Re: Thought for the day
- From: "Mike Andrews" <mikea@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:23:20 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:49:35 +0000 (UTC),
Seth <sethb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
In article <gdj7il$243$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Anthony de Boer - USEnet <abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mike Andrews posted thus:
Brian Kantor <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
We did APL in a cryptography class a coupla years later. Arrgh.
If you were using APL in a crypto class, it must have been old-style
character-based ciphers, not the modern stuff. Correlation, man,
correlation's the thing. Except, of course, when it's not the thing.
Well, then there's the theory that if you're writing APL or even trying
to understand it, you're doing crypto already.
Some time back, IBM would only sell software as object code, not
source. They had a system written in APL they wanted to sell. The
lawyers opined that removing the comments would suffice; uncommented
APL was object code.
Ah, yes, PMF. FSVO "sell" that was much more like "license at a truly
exorbitant price". I think I've written earlier about the truly huge
battle over which group got the job of writing it.
And they locked the workspace: it wasn't editable or otherwise (by me,
anyway) viewable, though I'm sure someone could come up with something
to unlock a workspace trivially, or to ignore whatever the locking
mechanism might have been.
I seem to have my life in reverse. When I was a wee'un, it seemed perfectly
normal that one could pick up the phone and speak to anybody else in the
world who also has a phone. Now I'm older and more experienced, I'm amazed
that this could possibly work. -- Peter Corlett, in the Monastery
- Prev by Date: Re: Thought for the day
- Next by Date: Re: Thought for the day
- Previous by thread: Re: Thought for the day
- Next by thread: Re: Thought for the day