to the directory containing the current
file.
That is,
require_relative ‘foo’
is equivalent to this:
require File.join(File.dirname(FILE), ‘foo’)
The security risk you are talking about is from the working directory.
That
is, if require! worked in the “dangerous” way you seem to think it
would, it
would then be equivalent to this:
require File.join(Dir.pwd, ‘foo’)
These are different. They often, but not always, point to the same file,
and
(surprisingly) you acknowledged this and admitted your mistake.
Now, requiring relative to the working directory is a security risk. As
I’ve
explained (to you!) before: Suppose I put a ruby script in my PATH, to
use as
a command. It has ‘require “foo”’ in it. If I then cd into some
untrusted
directory and run my command, some clever user could have put a
malicious
foo.rb file in that directory. It doesn’t have to be me, either –
suppose my
Ruby script is setuid root. Now any user can create, at their leisure, a
malicious Ruby script with the name of one of the libraries required by
this
script, and run it, and now they’ve rooted my machine.
This isn’t even particularly far-fetched. I realize it doesn’t apply to
you,
being on Windows and all, but this is a use case Ruby fits particularly
well.
By contrast, requiring relative to the current file isn’t dangerous at
all.
Unless the attacker has write access to the directory you’ve installed
the
script into, they can’t inject anything.
So, sorry, it’s not dangerous in any sense that would suggest a bang
method.
It’s just different, and it’s different in that it’s, well, relative to
the
current file. I wonder how we would name a method that is different in
that
it’s relative to something. Hmm…
It is “more
powerful than the version without bang” - and thus “more dangerous”.
Nope, “more powerful” isn’t what’s meant by “more dangerous”.
It’s also not necessarily true here. The standard system require is
pretty
powerful – require_relative can only require relative to the current
file,
while the system require can require relative to a configurable list of
directories. Seems like the system require is more powerful to me.
An example of something which is “more dangerous” – in DataMapper,
there are
bang versions of save, update, delete, etc, which bypass validations in
order
to be more efficient (often resulting in only executing a single line of
SQL
instead of having to load each record and perform validations before
saving/deleting). And of course, you should be familiar with things like
Array#sort vs Array#sort! – one modifies the original array, the other
creates a copy first, and is thus safer if you don’t know who might have
the
original array.
But even if not, the “!” rule could be extended
Didn’t Matz have something to say about that? I think he did:
On Friday, June 17, 2011 06:30:32 PM Yukihiro M. wrote:
Since require! does not follow this rule,
and not worthy to change the rule. So it’s no chance to have require!
in the standard library.
Not worthy to change the rule. But even if we change it to this (if this
isn’t
already a fair description):
“!” for “flat” functions (e.g. “flat” Kernel functions which do not
operate strictly on an object) is used to indicate:
- “you should know what you do, possible risks” (= more dangerous),
or- “more powerful implementation”, (essentially this means: more
dangerous).
require_relative is neither riskier, nor more powerful, nor more
dangerous,
and there’s no particular reason you need to know what you’re doing with
it
more than with require.
It’s. Just. Different.
That’s all.
And the way in which it’s different is described by the current name.
We’ve been over this, and I honestly thought you understood last time.
Honestly, Ilias L. is purposely ignoring what is being said and
explained to him.
He uses this to incite and start a “discussion”, but it quickly becomes
more of a monologue with incorrect statements from his part, where he
attempts to lure others into his world filled with more incorrect
statements.
On 18 Ιούν, 05:40, David M. [email protected] wrote:
|I like the word “involve” more, but as “require!” reminds clearly the
“require_relative” became necessary.require_relative has the local directory in it’s “path”,
We’ve been over this, and I honestly thought you understood last time.
[…]
There is no “we”.
You have to understand that I don’t read your writings.
Once and for all, Mr. Masover:
Dismissed!
.
- def rr(path); require_relative path; end
- not having this thread in my inbox anymore.
- ???
- Profit!!!
Sorry, letting my inner
“libertarian DHH
do-what-the-fuck-you-want-and-leave-everyone-else-alone”
get the better of my inner “we are nice because Matz is nice”.
Phillip G. wrote in post #1006048:
Unfortunately, Alice was lying about being nice
I dunno - why do girls do this?
On 19 Ιούν, 19:44, David M. [email protected] wrote:
Demonstrably false. Remember this?
[…]
I’d say something like “The plot thickens,” but honestly, who didn’t see this
coming?
Well, I see you are really obsessed.
I’ve reached my goal in this thread, so everything (except the
essence) is on inhibition now.
And please remember what I’ve said in a straight manner:
I don’t take you (and you kind) serious and I don’t respect you.
Thus your writings are anyway on inhibition.
So maybe, just maybe, you should show some respect against yourself
and back-off.
Note to readers:
Possibly some friend of Mr. Masover contacts him in private and
explains him.
.