Programming Question - Perl in Unix

[Neglected Shoe]

I'm starting to see that now. I thought this forum was a little more frequented than this, and the high geek population would result in someone being able to answer my question, if not for the purpose of showing off their programming prowess.

It's nice though - I've never been on a forum in which most of the boards have less than a page of archives. It's pretty tidy. On that note, I won't be offended if this gets deleted by an admin, because it's more or less obsolete at this point.

[Edminster]

The boards that have less than a page of archives were actually recently created, not a sign of inactivity. The sign of inactivity is that the boards that do have archives max out at seven pages, despite being active for a few years. Damn our CNC tendencies!

The last major Admin action was the SM:BC, and that didn't affect the content of the Forum itself, so this thread's probably not going to be deleted. Unless mage goes the route of Sheriff Dani, that is. We thrive on obsolescence, you see.

I'm going to leave the unspoken assumption that 'geek' necessarily means 'skilled with programming' alone, as I do not want to be the one to open up that can of worms.

[Neglected Shoe]

I didn't mean to imply that all geeks are programmers. However, the probability of finding a programming-savvy person increases 10-fold when you're searching a forum that's composed of people who consider themselves geeky.

It's one of those "a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square" sort of situations.

And if you claim that not all programmers are geeks on some level, try to think of an example of a non-geeky programmer.

Also, CNC?

[Edminster]

While I question your statistics, I will admit that many programmers label themselves as 'geeks'. To do otherwise is to deny reality. That being said, your argument that all programmers are geeks at some level has a behind it the assumption that 'geek' can not be found in the population at large.

In point of fact, everybody in the world has something that they 'geek' over; Jocks are geeks in regard to athletics, Weather geeks obsess over low-pressure systems (among other atmospheric phenomena), and Marine biologists geek over new and interesting kinds of sea creatures. All of these people may count themselves 'geeky' and many do; now that 'geek' has moved beyond the original meaning (one who bites the heads off of small creatures as part of a carnival act) people have become less shy of using it.

A better choice of language would have been to ask for a 'Guru', or possibly even 'Hacker' amongst old-school programmers. Also, my particular 'geek' is the Forums, which explains this overly-thought-out post. That, and the Lexicon, which explains my usage of CNC outside of it.

This post made possible thanks to the Jargon File combined with a horrendous amount of free time.

[mountainmage]

Unless mage goes the route of Sheriff Dani, that is. We thrive on obsolescence, you see.

I don't appreciate that comment. I want to delete inactive non-posting users, not threads. If anything, you're the one going bananas with changing the forum. Kind of as if I don't matter or anything.

[Neglected Shoe]

I was referring to geek as more of a cultural phenomenon, rather than an intellectual state. Yes, you can be "geeky" over just about anything, but there is definitely a social group that rejects mainstream culture and relishes in subcultures that revolve around things like fantasy, technology, gaming.

Yes, it is becoming more acceptable to consider yourself a geek, but we are still far from being embraced by the mainstream, popular culture.

[Lethal Interjection]

Unless mage goes the route of Sheriff Dani, that is. We thrive on obsolescence, you see.

I don't appreciate that comment. I want to delete inactive non-posting users, not threads. If anything, you're the one going bananas with changing the forum. Kind of as if I don't matter or anything.

Uh-oh. MOD FIGHT!

[ruotwocone]

speak for yourself. i'm embraced by mainstream popular culture all the time... and then things get sticky. then awkward. then one or more of us stops making eye contact and runs/shuffles back to our scooter and drives back to my mom's house while the wind wipes the tears from my eyes.

[Neglected Shoe]

Unless mage goes the route of Sheriff Dani, that is. We thrive on obsolescence, you see.

I don't appreciate that comment. I want to delete inactive non-posting users, not threads. If anything, you're the one going bananas with changing the forum. Kind of as if I don't matter or anything.

I'm going to pretend my opinion matters and interject here. Unless there is some particular reason to delete non-posters (such as space limitations), I would suggest leaving them. I feel that some of them, if not a good deal of them, are members so that they can occasionally come here and read what people have to say about the comic. Masochists though they are, I would be hesitant to remove them, because the forum isn't viewable by non-members. If there's no harm being done, I'd say let them have whatever quiet solace they receive from reading what y'all have to say.

[Lethal Interjection]

I'm going to pretend my opinion matters and interject here. Unless there is some particular reason to delete non-posters (such as space limitations), I would suggest leaving them. I feel that some of them, if not a good deal of them, are members so that they can occasionally come here and read what people have to say about the comic. Masochists though they are, I would be hesitant to remove them, because the forum isn't viewable by non-members. If there's no harm being done, I'd say let them have whatever quiet solace they receive from reading what y'all have to say.

Good to hear another say it.
I've mentioned before that I have the same stance.
Getting a more accurate membership (in regards to active members) is fine, but not at the cost of stifling possible growth on the board, which could result from such an action.
And I didn't even know that it was not viewable to non-members.

[Sahan]

I could view the forums when I was a non-member, I wouldn't have joined if I didn't see how wacky some of the archived threads are.

[Neglected Shoe]

I could view the forums when I was a non-member, I wouldn't have joined if I didn't see how wacky some of the archived threads are.

I remember trying to poke around the board when I was deciding whether or not to join, and I could only see titles of the threads but couldn't read them. I think there were a few exceptions, like the caption contest. Maybe it's a more recent thing - this was just a few days ago.

[Oldrac the Chitinous]

It looks like it's been changed back now. I can log out and still see any of the threads.