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.
The privilege of working in a war zone is witnessing the extraordinary dignity in the manner that other, innocent people choose to respond.
1. One who acts exceedingly stupid and surpasses the idiocy for which one might just be called a retard. 2. Someone that has the drooling potentiality of a block of wood (see also: pocket lint).
ex. Yes, Chris's beyond stupid; he's a wonder-tard.
Appurtenance \Ap*pur"te*nance\, n. [OF. apurtenaunce, apartenance, F. appartenance, LL. appartenentia, from L. appertinere. See {Appertain}.] That which belongs to something else; an adjunct; an appendage; an accessory; something annexed to another thing more worthy; in common parlance and legal acceptation, something belonging to another thing as principal, and which passes as incident to it, as a right of way, or other easement to land; a right of common to pasture, an outhouse, barn, garden, or orchard, to a house or messuage. In a strict legal sense, land can never pass as an appurtenance to land. --Tomlins. --Bouvier. --Burrill. Globes . . . provided as appurtenances to astronomy. --Bacon. The structure of the eye, and of its appurtenances. --Reid. web1913
appurtenance n : a supplementary component [syn: {accessory}, {supplement}] wn
Nonagenarian \Non`a*ge*na"ri*an\, n. [L. nonagenarius containing, or consisting of, ninety, fr. nonageni ninety each; akin to novem nine.] A person ninety years old. web1913
nonagenarian adj : being from 90 to 99 years old; "the nonagenarian inhabitants of the nursing home" n : someone whose age is in the nineties wn
Desideratum \De*sid`e*ra"tum\, n.; pl. {Desiderata}. [L., fr. desideratus, p. p. See {Desiderate}.] Anything desired; that of which the lack is felt; a want generally felt and acknowledge. web1913
desideratum n : something desired as a necessity; "the desiderata for a vacation are time and money" wn
die
. Because your function(s) are being
eval
-ed, the parent SOAP handler catches
$@
and fobs it off on a fault widget. If you're like me, you will
eventually notice that all your error messages end in :
at /path/to/some/package.pm line 123.and be annoyed. Annoyed because this is not information a user needs to see in a web services context and annoyed because it makes your error messages ugly. You will be further annoyed because you're not sure which of the two issues bothers you more. Since I've just spent time I could be sleeping figuring out a solution, I thought I would share it with people so that they may continue to get enough sleep and tackle bigger, more important, problems.
package My::XMLRPC::Service;
use strict;
# The example assumes a CGI widget that provides
# XMLRPC services. Since XMLRPC::Lite mostly just
# inherits from SOAP::Lite, the following should
# also work for a SOAP server, but you would need
# to subclass SOAP::Transport::HTTP::Server instead
use vars qw (@ISA);
@ISA = qw (XMLRPC::Lite::Transport::HTTP::CGI);
use XMLRPC::Lite::Transport::HTTP;
sub make_fault {
my $self = shift;
my @args = @_;
# this is a decidedly lazy regex(p) but
# you're not supposed to have spaces in
# unix filenames anyway, so there you go...
$args[1] =~ s/^(.*)\sat\s([^\s]+)\sline\s(\d+)(.*)$/$1/m;
$self->SUPER::make_fault(@args);
}
return 1;
Your mileage may vary.
Update
:
People with
sleep
will correctly point out that:
a slightly easier way to get rid of the "at xxx line xxx" is just to put a carriage return at the end of your error message. Perl only tacks on the "at" message if there isn't a return.Alas. In my own defense I can only say that I have also spent days covering vast expenses of page with tiny dots (specks, really) drawn with a teeny tiny mechinical pen. When asked why I didn't use Letratone , all I could ever answer was it doesn't look the same . Move along now, these are not the subclasses you are looking for.
Loquacious \Lo*qua"cious\, a. [L. loquax, -acis, talkative, fr. loqui to speak; cf. Gr. ? to rattle, shriek, shout.] 1. Given to continual talking; talkative; garrulous. Loquacious, brawling, ever in the wrong. --Dryden. 2. Speaking; expressive. [R.] --J. Philips. 3. Apt to blab and disclose secrets. Syn: Garrulous; talkative. See {Garrulous}. web1913
loquacious adj : full of trivial conversation; "kept from her housework by gabby neighbors" [syn: {chatty}, {gabby}, {garrulous}, {talkative}, {talky}] wn
Gas, stomach pains, heartburn.
ex. Oooooooh man, had a bad burrito and now I got squirrels.
I don't know. There's a lot of buzzword bingo obfuscating what may actually be a good idea. I will simply cut to the chase...
I find the premise questionable : your data is safe with us but not with them. We will be advertisement driven but we don't expect them to want to mine all the data passing through our system.
I find the implementation dubious : super whiz-bang javascript <--> server communications appear to be all the rage these days but I have yet to see why. The only real distributed javascript "applications" I've seen are syndicated moreover.com newsfeeds which do, in fact, deliver the news but at a cost of rendering a machine completely useless in the process. JavaScript may have grown up some over the years, but it certainly isn't anything that I want to write "on top" of.
As an "Internet developer", I am shocked that the only "open source" code available is all NT/Access based. I am further annoyed that, in order to (maybe, hopefully) see documentation, or examples, of any consequence I have to go throught YA register process. I concede that I may be alone on this last one, but I don't really think so.
As someone who might be interested in the issues they are claiming to be tackling, there is a distressing lack of information on their website. It might even lead someone to think that their appreciation of the subject is limited to the idea that privacy is a "growth market".
Finally, as someone who occasionally thinks about how to describe and convey ideas, I think that they need to put a little more effort into presenting their message.
my $we = new People;
my $snow = new Enviroment ( type => 'cold' );
my $sleigh = new Transport ( for => $snow );
$sleigh->puller( new Horse );
$sleigh->dash( $snow );
$we->go( $fields, 'over' );
$we->do( 'laugh' );
$bell->ring;
$spirits->set( bright => 1 );
$we->set_fun( 'lots' ) while (
$we->ride and $we->sing( about => 'sleighing' );
$bells->jingle; $bells->jingle;
$bells->jingle while ( $we->travel );
$we->set_fun( 'lots' ) while ( $we->in($sleigh) );
$bells->jingle; $bells->jingle;
$bells->jingle while ( $we->travel );
$we->set_fun( 'lots' ) while ( $we->in($sleigh) );
dude, where's my car
This document uses CSS kung-fu and a small amount of JavaScript for rendering its contents. Efforts have been made to separate the form from the content so if you are viewing this in a text-based browser it shouldn't be an issue.
On the other hand it may look funny if you are viewing it in a browser with incomplete CSS and/or JavaScript implementations. Internet Explorer 6 comes to mind.
It's not that I don't love you. However, my time is limited and I no longer feel very good about spending it working around any one browser's inconsistencies with little, or no, confidence that they will ever be fixed or otherwise made more inconsistent at some later date.
On the other hand, if something is down-right unreadable please let me know and I will endeavour to fix it.
yes, we have no bananas
This page may not validate. It's not that I don't care, it's just that I'm not aware of it yet. Part of the reason that I rewrote the entire back-end for managing this site is that the old stuff made it too easy for these kinds of mistakes to slip through the cracks.
See also : W3C::LogValidator.pm
it's the software, stupid
