nbpoole

Edit: Never mind. I posted this before checking out your site. I see that you provide the Javascript to perform the URL rewriting but require webmasters to register separately with affiliate programs. A very different model than Viglink or Skimlinks ;-)

All other browsers, to the best of my knowledge, have similar systems built in. So your premise is flawed: you can't have an "infinite redirect."

If you view the posts outside of the context of the subreddit, there's no special CSS, so the link appears normally with some title text that appears on hover.

I'm just hoping I'm not color-blind :-P

    I can understand not changing the behaviour wrt historical
    precedent: I have been told that people used to rely on the
    ignore-dot mechanism to disable things (e.g. mv foo foo.disabled).

See:

http://nedbatchelder.com/blog/200710.html#e20071017T215538

http://paulirish.com/2010/the-protocol-relative-url/

- Salted SHA-1 hashed passwords for Instapaper

- Encrypted passwords for linked Pinboard accounts (with the encryption key stored in the website code)

- OAuth tokens for linked Facebook/Twitter/Tumblr accounts (and presumably also the secret keys used by Instapaper to use those tokens).

That's (potentially) a lot of personal information.

> How much is the evaluation fee?

The evaluation fee is estimated at US$185,000. Applicants will be required to pay a US$5,000 deposit fee per requested application slot when registering. The US$5,000 will be credited against the evaluation fee

> Are there any additional costs I should be aware of in applying for a new gTLD?

Yes. Applicants may be required to pay additional fees in certain cases where specialized process steps are applicable, and should expect to account for their own business startup costs. See Section 1.5.2 of the Applicant Guidebook.

And the guidebook (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rfp-clean-30may11-e...) mentions a number of different fees.

EDIT: There's a list of reserved TLDs that won't be allowed to be registered. It includes localhost (but not mail)!

AFRINIC IANA-SERVERS NRO ALAC ICANN RFC-EDITOR APNIC IESG RIPE ARIN IETF ROOT-SERVERS ASO INTERNIC RSSAC CCNSO INVALID SSAC EXAMPLE* IRTF TEST* GAC ISTF TLD GNSO LACNIC WHOIS GTLD-SERVERS LOCAL WWW IAB LOCALHOST IANA NIC

(example and www have asterisks next to them because "in addition to the above strings, ICANN will reserve translations of the terms “test” and “example” in multiple languages. The remainder of the strings are reserved only in the form included above.")

For the other hashes, the fact that there's no nonce or other value stored alongside them was a strong hint (although it doesn't rule out a site-wide nonce). However, I confirmed my suspicion by Googling one of the hashes: it was on a list of unsalted hashes that had been brute forced (unrelated to this, the password was fairly common).

It's worth noting that crypt-ed MD5 (which appears to be what's in use here) is fairly weak on modern hardware when compared to an alternative like BCrypt. There's some basic information available on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crypt_%28Unix%29&#...

.cz.cc is not on that list, nor should it be. This is a free "domain" generator using subdomains of cz.cc. Hence, all of the subdomains are grouped together. I don't see anything wrong here.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7720333

Apparently if you log in there's a notice telling you they were hacked.

Those terms are contradictory.

On the one hand, you want to guarantee "The program and its source code can be distributed and used by anyone for any purpose." That seems to mesh with the BSD license in a straightforward way: you want people to be free to use the code in proprietary or open source applications. On the other hand, you also "want to guarantee that the program and any improvements made on it are available to anyone, proprietary or not, forever." That requirement is much closer to the GPL (or even the AGPL): if someone distributes a modified version of the software, you want the source of those modifications to be released so other people can modify their application in the same way. Unfortunately, that requirement is also completely at odds with the BSD license you champion in your blog post; under the BSD license, I'm free to modify your application and distribute a modified binary without ever releasing the source. There's no guarantee that modifications are ever made available to anyone.

A lot of the rest of the post appears to be hyperbolic anti-GPL rhetoric, not backed by any facts or examples. "A company has zero motivation to help improve GPL'd software because they can't benefit from their improvements" for instance. RedHat or Canonical serve as decent counter-examples.

There are many legitimate reasons to disagree with the GPL's philosophy: this is not one of them.

And the SQL example isn't meant to be copy/pasted: it's a demonstration of a fairly common anti-pattern that has nothing to do with SQL escaping. Adding escaping there would just confuse the point.

It appears his old username is/was.

Edit: And confirmed. See http://web.archive.org/web/20090628004019/http://code.google...

Personally, I would be wary of using any contract written by someone who isn't a lawyer. Telling people that you feel "there is no need to state the obvious as many contracts do" doesn't instil a lot of confidence either: how do you know what needs to be explicitly stated and what doesn't?

http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/19422/if-im-working-...

"Not related to your employer's line of work. Um, wait. What's the definition of related? If my employer is Microsoft, they do everything. They made a goddamn BARNEY PLUSH TOY with a computer in it once. Are plush toys related? Obviously operating systems, compilers, desktop applications, search engines, and games are related to Microsoft's line of work. Hmmm."

"This ambiguity is meant to create enough of a chilling effect on the employee working in their spare time that for all intents and purposes it achieves the effect that the employer wants: the employee doesn't bother doing any side projects that might turn into a business some day, and the employer gets a nice, refreshed employee coming to work in the morning after spending the previous evening watching TV."