Posted by Beauregard T. Shagnasty on 05/30/06 18:50

Big McLargehuge wrote:

> On Tue, 30 May 2006 18:54:10 +0200, Frank Olieu <fr@nk.nospam> mumbled
> something like:
>
>>_Big McLargehuge_ skrev | wrote | écrivit (30-05-2006 18:38):
>>
>>> That's why I said it was only intended to prevent casual copying.
>>
>>Most casual users know at least about the 'display source code' thing to be
>>found in most browsers...
>>
>>> ... but I was hoping to implement this anyway.
>>
>>Why? It's usually regarded as exposing the author's cluelessness...
>
> *MROWR*

Heh!

> Why the hostile response? I was just looking for a question answered,

Hostile? Not at all. However, you asked a question that is .. well ..
mostly silly.

> if you don't know or don't want to tell me, how about simply not
> responding instead of taking out whatever frustrations you may have on
> an innocent bystander? (Oh wait... I forgot, this *is* the Usenet...
> Silly me)

Yep, this is Usenet, where a succinct answer may be the best one.

> Is there anyone out there who actually knows and would care to tell
> me. I'm curious about how to do this, if nothing else.

Position a large <div> on top of the text, and fill it with a
transparent image. Then, the clueless won't be able to swipe/copy the
text. Though, anyone with a modicum of clue will find other ways.

As mentioned, once the visitor finds your attempt, it would be revealed
that his/her level cluefulness is somewhat higher than .. um ..

Generally, most all sites' attempts to hide content is inversely
proportional to the actual worth of said content. :-0

The above method is *slightly* more clueful than those JavaScript
scripts that say: "Alert: YOU CAN'T COPY MY IMAGES!! NYAH NYAH NYAH!"

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

[Back to original message]