I really can't see the logic in this suggestion. You somehow think that some of our computers are refusing to show the images but are somehow going to the directupload.net site and finding the image that we do get.
Well, that throws that theory out the window! I guess it's 'back to the old drawing board'...
...could I get you to do me a small favour? Since you can see the images, could you post the address that shows up for one (or more) of the more recent ones he has posted, without either the "http://" or "www." - just the 'business end' - please?...
...I shall try to see if there is anything there that might be causing the issue...
G'day alanti,
I have also noticed that which you point out and have found that the location of the image that does show provides a different 'server' and filename' every time...
No problem seeing either of these to images from Iceman2117 post # 2217
s8.directupload.net/images/091009/y3c35xvw.jpg
s7.directupload.net/images/091009/6fw44eq2.jpg
When I right clicked on the images to get the addresses, I noticed an option to "block images from this server." Could this be accidentally turned on for some people?
That's certainly a plausible explanation but, i think, rather unlikely, given that if images from the directupload.net server were being blocked by the browser, then the image that is replacing the ones that should be there, ought not to be being displayed, either. Besides, a quick test proves this is not the case, here...
...if you take the address of the images (as you have supplied them) and type that directly into the address bar, the 'no hot-linking allowed' image is the one that appears (rather than the one that should) and the address is changed to
s8.directupload.net/ads/nohot.gif
...which makes sense but doesn't explain why the original address of the image remains in the post when it is replaced!
However, something you said did give me cause to consider if this issue might not be ISP based (rather than location based)...
Very strange. I copy pasted the first address
s8.directupload.net/images/091009/y3c35xvw.jpg
in my browser and it shows a very nice red barn with a couple of horses in the yard.
So the image is still there but only some people can see it.
...well, now we know what all the fuss is about! However, that doesn't explain why it is that only a few of us are unable to see the original images (and I am grateful for the effort you have gone to to show us these most recent ones)...
...the use of ".htaccess" as alanti has noted above is non-discriminatory (if directupload.net is using it), so these images should be visible to NOBODY...
I can't see them either here in Sydney, Australia.
Maybe they blocked an entire subnet that a bunch of us in Australia are on? I tried to access the image via a proxy and it worked just fine.
Jerker said:
...the use of ".htaccess" as alanti has noted above is non-discriminatory (if directupload.net is using it), so these images should be visible to NOBODY...
Well, that might be the case (I don't know enough about this .htaccess to say) but I really do need to ask...
...why would you bother?...
...after all, in this case, THEY have NO claim over copyright to the image (surely, this belongs to iceman2117)!!!! In fact, the more I think about it, there has to be some legal implications here (freedom of speech and all that, et c., et c., et c.). Do you have a good lawyer Iceman?
...we may have figured out how and what they're doing but the all important question of "...why?.." (for what ultimate purpose and what gains are achieved by this action) is stilll a mystery? The problem with the whole affair is that it is highly likely that this 'action' on their part is part and parcel of their EULA, which Iceman would have agreed to when he first started using them as his image 'carrier'...
...anyway, for the moment, let's "put it to rest" and get on with the proper content of this thread. Those of us so affected by this action will just have to suffer...
}
