use Perl

• Dennis Ritchie had it right... (Score:2)

  by Dom2 (2981)

  DMR alledgedly said:

  I'd spell creat(2) with an "e".

  -Dom
  • Re:Dennis Ritchie had it right... (Score:2)

    by rafael (2125)

    Don't forget HTTP_REFERER.
  • Re:Dennis Ritchie had it right... (Score:2)

    by drhyde (1683)

    I'd find Messrs K & R and ever-so-politely ask them to make their portable assembler as easy to program with as a non-portable assembler.
    • Stop Dennis Ritchie earlier (Score:1)

      by n1vux (1492)

      How about preventing Bell Labs from pulling out of Project MAC [multicians.org], so that

      • Dennis and Ken and co. would have stayed in Cambridge and not moved back to N.J.
      • thus Unix wasn't necessary
      • K & R invent the pipe shell over the existing Multics pipe(3) primitive instead of building it on Unix;
      • Multics became the ubiquitous, secure 36 bit O/S it should have been, with combined support of GE/Honeywell and Bell Labs;
      • the i386/486 would have really run a 32-bit desktop version of MULTICS (as it was designed for) inst

      --
      Bill
      # I had a sig when sigs were cool
      use Sig;
      • Ob Perl re Multics (Score:1)

        by n1vux (1492)

        And of course, the connection from Perl to Unix to Multics and then back to Perl is through MJD. http://perl.plover.com/perl67.html [plover.com]

        --
        Bill
        # I had a sig when sigs were cool
        use Sig;
• Playing the market (Score:2)

  by delegatrix (506)

  My plan, upon invetion of time travel, is to go back and give Alexander Graham Bell all my money. Of course I have to make a second trip to sell at the right time, too. And prevent everyone else from doing the same investing . . .
  
  As for changing history, I don't know. Maybe I'd go to the point in time that W found religion, and distract him with a beer.
• Why not both? (Score:1)

  by Aristotle (5147)

  This isn't really an either-or question, is it?
  • Re:Why not both? (Score:2)

    by brian_d_foy (44)

    It's an either-or question because that's how I posed it and those are the sort of answers I was after. Which one would you choose?
    • Re:Why not both? (Score:1)

      by Aristotle (5147)

      Changing history, then.
• Vegas! (Score:2)

  by KM (4)

  I'd go back an buy a lot of lot of land around where Vegas now is when it was dirt cheap. As well as a hidden underground bunker to hide from the mob. I figure with the money that would make, it would provide power. Clark County would be known as KM County!
• Doing one is doing both... (Score:1)

  by SparkeyG (617)

  Both are changing history. Mainly because in the past the current you did not sell the proper shorts and puts. Regardless of that point, I'd play the market like a fine violin. Our history is great just how it is now. Why fsck w/ what was?
• Chrononauts - The card game for time travellers (Score:1)

  by n1vux (1492)

  There's a lovely card game which gives the same choice -- you can win by changing the grand flow of history, or sod that, grab the loot.

  Each player gets two random objectives, either one of which counts as their personal victory conditions. One is to restore the arc of time to the time-line they were born on (draw an ID card); the other is to collect 3 artifacts (draw a Mission card: General Merchandise - General Patton's chrome helmet, General Grant's whiskey, General Tso's Chicken [not a real example, o

  --
  Bill
  # I had a sig when sigs were cool
  use Sig;