In order to enable WordPress Press This for “shared hosting” accounts at HostGator, you will need to have “mod_security rule 1234234” whitelisted. Initial testing confirms that Press This functions as intended once this rule is lifted.
This fix supersedes the one that worked under prior configurations of HostGator’s security rules and referred to security rule 211120, as identified by WordPress Core developers. (There is also no need to apply older workarounds involving alteration of the Press This bookmarklet code.)
Press This is an excellent tool that in various forms and incarnations has been part of WordPress Core since WordPress 2.6 (2008), when it replaced Press It. The purpose of this note isn’t, however, to sing the praises of Press This, or to show how I’ve used or modified it, but just to note the solution of a problem for bloggers who want to use Press This on their “shared hosting” accounts at HostGator and possibly at other aggressively security-conscious web hosts.
To my understanding, the purpose of rule 1234234, as of rule 211120, is to make a certain type of malicious URL injection more difficult, but HostGator seems to be one of the few, and possibly the only, known hosts to apply either by default. It is possible, however, that rule 1234234 is applied for some other reason entirely, and, if and when I receive a better explanation, I’ll update this post or convert it into a real one on the topic.
Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.
Comment and Tweets on the True Detective Season 1 Finale… March 10, 2014 (Comment at Crooked Timber, "Wonders of the Invisible World," by Henry Farrell) Nicely done, though I think the critique of the ending is in its own way as too-neat as the ending itself, or simply recapitulates or re-extends the, of course, finally imponderable matters of whether light or dark, or form or void, is “winning,”…
a/theology March 17, 2014 antichristattwilightadmittedinconsequentlyasalwaysfearfullyasrarelythatwemightnoteverberidofGodaswemaintainourfaithingrammariftomeanistoconfessthentherearenotrueadvocatesofunbeliefandtheonlyauthenticatheismisinthesilenceunitingthebelieverandherdoubleinthenonexistentlydivinesubjectobjectofprayerclaimaintsofthenothingrevealthemselvesonlyastraitorstotheirowncausetheirownmostimplacableadversariesintheendasfromthebeginningourfellowfetishistsoftheword
TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.
For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.
The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.
Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.
[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.