<spam> On 5/9/05, Micheal Espinola Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it just me, or is it hilarious that this "discussion" is generating > sponsored links in Gmail for "World of Warcraft" ?
Well at least that's got a point. No wait, I forgot the phrase "slightly more of". Oh no wait again, we're being syntactically pedantic aren't we, so is that a phrase? The english language sucks (and I don't even speak another human language), once you realise this half the argument should disappear to acceptance that you are required in english to attempt to decipher the true meaning of a communication (and you wonder why NL parsers are so shit?). As far as programatic efficiency is concerned, hardcoded values are FAST and can have PURPOSE. I'm not getting involved in the specific argument as I have no interest in this code. If you want to write something using this exploit, you'd be wanting to re-write it anyway so does it really matter? Most of the code that comes out of this list could be considered 'bad' anyway, but then how many people do you know who really write beutiful code? Next time why not deliver your exploit PoC's in Kye, then you wont get stupid comments about pointless symantic possibilities as most idiots can't handle programming in a two dimensional space, and moreover the run time can look really pretty. Welcome to the world of wasted bits (spot the acronymic pattern potentially about to strengthen the adverts rank). Hmm... spamming to increase one's presence on "related links" or "related products", now come the conspiracy theorists. (Handbag deployed). </spam> _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
