1. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Mushroom

      Re: Hacking The Register

      downvoting people automatically

      Hmmmm... that sounds interesting. If you ever do distribute it, perhaps you might consider configuring it to default to downvoting jake and RICHTO "The Vogon" automatically? As a sort of community service ;-)

      However, sadly it seems that any schoolboy levity of this sort is no longer welcome at the new, improved, entirely serious & businesslike The Register... and anyway, the management is making ominous noises about re-designing the rug out from under your splaffer. Didn't you get the memo?

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: Hacking The Register

        That's not "hacking". Not by any stretch of the imagination.

        "Acne Splatter", indeed. Good name. Mirrors the result.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. Marco Fontani

          Re: Hacking The Register

          occasionally two messages will share the same ID number, which I am pretty sure is supposed to be blank.

          ?! do you have more details? feel free to email webmaster@ thanks!

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Devil

              Re: Hacking The Register

              @ 1980s_coder

              oops... sorry I evoked that name. Looks like you fought back valiantly though!.. but didn't succeed in banishing him to his lair :-(

              Did you survive the battle?

              I suddenly want a Splaffer - to do the same.

    2. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: Hacking The Register

      "Will I get sued if I publish this info on-line?"

      This is my personal 2p. This is not a Register corporate final say. If you're making legit HTTP requests like any other browser, and rendering the HTML/CSS in your own way, you're no different to any other browser.

      Attempts to circumvent security or other protection mechanisms in the website wouldn't be very nice; we'd take a dim view of that. But if you're fetching and submitting stuff via vanilla HTTP, and rendering it in your own way, then how are you any different to the huge range of bots and user agents that hit us every day? Even if 1,000, or 5,000, or 10,000 people used your tool a day, it wouldn't be noticeable.

      Having said that: your tool sounds like it's ditching adverts. Don't forget that we are entirely independent and advertising funded. We're not backed by a magazine giant, nor a VC consortium, pulling the puppet strings on our output. Some ads piss people off; we try our best to not let that happen. Our ad ops guys are superb at responding to complaints about ads.

      My rent, the food I eat, the vacations I take with my wife, are paid through advertising. Same goes for everyone contributing. Give that at least a little thought as you browse the site through a text terminal. It's not about the numbers - some people use ad-blockers and that's just the way it goes - it's the principle I'm talking about.

      Thanks for reading.

      C.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. Marco Fontani

          Re: Hacking The Register

          My problem is that most of the programming work I do is for internal company use, so I never get to publish details of it.

          A good "reference" is knowing the sort of code one writes, which both shows the kind of level they're at, the sort of architectural things they do in a project, the kind of choices they've made as to the modules they use, etc.

          Generally speaking, I'd suggest you take the code for tools & bits & bobs which you _yourself_ create and use, _strip away any credentials_ (using a appname.conf.sample in git, and a appname.conf in .gitignore helps) and stick the repo(s) on github!

          May not be the best thing ever; may have a bug or two. Maybe people may open pull requests.

          doubleclick.net is returning a 204 no content message

          Yeah, they tend to do at least _some_ headers inspection, so if your UA doesn't look like a standard browser one (last I checked, it doesn't)… they'll display no content.

      2. Vimes

        Re: Hacking The Register @diodesign

        My rent, the food I eat, the vacations I take with my wife, are paid through advertising. Same goes for everyone contributing. Give that at least a little thought as you browse the site through a text terminal. It's not about the numbers - some people use ad-blockers and that's just the way it goes - it's the principle I'm talking about.

        It would be nice if I could view the site minus the intrusive & sometimes excessively big ads - and potential for malware that comes with them amongst other things - *and* still see that the people working here still get paid for their hard work.

        Advertising isn't the only option available to you. Is there really no possibility of some sort of paid option for those of us willing to go down that route?

        1. Known Hero

          Re: Hacking The Register @diodesign

          If your paying you have a voice, If its all ad based revenue, They can do what they like without worrying about people voting with their wallet.

          e.g. all the new changes of late, if they were Sub based, they would find the sudden loss of readership quite painful financially! Its another way of removing any form of control from you the customer / product

          1. Vimes

            Re: Hacking The Register @diodesign

            Nobody said it couldn't be a combination of both: keep things as they are for most people but strip the ads out of the page for anybody that has paid for that.

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon