Google and Watermarks

"nospam" wrote

| Aah - but in Agent your's is broken (wrapped) and David's isn't.
|
| they were *identical* when initially posted.
|

And why should anyone care? Your link was obvious.
It worked fine. Any link will eventually get broken
up when reposted. Better that than the irritating
"tinyurls" that obscure where they go to and may
eventually not work if the company goes down.

The more interesting thing here to me is that
you've finally been outsillied by David B. I love it.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| Aah - but in Agent your's is broken (wrapped) and David's isn't.
|
| they were *identical* when initially posted.
|

And why should anyone care? Your link was obvious.
It worked fine.

as any properly delimited link would.

except to you, who blocks javascript, so most links won't work at all.

Any link will eventually get broken
up when reposted.

only if the url was not properly delimited and/or broken software was
used along the way. otherwise, there is no issue whatsoever.

Better that than the irritating
"tinyurls" that obscure where they go to and may
eventually not work if the company goes down.

that **** needs to go away.

url shorteners only came to be because of broken apps that can't handle
wrapped urls, so instead of fixing the actual problem, a new problem
was created.

The more interesting thing here to me is that
you've finally been outsillied by David B. I love it.

you have that backwards.

he posted the very same link just minutes after i did, clearly not
having read what he was replying to and when it was pointed out, he
went into troll mode and posted something completely irrelevant about
the newsreader i use rather than just admit he didn't see the original
url.

On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 18:03:34 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

put another way: the links are exactly the same, so if mine is broken,
then so is yours, and if yours is valid, then so is mine.


Aah - but in Agent your's is broken (wrapped) and David's isn't.

they were *identical* when initially posted.

Nonsense!

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/17/15654476/google-photos-object-removal-feature-demo
is in no way *identical* to:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8e5duor7aw...17.ti ff?dl=0

The first one was written by you and has been wrapped every time it
has appeared in my verion of Agent.

David's does not even include delimiters but has not been wrapped,
even when it is quoted.

what happened after that is anyone's guess, especially since agent is
known for not handling urls correctly.

You say that "agent is known for not handling urls correctly" only
because it has been an Agent user (me) who told you about your URL
problem. Here we have evidence that the problem is not with Agent.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

put another way: the links are exactly the same, so if mine is broken,
then so is yours, and if yours is valid, then so is mine.


Aah - but in Agent your's is broken (wrapped) and David's isn't.

they were *identical* when initially posted.

Nonsense!

not at all.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/17/1...t-removal-feat
ure-demo
is in no way *identical* to:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8e5duor7aw...link%20%2020%2
0Aug%202017.tiff?dl=0

it's identical, including having delimiters.

The first one was written by you and has been wrapped every time it
has appeared in my verion of Agent.

that's because agent is broken. it does not properly handle url
delimiters.

don't blame others because the app you choose to run is a piece of ****.

David's does not even include delimiters but has not been wrapped,
even when it is quoted.

yes it does. look again.

In article , David B.
wrote:
Regardless, that is OLD news!

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/17/15654476/google-photos-object-removal-feature-demo




what happened after that is anyone's guess, especially since agent is
known for not handling urls correctly.

You say that "agent is known for not handling urls correctly" only
because it has been an Agent user (me) who told you about your URL
problem. Here we have evidence that the problem is not with Agent.

i say that because agent does not properly support url delimiters,
which means it's broken.

stop using broken software and the problems go away. simple.

"nospam" wrote

| And why should anyone care? Your link was obvious.
| It worked fine.
|
| as any properly delimited link would.
|
| except to you, who blocks javascript, so most links won't work at all.
|

Links are HTML. They don't require script. Some
hotshots these days do break them by doing something
like creating a SPAN that calls script when clicked.
Presumably so they can track actions taken on the
webpage and know which link(s) you've clicked.
But that's not common. It's actually a somewhat
complex, messy trick to break a link.

| The more interesting thing here to me is that
| you've finally been outsillied by David B. I love it.
|
| you have that backwards.
|
| he posted the very same link just minutes after i did, clearly not
| having read what he was replying to and when it was pointed out, he
| went into troll mode and posted something completely irrelevant about
| the newsreader i use rather than just admit he didn't see the original
| url.

Like I said, he outsillied you.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| And why should anyone care? Your link was obvious.
| It worked fine.
|
| as any properly delimited link would.
|
| except to you, who blocks javascript, so most links won't work at all.
|

Links are HTML. They don't require script.

they do if they want the web page to not look like it's still 1995, or
to take advantage of modern technologies.

Some
hotshots these days do break them by doing something
like creating a SPAN that calls script when clicked.
Presumably so they can track actions taken on the
webpage and know which link(s) you've clicked.
But that's not common. It's actually a somewhat
complex, messy trick to break a link.

yet you manage to do it every day.

"nospam" wrote

| Links are HTML. They don't require script.
|
| they do if they want the web page to not look like it's still 1995, or
| to take advantage of modern technologies.
|

No, they don't. Links have nothing to do with "modern
technologies". You click them. The browser goes to that
URL. Nothing fancy. Look at the source code of any webpage.
You'll see things like
A HREF="http://www.othersite.com/otherpage.html"

No script needed.

| Some
| hotshots these days do break them by doing something
| like creating a SPAN that calls script when clicked.
| Presumably so they can track actions taken on the
| webpage and know which link(s) you've clicked.
| But that's not common. It's actually a somewhat
| complex, messy trick to break a link.
|
| yet you manage to do it every day.

You misunderstood. I don't usually have trouble with
links. I didn't see the *images*. That's a different issue.
It's becoming more common for some sites, like news
sites, to design HTML image tags as script operations.
Normal HTML to show an image is something like:

IMG SRC="thepicture.jpg"

I see those fine.
A new idea that's become popular is to try to cater
to different devices. Script sniffs your device when
you visit the page. Then the image code looks something
like this:

IMG SRC="nonsense1x1pixel.gif" data-low-res=
"the realpic300x500.jpg" data-hi-res="therealpic600x900.jpg"

Usually there are even more sizes. They load an empty
image, tiny image, or 1x1 image into the page via HTML,
as a placeholder. With script disabled the real image never
gets loaded. The script is set up to select an image size
based on your device and resolution. So with script disabled
I sometimes have to hunt down the real image URL in the
source code.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

A new idea that's become popular is to try to cater
to different devices. Script sniffs your device when
you visit the page. Then the image code looks something
like this:

IMG SRC="nonsense1x1pixel.gif" data-low-res=
"the realpic300x500.jpg" data-hi-res="therealpic600x900.jpg"

Usually there are even more sizes. They load an empty
image, tiny image, or 1x1 image into the page via HTML,
as a placeholder. With script disabled the real image never
gets loaded. The script is set up to select an image size
based on your device and resolution. So with script disabled
I sometimes have to hunt down the real image URL in the
source code.

enable javascript. problem solved.

the computer is there to do work *for* you.

On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 20:35:10 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

put another way: the links are exactly the same, so if mine is broken,
then so is yours, and if yours is valid, then so is mine.


Aah - but in Agent your's is broken (wrapped) and David's isn't.

they were *identical* when initially posted.

Nonsense!

not at all.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/17/1...t-removal-feat
ure-demo
is in no way *identical* to:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8e5duor7aw...link%20%2020%2
0Aug%202017.tiff?dl=0

it's identical, including having delimiters.

The first one was written by you and has been wrapped every time it
has appeared in my verion of Agent.

that's because agent is broken. it does not properly handle url
delimiters.

don't blame others because the app you choose to run is a piece of ****.

David's does not even include delimiters but has not been wrapped,
even when it is quoted.

yes it does. look again.

In article , David B.
wrote:
Regardless, that is OLD news!

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/17/15654476/google-photos-object-removal-feature-demo




what happened after that is anyone's guess, especially since agent is
known for not handling urls correctly.

You say that "agent is known for not handling urls correctly" only
because it has been an Agent user (me) who told you about your URL
problem. Here we have evidence that the problem is not with Agent.

i say that because agent does not properly support url delimiters,
which means it's broken.

stop using broken software and the problems go away. simple.

YOU look again. I was talking about the URLs, not their targets. You
know, the string of letteers which makes up the URL? The second URL is
quite different from the first. The URL produced by David was not
wrapped and did not wrap when quoted.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

YOU look again. I was talking about the URLs, not their targets. You
know, the string of letteers which makes up the URL? The second URL is
quite different from the first. The URL produced by David was not
wrapped and did not wrap when quoted.

wrapping makes no difference whatso****ingever.

the urls were *exactly* identical, right down to the delimiters.

properly written software doesn't give a **** if a url is wrapped or
not.