On 2009-06-22, Hadron <hadronquark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> In article <CTM%l.13866$Xw4.12906@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Ah, thanks for reminding me about digiKam. I've been posting photos to
>>> Google's PicasaWeb using their browser interface, and it sucks rocks through
>>> a straw.
>>
>> Have you looked into automating it?
>>
>> At work a couple years ago, we received reports from various search
>> engines and ad networks on how our ads were doing. The reports were
>> available from password and CAPTCHA protected websites that were
>> designed for a user to surf to, and then fill in a form requesting the
>> specific report they wanted, and then submit the form to get the
>> download, or on some a link to the download, or maybe another form to
>> select the download format and start the download.
>>
>> We automated this by writing a Firefox plugin. It would get the CAPTCHAs
>> from the sites that used them, and display them all in one page so the
>> user could solve them all and then walk away, then it would go login to
>> all the pages, fill out all the forms to ask for the right reports for
>> that day, jump through the hoops to get to the actual download pages,
>> and do the downloads.
>>
>> I bet you could do something similar--and it would give you an excuse to
>> play with Firefox plugin development.
>
> I'm rather surprised that "advocates" don't seem to know that the
> excellent Picasa beta automates the upload to Picasa Web.
>
> it's so easy even Liarnut could figure it out.
What makes you think that a Linux "advocate" would be interested in
downloading a separate application just to enable a web site feature
that should be readily available anyways?
--
If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \
|
|
