chinamox said at the top of their post: " Brothers I fear this novice may have been duped ".

While you raise a good point that it's important to check copyright of material before reposting, I would say in this case it's probably OK. Granted, I'm not an intellectual property lawyer, but taking a look at the linked copyright page:

No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system without prior written permission of the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

(Emphasis added)

I'd say that someone thinking they were duped by code from the electronic version of the book qualifies as a critical article.

s**lil*;  $*=join'',sort split q**;  s;.*;grr; &&s+(.(.)).+$2$1+; $; =
qq-$_-;s,.*,ahc,;$,.=chop for split q,,,reverse;print for($,,$;,$*,$/)
[download]

Thank you chargrill, That was my general viewpoint. I did not try to pass it off as my own work and even linked to the original source.

Thanks for keeping me honest Martin, in a place whith $0.50 DVDs for sale on the sidewalks, one could easly slip...