23 Jun
2013
23 Jun
'13
6:18 a.m.
On 23 June 2013 00:19, Mouse <mouse at rodents-montreal.org> wrote:
[1] You do realise that you are over-trimming (*again*) and replying
to 2 different people in a single message here, don't you?
In this one, you're answering me, via an answer to someone else who
quoted my text.
[2] You're trying to do something which FB is specifically trying to
block -- IOW you're not using a browser, you're trying to scrape
images directly via a script -- and you're complaining that FB's
efforts to prevent /exactly the sort of thing that you're doing/ are
successful?
[Mocking laughter] Yeah, right.
All this proves is that you're a weirdo who likes to do things the
hard way. As was evinced earlier in your reply. No news there.
A fair point. (Also, in saying so, I hope that I am showing that I am
not being biased or taking an ad-hominem approach.)
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
>> [...]
the numerous broken websites out there to still work with
>> browsers other than Firefox and Internet Explorer under MS Windows.
> That way something the hardcore did in the
1990s. It's unheard-of
> now. I see a broken site a few times a /decade./
Tell that to Facebook, which still refuses to serve up any kind of
content to me when I try to script-fetch an image someone links me to
or some such, instead returning a redirect to a "you're using an
unsupported browser, use one of this half-dozen" (all, of course, are
thoroughly bloated monstrosities). I haven't bothered trying providing
a lying User-Agent: header, largely because it would be fairly
inconvenient for me to capture a sample header to base my forgery on.
I think Facebook hardly counts as "unheard-of". I ran into
this issue with Consumer Reports website last year and
took the time to try to educate them. Their reply? "We outsource
our web administration and they can't fix it."
"You need to fire them and hire _competent_ web admins." (Yes, I
realize that's preaching to the choir. :/)
This means if you have a NAT router (who
doesn't?)
I don't. Well, I do have NAT set up, but I don't have anything in the
NATted range except for a SIP phone. and have say a
Mac, and Windows PC, and a Linux workstation, only the
first used in that sample window is going to be recorded, [...] This
affects usage numbers for the "less common" operating systems more
than the "more popular" operating systems, because operating systems
such as Microsoft Windows have a larger market share.
Actually, if you think of it as measuring "number of uses" rather than
"number of installed hosts", it's measuring exactly what it should be
measuring. (Measuring it imprecisely, because of the "first hit within
the sample window" effect, but that's what it's measuring.)