Das eez kaput! Sometime around 2002 I spaced the entire database table that mapped individual entries to categories. Such is life. What follows is a random sampling of entries that were associated with the category. Over time, the entries will be updated and then it will be even more confusing. Wander around, though, it's still a fun way to find stuff.
In its most literal sense, this means that the computer will draw me a map of every nation or street mentioned in this work ... and those of anyone else who wants to wade in, I'll be able to create maps like those of Moretti's automatically, showing the context of my own thoughts, my own ontologies connected with others, both present and historical, and they'll be able to do the same.
Subject: [N3] equivalencies From: Aaron Straup Cope Date: 22 Jul 2003 15:01:10 +0000 I'm wondering if you can answer a question for me and save me the trouble and wading in to the wonkish waters of one or more RDF mailing lists. The question is premised on two assumptions : 1) The RDF that describes a thing is *not* public. That is I do not want to share it and make it available to some other bot scraping the network. If that makes a me a bad citizen, I'll live. All of which means I use URNs to describe things:@prefix uwh: \ <urn:aaronstraupcope:knows:who:> .2) At some point, I need to be able to resolve all that gibberish. I need be able to tell the processor about something like this:@prefix awh: <user:pswd@http://private.aaronstraupcope.com/knows/who/>Or simpler yet :@prefix awh: <file:/home/asc/knows/who/> .Still with me? Here's the question. Does the spec DWIM (Do What I Mean) when I say the following:uwh: = awh: .That is, will a fully compliant processor be able to figure out that when it comes time to merge a bunch of RDF documents will fetch stuff from awh: namespace when it encounters things in the uwh: namespace? If I feed what I've described to cwm I get the following:<rdf:Desription rdf:about="urn:aaronstraupcope:knows:who:"> <equivalentTo xmlns="yadda/yadda/daml+oil#" rdf:resource= "user:pswd@http://private:aaronstraupcope.com/knows/who/" /> </rdf:Description>So it validates. But do I have to specify an equivalently for each property (e.g. uwh:asc, uwh:bob) or does the spec just, well, DWIM? Thanks,
The reason that Class::DBI and the Template Toolkit work so well together is simple. Template Toolkit templates can call methods on objects passed to them--so there's no need to explicitly pull every column out of the database before you process the template--and Class::DBI saves you the bother of writing methods to retrieve database columns. You're essentially going straight from the database to HTML with only a very small amount of Perl in the middle.
can call methods on objects passed to themshe means both an object's accessors and it's mutators. This is not necessarily a problem if you are running your web application in a read-only situation and the web server, for example, doesn't have permissions to alter the contents of the database. But as soon as the program that processes templates has authority to muck with the database you had better have confidence in your TT kung-fu and/or the designers who are mucking with the templates. Not only could you do this :
[% some_obj.foo("bar") %]
[% some_obj.update() %]
You could also do this :
[% FOREACH this_obj = some_obj.retrieve_all() %]
[% this_obj.foo("you lose, sucka") %]
[% END %]
(Note that
retrieve_all
is actually a package method but there's not much to prevent the object from calling it too.) All this with the both the
EVAL_PERL
and
LOAD_PERL
config flags explictly set to false. You can get around this, sort of, if your object doesn't have any circular relationships (e.g.
A->has_a(B->has_many(A))
) by adding a
read_onlymethod that sets a trigger to die before an object is updated or deleted. But there isn't really any way to cascade setting those triggers so there is always the possibility of mucking with the original object in a round-about fashion:
# this syntax may not be quite right [% (foo.bars)[0].fooid.delete() %]I've spent a little bit of time investigating ( 1 , 2 ) how to make cascading readonly objects but it's still an ugly hack that requires mucking with private functions in Class::DBI. The proper thing to do would be to abstract all of this stuff into a CDBI::ReadOnly package but that might be a while in coming yet. Know you know. via paranoidfish
This is the sound of the Earth not moving. There are no especially exciting bells and whistles, here. But, in the last couple weeks, it is a template that a friend asked about and one that I needed for a project of my own, so I figured it was worth making modular.This stylesheet defines a single template for printing a string (n) times. An optional separator string may also be defined which, if present, will be printed (n -1) times.
MT plugin authors, those of you who don't also agree that Amazon is one the evil-doers, go forth and wet yourselves with excitement!Net::Amazon provides an object-oriented interface to amazon.com's SOAP and XML/HTTP interfaces. This way it's possible to create applications using Amazon's vast amount of data via a functional interface, without having to worry about the underlying communication mechanism.
Apparently, this is a Windows-only thing which doesn't really make a whole lot of sense but I haven't had a chance to look at the source yet. via a frog in the valleyis a complete small-to-medium-size site development kit created in XSLT ... utilizing XTM for structure, binding and other cleverness.
Which strikes me as something to consider given all the bad craziness coming out of Washington these days.One of the boldest features of the [ Prevention of Genocide Act ] was also one of its most novel. Instead of requiring the president to prove that genocide was being committed, which is always hard to do while atrocities are still under way and which an administration aligned with Hussein had no incentive to demonstrate, Pell's legislation reversed the burden: President Reagan was required to certify that Iraq was not using chemical weapons against the Kurds and that it was not committing genocide.
Fanfaronade \Fan*far`on*ade"\, n. [F. fanfaronnade, fr. Sp. fanfarronada. See {Fanfaron}.] A swaggering; vain boasting; ostentation; a bluster. --Swift. web1913
Net::Amazon
. I simply can not see any compelling uses for the API that Amazon provides. Sure, some people have made some interesting hacks but nothing that gets past the gee-whiz stage. Now, I can search the Amazon database from an application, but the kinds of information it returns don't do anything to excite me. Apparently, I can also let people add stuff to a wedding registry -- which are like some kind of twisted institutional greed ritualized into normalcy, but that's an entirely other story -- using "web services" but closer inspection reveals that this just means HTML form. Go figure. The whole thing seems like a rushed, half-assed job where someone tried to combine a months worth of discussions in the "blogosphere" (SOAP vs. REST, XSLT services, am I hot or not style judging of opinion) into a single package. And the docs suck rocks.
order_by
method which allows you specify the order in which the contents of a directory are returned. Previously, it would always return directories first, then files. Now you can order results by file-directory or alphabetically. The package has also been back-ported to 5.005_03 so you won't need to be running 5.6 to make use of the SAX2 widgets. In other news, I've written a SAX2 filter for pruning the results returned by the
parse_dir
method which I will try and upload to the CPAN today or tomorrow.
A great resource of creative juice, something that will keep you inspired for a while.
ex. I just saw a juicewell. Gotta go home and create somethin'.
The state of being in which a person is taking him- or herself wayyyyy too seriously. Most commonly used in the context of love and romance. (Taken from the South Park cd "Chef Aid" in which Chef gives Meatloaf a taco because he gets carried away singing about Meredith Baxter-Birney.)
ex. Now that is a man in dire need of a taco!
Extempore \Ex*tem"po*re\, adv. [L. ex out + tempus, temporis, time. See {Temporal}.] Without previous study or meditation; without preparation; on the spur of the moment; suddenly; extemporaneously; as, to write or speak extempore. --Shak. -- a. Done or performed extempore. ``Extempore dissertation.'' --Addison. ``Extempore poetry.'' --Dryden. -- n. Speaking or writing done extempore. [Obs.] --Bp. Fell. web1913
extempore adj : with little or no preparation or forethought; "his ad-lib comments showed poor judgment"; "an extemporaneous piano recital"; "an extemporary lecture"; "an extempore skit"; "offhand excuses"; "trying to sound offhanded and reassuring"; "an off-the-cuff toast"; "a few unrehearsed comments" [syn: {ad-lib}, {extemporaneous}, {extemporary}, {offhand}, {offhanded}, {off-the-cuff}, {unrehearsed}] adv : without prior preparation; "he spoke extemporaneously" [syn: {extemporaneously}, {extemporarily}] wn
<snip>
What does that mean, exactly? I'm not fluent in file permissions; is this considered bad security juju or what?
It means that the directories/files are world writable. In a web context it means that the magic web-server user (usually "http" or "www") has permissions to write all that stuff in a www/blog form to disk (read : index.html)
It also means that any other user on the same server can affect said files. Since most installs of Apache explicitly disallow HTTP "PUT" (read:write) statements, there is some illusory protection from random people all over the Internet, proper, writing to the unprotected directory.
On the other hand, if your webhost offers shell access it would be pretty easy for a bad person, with a login, to snoop out[1] one or more [ insert insecure weblog application here ] directories. From there, they could do something like install a PHP upload form and, bang, your weblog has turned into an instant warez node[2]. Or it may suddenly be "protected" by an .htaccess file you didn't write. That kind of thing.
...
[Y]ou can solve most of these problems if your webhost filters cgi-scripts through a "cgiwrapper" that suids to user 'you'. Since you have write permissions on your own directories, you don't have to extend the privilege to the web-server or anyone else. I haven't done a survey, but I suspect that any ISP/webhost worth it's salt uses a wrapper, which makes install docs that say "0777" all the more frustrating.
[1] Due to the nature and history of Unix systems, many of the auditing tools are readily available and you can find out a whole lot despite the best efforts of security-minded sysadmins...
[2] This is probably unlikely, since PHP is usually built with limits on file uploads but you get the idea.
</snip>
see also : W3C World Wide Web Security FAQ - CGI (Server) Scripts and Practical UNIX & Internet Security, UNIX Security Checklist
It would be curious to see what happened if you could ping, say, the del.icio.us API and return a list of for a given URL .