For those not in the know, hotlinking is the act of displaying an image located on another web site by referring to it directly, as opposed to linking to the page on which it appears.

The upshot is that every time the hotlinked image is displayed on site A, it costs site B (the site hosting the image) the bandwidth required to serve it up. This is considered rude. Site B incurs a cost without receiving any benefit. The accepted alternative is to save a copy of the desired image and host it on one’s own site, or on one of numerous image hosting services. Not only is this polite, but it’s smarter, because when you hotlink to an image on someone else’s web server you don’t have control over it.

When John McCain was running for president, his campaign set up a MySpace page (remember MySpace?) using a common template. The template’s creator made it available for anyone who wanted to use it, but requested attribution and asked those who used it to host the associated images themselves. The McCain staffers did neither. The template’s creator responded by modifying one of the images that was being leeched from his own web server such that the following occurred:

The McCain staffers saw the light and quickly corrected their faux pas.

I bring up hotlinking because a lot of my blog posts contain images that a lot of people find via Google Image Search. Then they hotlink to them. The pages on which they are displayed are frequently in forums and, given the highbrow nature of the images I post, you can only imagine the levels of erudition present in the forums’ discourse. For example:

http://www.last.fm/group/I+Hate+Metal+Maiden+Hell/forum/124912/_/531272

There are methods to block hotlinking, and some of those who engage in hotlinking subscribe to the viewpoint of, “If a site lets me hotlink to its images, that’s tantamount to an invitation.” Well, fuckers, you are no longer invited.

One has choices when blocking hotlink requests. One can simply forbid the request, which usually results in a broken image icon appearing on the target site. One can also redirect the request so that an alternate image is served up. Given the potential humor value of the latter, which method do you think I chose?

Some people select an image like this:

Practical but boring.

Some serve up a transparent image that is very, very wide, which is designed to break the target site’s layout such that the left and right borders get blown out. I consider this somewhat malicious in that it punishes bystanders along with the culprit.

Being true to my nature, I decided to go with something offensive. My initial choice was this:

Then I was briefly taken with this:

Then I considered taking the scattergun approach and offending everyone imaginable:

Then, after reading an informative essay by Ryan “pizza” Flynn on what to consider when coming up with an irritating, disturbing or offensive hotlink replacement image, I embraced one of Mr. Flynn’s offerings for my very own. I think it strikes a tasteful balance:

I am well aware that by serving up an alternate image, I am still incurring the bandwidth cost associated with that image. That’s okay. Ever since I set this up, several times each day I feel a little zing of pleasure out of nowhere that I can only imagine is my replacement image appearing somewhere unexpectedly. So either the tumor has grown beyond the point of “Are you sure you don’t smell burning plastic?” or my investment is paying dividends.

Dateless Wonder, Captain Asperger’s, The Dyslexic Dou, Mound, Harelip! Let us away!

He has a wife, you know…

My personal favorite has always been “Phil McRevis”.

For those requiring an explanation.

Do you ever get the feeling that you’re being watched?

A tragic story, but I just can’t stop laughing.

And last, but not least, thank you Rob Cardwell for providing us with this excellent demonstration of grace under pressure.

Google search results for Consbreastution.

Also: Clbuttic

Having addressed all other weighty matters of state, the Virginia legislature is considering HB 1452, which reads as follows:

No person shall display upon or equip any motor vehicle with any object or device that depicts, represents, or resembles human genitalia, regardless of size or scale.

The good news is that cloacas are still okay:

The legislation was proposed specifically to criminalize Truck Nutz (marginally NSFW) and the like, because, according to the bill’s sponsor (Lionell Spruill, Sr.), a constituent complained to him that his young daughter saw such an accessory, asked him what it was, and he was flummoxed for a response (incidentally, the correct answer is, “That’s how you spot a redneck, sweetie.”).

No word yet on whether or not these will get a pass:

Okay, so this jackass Jason Fortuny posed as a woman seeking BDSM sex on the Seattle Craig’s List personals. On his LiveJournal page he stated that he was conducting an experiment to see how many responses he could get in 24 hours. He got 178. The majority included images, which ranged in content from headshots to genitalia. He then posted the replies (NSFW) online.

That is, he posted the replies online, in their entirety, including e-mail addresses, IM handles and phone numbers.

Holy crap.

Now 178 people, none of whom did anything illegal, find that what was ostensibly personal correspondence is displayed for all the world to see. That’s just plain wrong.

Did some of these fellows demonstrate breathtaking ignorance by sending their replies from business or otherwise “non-throw-away” e-mail accounts, using their full names and images including their faces? Absolutely. Having read the responses, I can say with confidence that the reputations of future Nobel Prize winners remain intact.

So? Ignorance isn’t criminal (thank God). Otherwise we would just slap a lid over the United States and have done with it. That’s not the point. This was no “experiment.” It was a juvenile, malicious prank with no purpose other than to inflict harm, then chortle smugly at those exposed. Only a truly damaged person behaves like that.

Abraham Lincoln said:

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.

Jason Fortuny entrapped a bunch of guys looking for no-strings rough sex. His power came from offering something that these men wanted. He then used that power to burn them publicly, for no other reason than that he could.

I offer two things to consider:

1. As my friend Gokmop has reminded me several times, do not put anything online (via web site, blog, forum, e-mail, whatever) that you don’t want made available and searchable, forever.
2. I posted an article about instances where actions on the Internet cross over into Real Life™. Jason Fortuny may well experience the downside of that phenomenon.