April 2017

910111213 1415
16171819 2021 22

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
marcmagus: (regexp)
Saturday, April 24th, 2010 11:47 am

So, remember a month and a half ago when I wrote about how LiveJournal was munging outbound links? They had this horribly buggy code with the laziest-written regular expressions I'd ever seen that actually broke a lot of outbound links by trying to insert affiliate URLs where they didn't belong, in addition to the inherent evil of inserting their own affiliate URLs and hiding the fact. They'd supposedly turned it off.

Well, it's back, and it's breaking browser behavior such as opening links in new tabs again. Note that this new version actually makes the link address you copy when you right-click and select "Copy Link Address" be the munged version rather than the original link.

More info at:

  • http://jonquil.dreamwidth.org/954897.html
  • http://rydra-wong.dreamwidth.org/226445.html
  • http://pne.dreamwidth.org/869809.html

Blocking outboundlinks.net and outboundlinks.me with NoScript seems to stop the evil JS for me (but possibly I just did the opt-out thing the last time around). Jonquil has some other suggestions as well, see the first link above.

marcmagus: (regexp)
Friday, March 5th, 2010 12:17 pm

This signal needs boosting even if LiveJournal has actually speedily responded and repaired the problem. This is why we test before we ship, people. Especially with stuff that has potential financial impact. Seriously.

In brief, yesterday LJ shipped a code change which used some really sneaky JavaScript to munge outbound links when you click on them. Yes, as I'm reading this, that means that for most users the address they saw when hovering over the link was different than the link they were actually directed to upon clicking.

Specifically, the code would cause outbound links to a whole bunch of e-commerce sites to have the LJ affiliate link silently added. In fact, it would even replace an existing affiliate link with LJ's. Seriously, that's the behavior people are reporting.

It apparently only made these changes when your page was being viewed by someone who wasn't logged in. That's not really any comfort.

I haven't actually gone through the code to confirm it did what people are saying, but what I'm reading is certainly plausible.

More at the following:

  • http://vichan.livejournal.com/392527.html
  • http://shatterstripes.livejournal.com/1065670.html?format=light
  • http://shatterstripes.livejournal.com/1065749.html?format=light
  • http://shatterstripes.livejournal.com/1066190.html?format=light

The problems with this are so numerous I don't even know where to begin:

  • This is a major change [even if it seems minor] that never should have been released without thorough testing.
  • Stealing money from users.
  • Creating misleading links like that is not ok for any reason, and could well break functionality on some browsers.
  • ...

marcmagus: Me as "The Enforcer" at a RHPS pre-show (Enforcer)
Wednesday, August 19th, 2009 03:55 pm

I just watched this video, in which Pamela Pilger interrupts Israeli-born American Samuel Blum while he is waxing poetic about the virtues of the Israeli health care system by shouting "Heil Hitler!". [I'd like to note that in writing that I completely balked after the opening quotation mark and had to pause for a bit before I was able to force myself to type the words.]

This is an upsetting video, please be warned.

What I would like somebody, anybody, to please explain to me is what this woman1 thinks she's conveying by saying that? I'm able to glean that she considers herself pro-Israel (through both her words and her choice of wardrobe; as has been pointed out, that's an IDF2 T-shirt), that she believes President Obama to be strongly anti-Israel, and that she believes a man as pro-Israel as Mr. Blum should therefore not be saying anything even potentially supportive of President Obama. Was her inappropriate interjection (and her subsequent inappropriate non-consensual physical contact) merely intended as an attention grab so she could deliver her message (something about Obama being bad and health care reform destroying America by encouraging illegal immigration, if I got it right)?

Seriously, what was it supposed to mean? Because beyond being upset and appalled, I'm bewildered.

Found from [livejournal.com profile] shemale at http://shemale.livejournal.com/154335.html via [livejournal.com profile] rm

1: Yes, I am using honorifics for everybody else I refer to and denying them to Pamela Pilger. I trust the content of what I have to say makes it clear that this is a conscious choice to deny her respect because of her actions, not because of her gender. I hope my record supports the contention that I do not preferentially use honorifics differentially based on the gender of the person I'm referring to, though I'm happy to be called on it elsewhere if I do.

2: Israeli Defense Force