John McCain's MySpace Page "Pranked" 503
Several readers let us know about a little problem with presidential hopeful John McCain's MySpace page. Looks as though some staffer didn't read the fine print of the "credit" clause when selecting a template for the page. The template author and CEO of Newsvine, Mike Davidson, noticed this and didn't care too much. But the McCain page was pulling an image from Davidson's site, costing him bandwidth every time someone visited the candidate's MySpace page. So Davidson changed the image in question to read: "Today I announce that I have reversed my position and come out in full support of gay marriage... particularly marriage between two passionate females." Here is Davidson's account of the "immaculate hack".
LoL (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In my day... (Score:5, Funny)
What do you call someone who still uses leetspeak after 2000?
Re:In my day... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In my day... (Score:5, Funny)
Hey -- measured in Internet Time, we're Senior Citizens now! When do we get our pensions?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In my day... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a terrible design practice...Not only can your content change in unexpected ways (this was intentional, but I've seen a lot of humorous unintentional stuff happen with this sort of nonsense) but you're also ripping off the guy who's actually paying for the bandwidth to host the content, because whenever someone goes to your page, he's the one uploading the picture. Total rip off!
In short, this is completely legitimate...The person who created, maintained, and hosted the image, changed his personal property, and you think that should be illegal?? If the author of the original stuff hadn't put his content out there to be used by other people, McCain's people could have been up for a breach of copyright.
Your analogy is wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they were not 'driving through' they were stealing. Every time someone hit McCaine's site the images were pulled from Davidson's site's server. It was just as if they had Mr. Davison's phone card numbers and were making long distance calls on his phone bill. IF you only understand cars then, "It was just as if they were jumping in Mr. Davidson's car and driving it around Mr. Davision's property every day". Does not Mr. Davidson have the right to paint "slogans and ridicule" on his very own privately held vehicle?
Davidson has the right to change the content on his server any time he chooses. He could have just renamed or deleted the image files and left McCaine with a bunch of red X's on the McCaine site. As other contributors have suggested Mr. Davidson could have chosen other even less friendly images to host on Mr. Davidson's very own privately held server using services for which Mr. Davidson is paying.
Re:Your analogy is wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what it is like? Someone had image image tags, which were references to a remote server, instead of a local server.
It is what it is.
ac
Re:Your analogy is wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, Davidson also has a good basis for a counter-suit. McCaine's site did steal his bandwidth and use his templates without giving credit, both of which are clearly spelled out as against the terms of service for using the template.
+1 Funny. (Score:2)
Re:+1 Funny. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Today I announce that I have reversed my position, (placing my ass in front of me) and come out in full support of abortions... particularly abortions resulting from the union of Marines & Iraqi comfort women"
Re:+1 Funny. (Score:5, Interesting)
Since most people either don't respond, respond with abuse, or tell me I can't dictate to them what to do with their web page, I gave up emailing them to ask nicely if they could host a pic of mine somewhere else if they wanted to use it. Now I just replace it like Mike did with something embarrassing to the particular site owner who's hotlinking to my images, or for myspace - more often than not I replace the image with http://www.danamania.com/temp/dontloadthis.jpg [danamania.com] - I don't know the source of the image, but it's a 964 byte
It used to crash X11, make IE perform illegal instructions or freeze, and make OS X browsers beachball - but alas, in the years since I came across that file software has become more capable in handling extreme sized images
Re:+1 Funny. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:+1 Funny. (Score:5, Interesting)
Should be part of the standard display testing suite IMO
Re:+1 Funny. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:+1 Funny. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:+1 Funny. (Score:4, Interesting)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Orion_Neb
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:+1 Funny. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm now posting this from another computer.
# chmod 000 pandora.jpg
Let's see how McCain handles it (Score:5, Insightful)
If he's a good politician.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If he's a good politician.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.azcentral.com/blogs/index.php?blog=85&t itle=mccain_is_star_of_proposition_107_tv_com&more =1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&blogtype=Pluggedin [azcentral.com]
Sounds like he supports taking away my rights to me. I'm sure glad to have friends like him running for president. I'd hate to see what my enemies would do.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If he's a good politician.. (Score:4, Insightful)
The underlying premise here has nothing to do with drinking. You are asserting a moral imperative to not harm yourself, to keep yourself healthy, and furthermore to take as little risk as possible.
It's the same reasoning which leads to cries to ban fast food and potato chips. It's a suffocating view of morality which leaves nothing in the personal sphere. And the only proper thing to do with it is to reject it utterly.
Re:Let's see how McCain handles it (Score:5, Insightful)
If McCain is a good politician and decent human being, he should come out in support of gay marriage.
Re:Let's see how McCain handles it (Score:5, Insightful)
Graphic shoulda been a DMCA takedown notice. (Score:4, Interesting)
Hmm. Sounds like someone broke a software license. Seems awful close to piracy. Someone call Orrin Hatch [wired.com]!
This could majorly backfire (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This could majorly backfire (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This could majorly backfire (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This could majorly backfire (Score:4, Funny)
Holy cow, imagine that! Judge: "Good thing you used the Goatse guy pic which is completely unrelated to McCain! You're free to go. And thanks for introducing me to such an interesting ho... person. I'm off to check that guy's website!"
Re:This could majorly backfire (Score:5, Interesting)
She was in front of a classroom full of children, malwared-IE started popping up porn ads, everybody goes nipple-gate because "she's exposing them to porn!!!".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that exactly the point? When it comes to the law you can't rely on getting a reasonable or common-sense judgement - at least in the field of computers where we have a lot of hastily passed overzealous laws to deal with 'hackers' (I would suggest some parts of the DMCA, or the British CMA as examples here).
Nobody is saying that judges are stupid an
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, I know his conviction was eventually overturned, but only after he spent ungodly sums of money defending his good name.
Re:This could majorly backfire (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, actually, I can, because I've read the court transcripts. If you're going to invoke his name, explain what you think he did. The reason you only said his name, no doubt, is because you read a page like this [lightlink.com], which wastes time saying what he was charged with, and listing a bunch of things that aren't actually bad but that are phrased to look bad.
And yet, if you look around, at no point does that page explain what Randall did. Just what he was charged with. Did it occur to you that the reason you think he hasn't done anything wrong is because you have no idea what he did?
The legal system presumes innocense. Slashdot arguments do not.
Now, is Randall innocent? Actually, no. Should he have been penalized in the way he was? No, certainly not, but he should have been penalized. A sensible reaction to what happened would have been to fine him a couple of hundred dollars for misdemeanor vandalism, and to move on. Yes, what happened to him was bad, but you shouln't be invoking a case you don't understand in order to make a point.
By the by, what happened to Randall wasn't about ignorance regarding computers in any way. It was simple corporate abuse of the legal system. What I asked for was a fault in justice that happened because of a clueless judge . That's not the same as "find me something bad in the legal system that had a computer in it."
By the way, if the best you can do in a nation of a third of a billion people is a single twelve year old case that has nothing to do with what was actually requested, then I'd say that we as a nation are doing pretty damned well.
Re:This could majorly backfire (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, that's disturbing. Back when Slashdot only allowed current members of the state bar to register their usernames, everyone thought it would keep discussions intelligent. Now we find out that half the people forged their credentials and the other half were in the midst of ethics probes. (I always wondered about that "hot grits" guy's absurd explanation of the Interstate Commerce clause.)
As for me, yeah, I'll fess up: forged credentials. It was hilarious: the New Mexico board never did get any sort of confirmation call about me at all, even after I posted my first comment critical of Linux. People here are so naive and trusting!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If someone sues you and it's dismissed with prejudice, they pay your legal bills. Generally, for something like this, you wouldn't actually need to go to court; you'd just send your attorney. It would cost you several hours on the phone explaining the situation, and you'd be ou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This could majorly backfire (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, there's a reason for expert witnesses, and it's this: judges are there to understand the law, AND ANYTHING ELSE IS JUST ICING. Judges don't need to understand the internet, because any defense attorney worth half his salt will say "yes, and Mr. Davidson didn't change anything outside his own server," and the prosecution will be summarily laughed out of the building. If it's Wisconsin, they may have a large red "L" tattooed on their forehead first.
Re:This could majorly backfire (Score:5, Funny)
I wouldn't trust anyone who took 8 years to finish law school to understand much of anything...
Re:This could majorly backfire (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This could majorly backfire (Score:5, Insightful)
If you know that someone is stealing your lunch everyday, and you know who it is, and you poison the food, I'm sure that they can get you locked up for murder.
I'm sorry, but I couldn't come up with a car analogy.
Oh wait! If you set up the bomb in your car so it will explode if someone steals it, and then someone actually do steal it, thus dies, I bet they can lock you up for that too. If, however, you paint the seats, thus ruining the thief's clothes, I doubt the thief can sue you for the dry cleaning bill.
Re:This could majorly backfire (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This could majorly backfire (Score:4, Insightful)
Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." (Source: NCAUSA.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, that's a great analogy. Now if only one person was hurt or killed in any way by a guy choosing to replace an image on his own webserver, that might be germane. What you seem to be missing is that embarrassment isn't criminal. The reason poison would be illegal is because it would kill someone. Nobody died here. Some jerk has egg on his fac
Re:This could majorly backfire (Score:5, Informative)
Uh. No, you really can't. You also can't come up with a crime that vaguely resembles my drinking coffee in the morning.
Anti-graffiti laws maybe, who knows?
Oy. First off, graffiti is illegal in less than a quarter of the United States, and in those places where it is illegal, it's almost always simply illegal on public property. There are almost no points in the United States where graffiti on private property is illegal. That's why almost all graffiti cases are actually tried as destruction of private property - graffiti isn't illegal.
Why is the difference important? Well, for one, destruction of private property is illegal, but it's not criminal; unless there's something particular about the content of the graffito, the person can't be sent to jail except overnight holding, there's a limit on the fine that can be laid, and they're not liable for concommitant damage. So, for example, if an artist painted a beautiful graffito painting on the side of a building, and some jerk was staring at it instead of driving and got into a wreck that killed a kid, the artist would not be accessory to manslaughter.
Graffiti involves you doing something to someone else's things, not your own. The reason you can't come up with a sensible example is because there isn't one. The legal system isn't a question of who can come up with the biggest stretch, and believe it or not, a judge is well within their rights to say "fuck off, that's not what that law means." In fact, that's their purpose, and they do that all the time.
What a judge cannot do is send you to jail without a damned good reason. If you appeal a judge's ruling and it gets overturned, circuit court is required to make a decision that they never seem to teach you about at the SlashDot J Fakespert Building of Almost Law at the NBC campus of the University of Law and Order: SVU. (That's right, I'm making fun of your channel 4 law degree. Maybe you can convince a judge that I'm putting a graffito on SlashDot?) Specifically, that decision is whether to overturn with or without prejudice.
Maybe you should get on http://notacollegeofjurisprudence.wikipedia.net/ [wikipedia.net] and track down just what happens to a judge when their rulings are overturned with prejudice? The actual count varies from state to state, but in Pennsylvania it's three a year, and in Washington DC it's zero tolerance.
A bit of creativity and liberal use of words and you can easily make this a crime.
Really? Go right ahead: we're listening. Show us something a little less ridiculous than laws designed to keep city signs legible. Or did you think graffiti laws were there to keep people from painting on things?
Have a look through your local law library for a 1970s New York City block of precedent that was taken state then national by Andy Warhol, surrounding the then-little-known street artist Jean Michel Basquiat. We've actually gone through this on walls in public, where Basquiat intentionally took it to a senator in public. The wall didn't belong to Basquiat, and Basquiat wasn't having a good old josh like Mr. Davidson is. The senator tried a bunch of stuff to get it taken down, including leaning with all his senatorial might. He got nowhere. Basquiat died a few
Basquiat died several years later on the wrong end of a heroin needle, a free man. At that time, most of America learned that paranoia does not generate legal fault. Our founding fathers went way, way out of their way to make what you're describing fundamentally impossible, and they did a beautiful job of it. Clueful legal commentators understand and respect that.
And please have the sense to stop pretending to grok the law. Lawrence Lessig you are not.
Re:This could majorly backfire (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? From the fine summary: "the McCain page was pulling an image from Davidson's site" - how can it be illegal to change the contents of your own website? How could this even be called 'hacking'? If you pull graphics from other websites, prepare to get what you deserve! It says "Pranked" instead of "Hacked" in the summary title for a reason.
I think he did a great prank and I laughed my ass off - there are some funny comments, too:
> Jeff Croft
> Mike, your testicals are very, very large
>> Mike D. :)
>> Thank you. Please spellcheck your genitalia references though.
Re:This could majorly backfire (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The judge would also figure out that he was completely in his rights to do this.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And? What, you think it's illegal because it's mean? Can you cite a law to the effect of "508.c4.232 section 6 statute 5b states that no man shall place lesbian jokes on another man's webpage" ? Maybe there's that people's doctrine entitled "Leaving shit on your web page so someone else can use it?"
I mean, I seem to be missing something here.
Re: (Score:2)
How long until Mr Davidson gets prosecuted [snip] With the amount the average judge knows about the internet [snip] As simple as the case may seem to us, to the general public, defacing a site is illegal hacking, nomatter how it is done and no doubt McCain could get a clueless PHB to testify to that as an "expert witness" if he wanted to.
+
TFA
= definition of irony?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Suppose A owns a house with a painting inside near a window. He invites people to walk by his house and view the painting through the window under the license that they credit him for anything they do with the IP of the painting (perhaps A even charges admission); this costs A some money per view, say electricity to keep a lamp turned on and lighting up the painting (this lamp only turns on
Re:This could majorly backfire (Score:4, Insightful)
He made a perfectly legitimate change to the content of his own site. The fact that the image McCain's site was hotlinking was affected in the process is not his fault. (And it's theft of service in a way, because he's stealing bandwidth from the legitimate content owner's hosting to do it.)
I'm sorry, the idea of even someone like McCain pulling a stunt like that is too ridiculous to even think about. It's been tried too many times by too many clueless asshats to have any chance of success. Especially in the current DMCA-flavored IP culture. The fact that a site owner used a particularly creative form of DRM is no excuse to try to coerce him into putting content back onto his site that he chose to remove, and quite honestly, McCain or the staffer who decided to hotlink the image in the first place could actually face a DMCA charge for it. Serve him right, he voted for the damn thing
(saying this mainly because the idea of being forced to keep content up on a site to support bottom feeding bandwidth leeches offends me to the very core of my being)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately it's not like that. In the case of letterhead, the offender has the opportunity to not distribute whatever it is would require the letterhead; in the "instantly live" world of the Interne
Didn't Last Long (Score:5, Informative)
The hacked version of the image was only up for about two hours before it was taken down. Of course, it's now been replaced with an invitation to "Add to Gorup [sic]" [myspace.com].
Will the incompetence ever end?
How's that bandwidth looking NOW, Mike? (Score:3)
Not that it wasn't a great prank.
Of course, I don't think it fooled anyone. No one would believe that McCain would take such a brave and principled stand anymore. Everyone knows that McCain left behind every shred of integrity after 2000. Now, if you had put up a picture of George Bush's dick in his mouth, now THAT would have been believable.
Never... er... always check your references (Score:3, Interesting)
Ya.
Re:Never... er... always check your references (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Never... er... always check your references (Score:5, Funny)
Captain America is DEAD, you insensitive clod!
*runs off crying*
Re:Never... er... always check your references (Score:5, Interesting)
Mod parent ad hominem.
This is the danger of judging candidates not by their policy positions, but by their carefully constructed media hype. Remember that with McCain, one could just as easily assert (as some of his opponents will suggest) -- "After finishing fifth from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy, McCain was a bad enough pilot (probably flying drunk, given his history) that he couldn't keep his plane airborne and out of enemy hands. While in Vietnamese custody, unlike the many prisoners who resisted torture, McCain willingly signed documents 'confessing' to war crimes, and gave the Vietnamese classified information in order to receive more favorable treatment while in prison. Upon returning to the USA, McCain dumped his loyal and long-suffering first wife who had developed back problems, in order to marry a drug-addicted bimbo who had been his physical therapist. He showed poor enough judgment as to take money from Charlie Keating during the S&L scandals of the 1980s, that whether or not he was a crook for taking the money, he was certainly an idiot whose judgment shouldn't be trusted in more important matters."
Why not just judge the man on his policy positions? Oh, they've flip-flopped enough in the last decade that we can't be sure what his positions are, and all we really have to judge by is his history and his character. Oops!
By the way, many assume the bulge on McCain's cheek had something to do with his war injuries. In fact, it's the after-effect of skin cancer surgery.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Missing Option on Ballot (Score:3, Insightful)
Just wandering... (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously I hope and doubt that anything like that would happen, but I'm just curious if John McCain tries to make an example of this - as so many politicians try to do.
Re:Just wandering... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just wandering... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just wandering... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:is Orson Welles's "deceipt " (Score:5, Informative)
Could have been worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
If McCain's people know anything, they'll play it off quietly or joke about it, knowing it could have been a lot worse. A less civil person probably would have goatse'd McCain's myspace instead.
...which would have been goddamn hilarious, but I digress.
heh? And he wants to be president? (Score:2)
This guy wasn't to be president? Isn't this like getting financial advice from someone with a hotmail address? It just doesn't seem all that encouraging. And feels kind of creepy to boot.
Oh, please... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please... Here's an idea for you: how about you turn on the brain and judge the man (or woman), not his email address or MySpace page?
Financial advice: either you trust that guy to be a competent economist, or you don't. That's it. If someone has a Ph.D. from Harvard, who gives a rat's arse about whether he has also a Hotmail address or not.
President: either you trust the guy enough to basically give him a hell of a lot of power, or you don't. The fact that he also has some stupid MySpace page should be the least of your worries.
Note that in both cases we're not talking about some Anonymous Coward with a Hotmail address or MySpace page, but about someone who's known and easy to check. We're not talking "Moraelin for president" or "NightElf12345@hotmail.com offers you free financial advice", but someone who's well known, and whose credentials and opinions are known, public and damn easy to check. So how about doing just that?
So you propose... what? That instead of actually checking and judging the person, you'd rather make some superficial meaningless criterion like their email address the top and only criterion? Would you rather take advice from the janitor because he has a more fashionable email address? Geesh...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't this like getting financial advice from someone with a hotmail address?
Yes, it is... but that is only because you're (probably) employed in IT. I had a real hard time explaining my father in law that he shouldn't be using the equivalent of aol.com (not actually, that, but from a national provider) for his business. The worst part is: he's got his own domain.
No, he keeps using the old address. Normal people don't see the harm in such adresses.
So, for the masses, I expect that a myspace page
I for one... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I for one... (Score:5, Funny)
A missed opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a side note, I am a webmaster for a few small sites. When I encounter inline image linking, I tend to replace the image with another which says "I am a Grade A Asshat. I steal bandwidth" or other suitable saying. I reserve hello.jpg for exceptional circumstances (read: someone uses my images on ebay, or some other site
Re: (Score:2)
He replaced it with:
http://www.ev4.org/hotlink.jpeg [ev4.org]
Re: (Score:2)
A friend of mine uses the image from the site "www bottleguy com" (I purposely borked link for everyone's protection) for anti-inline linking purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
I am aware of that. I, as well as my friends, believe that most experienced web surfers have seen goatse before and should be exposed to new truely awful images as a means of shock via
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By doing it this way he has an image on his own site which is satire, and therefore probably fair use - the fact that someone else is displaing that image themselves in a rather daft place is not his problem!!
Actually.. (Score:5, Funny)
New twist on old stupidity (Score:5, Informative)
For those of you out there who don't want to RTF/.A, the children's section of the Fuddruckers website was pwned because they inline linked a flash game. The game's developer set his
How many friends? (Score:5, Funny)
~Pev
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone knows that it takes 2815 friends on myspace to win the next presidency via Diebold's help.
ABC News, Typical Mainstream Media Sensationalism (Score:5, Insightful)
ABC News has an "interesting" http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/03/mc cains_myspace.html [abcnews.com]article about this that shows mainstream media's typical sensationalist hype of things and also shows most people's lack of knowledge and general disregard of technology.
I especially love how the opening line refers to this prank as "a new weapon in campaign digital media warfare", then the article goes on to use phrases such as "McCain didn't give him credit and Davidson sought retribution" and buzzwords like "The Internet battlefield".
I find Mr. Rasiej's comment that "This just goes to show that the Internet is an entirely new battlefield for many of these candidates and they are going to have to develop sophisticated new responses to deal with them" very interesting, since the "sophisticated new response" to this would have been to show some creativity, design your own image, and not leach someone else's bandwidth with an image that has nothing to do with your message. McCain's incompetent Web designer couldn't even be bothered to notice that the image in question said "No requests for design help please". I don't think I'll be asking McCain or any of his peoplefor design help, especially now!
The article also goes on to compare this incident with such things as a genuinely serious security flaw discovered in Rudy Giuliani's website and to Phil de Velis's Clinton/Obama mock political ad. And just to stir in a little more controversy, they had to add that de Velis "formerly lived with a current Obama staffer". Big deal!
Typical mainstream media sensationalistic BS hype! Hopefully nothing bad comes of this.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you'd RTFA (yes, yeas, I know this is /.) you'd have seen that the only person who would see "No requests for design help please" was Mike Davidson because it was in his web cache. Everyone else saw the 'normal' link picture.
Ignoring web caches, only Davidson's myspace page would display the version w/ "No requests for design help please" and anyone who leached from
Step 2 (Score:5, Funny)
That would be funny...
A common issue with MySpace - and you have to act (Score:5, Interesting)
When others leech your bandwidth you have to do this sort of thing, unfortunately. Whether you choose a joke like this, or Goatse, or a simple warning is really up to you. It's your image, after all.
I have a lot of reasonably large JPEG images on my site (800x600), and a number of MySpace users started to incorporate them directly into their own sites without having the decency to host them themselves. This is funny, because my CC license would have allowed most of them to use the images without even asking me, and the only real problem was that these JPEGs used a lot of bandwidth because visitors to countless MySpace pages were downloading them constantly. I didn't realize any of this until my site went down due to a bandwidth quota, after which I set up a rule to hand out an alternative image. A dose of Goatse would have been completely justified (and some of my friends were pushing for it), but I decided to make a small, low-quality JPEG containing information about what bandwidth leeching is and why it's rude. (Some people [uga.edu] haven't noticed it yet, four months later.)
Re:A common issue with MySpace - and you have to a (Score:3, Interesting)
I've got to believe there's a better way to serve pictures so that they are only viewable from the appropriate website than a straight http request for the image file. That is how to prevent people from hotlinking, not changing a file so they get something unwanted from their link (because that doesn't prevent them from hotlinking, does it? What if they just hotlink on purpose to the image but set it off-screen or something so it doesn't display but is still fetched just to use your bandwidth out of spite?)
The myspace page on google cache (Score:4, Informative)
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:http://www.m
Passionate about image leachers (Score:3, Interesting)
That is an immaculate hack. However an even more immaculate hack is the fact we've just Slashdotted him!
Video link looks like a pacifier... (Score:3, Funny)
Hey Everyone, Pitch In! (Score:4, Funny)
Well, how about a few thousand slashdot visitors? Will that help?
MjM
This has already inspired similar pranks on McCain (Score:3, Interesting)