 | | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) That's an intriguing idea. I've seen similar sorts of things where a static (maybe 2KB) image is plopped up in place of the real image, and it typically gets scaled by modern browsers and looks all chunky and like that. But you're talking (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Well, couldn't you have several JPEGs of various dimensions ready to go, along with a database of the dimensions of the original images, and then feed the one whose dimensions are closest to those of the requested image? Actually, it probably (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) By the way: David, there is no way that an HTTP server can know the size of an image that a client/browser is expecting. That is, the HEIGHT and WIDTH attributes of the <IMG> tag are known only to the client/browser and to the originator of (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Ah. Yes. I see. Given the filename of image that the client wanted (which could be extracted from the URL), the actual dimensions of the image could be looked up (quite easily, in fact). So, yes, I misspoke. In general, it's not possible for (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
Hi Todd I saw today your oops gif on ebay and thought its a good step. you might consider adding to the gif under the sad face: unauthorized direct links to lugnet images is prohibited use of our bandwidth please connect using(insert your url here) (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) OK, thanks for pointing that out. I added the text: Direct Image Links Not Supported Note that "Not Supported" is more technically accurate than "Not Allowed" or "Not Permitted", since the detection mechanism (which relies on the browser (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Yeah, I don't think they can change it after submitting, but at least from now on they should be able to tell immediately that their theft of server space and bandwidth isn't going to work. Seems the person from the third example got a little (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) I didn't see the original (been out of town all weekend) but this one seems very clear and easy to understand. (25 years ago, 7-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) I think it's a great idea. The unsmiley face works well. If Todd were more emotional about, it could have been a Fright Knight's face or even a pirate face! Aaarrrrrrr!! But Todd is very good about giving people the benefit of the doubt, much (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) I thought his tirade had some valid points, though clouded in negative emotions. (Thanks for pointing me back there to look, BTW.) To paraphrase, he made the following points: 1. Apologized to his bidders for the non-functional image. 2. (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) In a fairly bitchy little way. :) (...) Hrmmmm, assumptions, relying on ignorance, and multiple wrongs possibly making a right, all roled into one. :) (...) That's the only really legitimate thing I think he said, and you can solve that (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) I agree with all of the above (in principle); those were some of my first thoughts as well. But like I said before, "All of these [gripes of his] are tangible concerns which are likely to resurface again and again among the general Internet (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
#6 is not valid. Or at least it was not. There are sites that exist specifically to host auction images, which do so for free. (I think they tack an advert on the bottom of the image or something). (25 years ago, 8-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Oh, I think a _Nasty_ graphic would have been more fun. alt.binaries.images.tasteless - the seller would have really had something to whine about if you had been out to harm him. (25 years ago, 11-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
