Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | tolos's commentslogin

I don't really want to go if I can randomly lose my job.


Seriously, that issue has been talked to death and this isn't the place to reignite it.


> Prohibited uses:

> No charity or cause funding. [0]

Indiegogo would probably allow it though. See for example [1]

[0] http://www.kickstarter.com/help/guidelines

[1] http://www.indiegogo.com/bearlovegood


Rather than approaching it as a cause, could it be understood as gaining IP clearance and the the last step in the production of the novel; I mean, legitimately one of the last steps in making the specific novel a reality, not just a general cause.


> does optimising sort times still matter?

Yes, not all new computers are fast (calculators, cars, µC, etc).


> Thus, 230 / 216391 = 0.11% of all websites are vulnerable.

> Latest stats say that about 13.8% of the top 10,000 websites run CMSs. If we just focus on CMS-powered websites, then the percentage of vulnerable sites is much higher:

> Thus, 230 / (216391 * 0.138) = 0.77% of websites running a CMS are vulnerable.

I don't think those numbers mean what you think they mean.

13.8% out of 10,000 doesn't say much about the top 216,391. And perhaps 0 out of 230 of the vulnerable websites use CMS, however unlikely that is.


I was really expecting an article about parsing HTML when he said right at the beginning:

>> You cannot parse HTML with regular expressions, because HTML isn’t regular. Use an XML parser instead.

> This statement - in the context of the question - is somewhere between very misleading and outright wrong.

But nope, after disappointment and going back to the beginning, he says he's not talking about HTML:

> What I’ll try to demonstrate in this article is how powerful modern regular expressions really are.

And not even a warning about how easy it is to make really terrible regex.


It took about 10 seconds for me to stop searching for the X button to close the popup and realize this is how the site is laid out.


That was torture. I wish I was kidding.


Same here, a UI nightmare.


are you snopes


Is this just a united statues problem, or in other countries of the world is it not ok for women to have sex? I want to blame religion, but I doubt that's the entire reason ...


You are looking for trivial answers. I doubt if there is one.


hmm, I suppose the people that think I have no value to add to this discussion are focusing on that jab at religion.

But to clarify, I'm not looking for "the answer" and my question still stands unanswered: what is the socially accepted view of women's sexuality in other cultures?

My only experience is with the US where there is a huge demarcation, generally based on the gender of the belief holder, and generally advertisements etc are weighted towards a masculine point of view for women's role.

Perhaps it would help to explain I've never taken any "gender studies" classes or similar, so this is a question of mere curiosity.


Yes, except for the tweet/+1/reddit/others floating bar.


Adblock can do them too! You can either add them manually or subscribe to a filter that has them all already - I use "Fanboy's Annoyance List".


RIP (Remove it Permanently) typically nukes those just fine, though you may have to re-nuke it as the page is redesigned and xpaths change.


NoScript will take care of that, but it is a pretty big hammer.


Original page: http://imgur.com/Mokjd

from "Atlas of the historical geography of the United States" (1932)

Page here: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/g/genpub/abl7462.0001.001/390?view...

ToC: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/g/genpub/abl7462.0001.001?view=toc


Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: