> It's difficult to imagine that that's something that anyone would actually *need*, but what they can do is additionally provide a non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really f^&*^&* easy since they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in the first place.

Add a link to some download service you mean, bandwidth wise. I just use the flash plug-in + noscript.

Hello Nick,

> what they can do is additionally provide a
> non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
> they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in
> the first place.

If they can, yes, but they might not have access to general file hosting or if they do, the bandwidth to steam video.

"BCS" <none@anon.com> wrote in message news:a6268ff63c58cba9bbc96d82e4@news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello Nick,
>
>> what they can do is additionally provide a
>> non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
>> they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in
>> the first place.
>

Ha ha, you censored the "f^&*^&*"? :)

> If they can, yes, but they might not have access to general file hosting or if they do, the bandwidth to steam video.
>

1. Sure, some people may not, but considering how cheap and easy good hosting packages are these days, I find it hard to believe that, out of a group of programmers, any more than a small minority wouldn't have reasonable hosting. I mean look at me, I can't afford basic airfare to go to a conference (or any of the repairs that my car currently needs), but I still have a gig or so of hosted space and about 100x as much bandwidth as I'm actually using.

2. Torrent

BCS escribió:
> Hello Nick,
> 
>> what they can do is additionally provide a
>> non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
>> they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in
>> the first place.
> 
> If they can, yes, but they might not have access to general file hosting or if they do, the bandwidth to steam video.

Note: this is a general response to this thread, not to anyone in particular.

I upload it to youtube because it works. It's permanent. People can comment it. People can rate it. I can see how many people see it. And I can add a title and a description to it, plus it's linked with my profile and my other videos.

And I don't think YouTube sucks. I don't have problems with Flash or Javascript either.

Come on, it's not 1990 anymore. "web pages were designed to show texts and links".

"No one can be bothered with installing Flash and having a JavaScript enabled browser". Why not? It takes less than a minute to install Flash.  It takes *not unchecking* a checkbox to get Javascript working in most browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?

(I recall someone said, about Javascript, that people use "javascript:openWindow" instead of a link. I think that's bad in some cases. But what else is bad with Javascript?)

Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> BCS escribió:
>> Hello Nick,
>>
>>> what they can do is additionally provide a
>>> non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
>>> they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in
>>> the first place.
>>
>> If they can, yes, but they might not have access to general file hosting or if they do, the bandwidth to steam video.
> 
> Note: this is a general response to this thread, not to anyone in particular.
> 
> I upload it to youtube because it works. It's permanent. People can comment it. People can rate it. I can see how many people see it. And I can add a title and a description to it, plus it's linked with my profile and my other videos.
> 
> And I don't think YouTube sucks. I don't have problems with Flash or Javascript either.
> 
> Come on, it's not 1990 anymore. "web pages were designed to show texts and links".
> 
> "No one can be bothered with installing Flash and having a JavaScript enabled browser". Why not? It takes less than a minute to install Flash.  It takes *not unchecking* a checkbox to get Javascript working in most browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
> 
> (I recall someone said, about Javascript, that people use "javascript:openWindow" instead of a link. I think that's bad in some cases. But what else is bad with Javascript?)

FWIW:
The last time I found a version of flash that would work with my browser, it came with an EULA that I found unacceptable.  So I didn't install it, and stopped looking.  I don't really like JavaScript, because I consider sites that require it to be less secure than sites that don't require it.  (I also don't run HTML on my e-mail except when I can both a) verify that it's needed and b) trust the sender.  Which includes some way of verifying that the e-mail is from whom it purports to be from.)

I acknowledge that mine is a minority position, but it's MY position, and it's not likely to change.  If somebody (anonymous) sends me a postcard, I junk it without checking further.  Ditto for an e-postcard.  My general belief is that if something is only available in flash, it probably isn't worth looking at, and it almost certainly isn't worth the added vulnerability that having flash installed would create.

Receiving text messages from anonymous strangers only risks wasting my time, not corrupting my system.  Javascript starts to get a bit iffy. Flash is beyond the pale.  (It's not *THAT* dangerous from a system point of view.  I could run it as an unprivileged user from a separate account, with flash only being installed in that account, but that wouldn't solve the legal vulnerabilities created by the EULA, and it would be a real pain to bother using it.)

Perhaps the recent EULAs have changed.  But I have sufficient doubts that I haven't bothered checking.

Hello Nick,

> "BCS" <none@anon.com> wrote in message
> news:a6268ff63c58cba9bbc96d82e4@news.digitalmars.com...
> 
>> Hello Nick,
>> 
>>> what they can do is additionally provide a
>>> non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy
>>> since
>>> they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube
>>> in
>>> the first place.
> Ha ha, you censored the "f^&*^&*"? :)
> 

And you just proved that not showing something sometimes makes a bigger point than showing it <g>

>> If they can, yes, but they might not have access to general file
>> hosting or if they do, the bandwidth to steam video.
>> 
> 1. Sure, some people may not, but considering how cheap and easy good
> hosting packages are these days,

a.k.a. almost but /not/ free.

> I find it hard to believe that, out
> of a group of programmers, any more than a small minority wouldn't
> have reasonable hosting.

I don't because I can't afford it.

> I mean look at me, I can't afford basic
> airfare to go to a conference (or any of the repairs that my car
> currently needs), but I still have a gig or so of hosted space and
> about 100x as much bandwidth as I'm actually using.

The cheapest hosting package I've seen would be about 15-25% of my income after expenses; food, rent, power (to run my Intel brand heaters), tuition.

> 2. Torrent

For me that is even less accessible. I don't have a torrent client because I'd have to be rude: http://xkcd.com/553/

Torrents has the problem that many places need to throttle them to let other stuff thought and for torrents, the only way to throttle them is ban and block them completely like my university tries to do. 

Charles Hixson escribió:
> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>> BCS escribió:
>>> Hello Nick,
>>>
>>>> what they can do is additionally provide a
>>>> non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
>>>> they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in
>>>> the first place.
>>>
>>> If they can, yes, but they might not have access to general file hosting or if they do, the bandwidth to steam video.
>>
>> Note: this is a general response to this thread, not to anyone in particular.
>>
>> I upload it to youtube because it works. It's permanent. People can comment it. People can rate it. I can see how many people see it. And I can add a title and a description to it, plus it's linked with my profile and my other videos.
>>
>> And I don't think YouTube sucks. I don't have problems with Flash or Javascript either.
>>
>> Come on, it's not 1990 anymore. "web pages were designed to show texts and links".
>>
>> "No one can be bothered with installing Flash and having a JavaScript enabled browser". Why not? It takes less than a minute to install Flash.  It takes *not unchecking* a checkbox to get Javascript working in most browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
>>
>> (I recall someone said, about Javascript, that people use "javascript:openWindow" instead of a link. I think that's bad in some cases. But what else is bad with Javascript?)
> 
> FWIW:
> The last time I found a version of flash that would work with my browser, it came with an EULA that I found unacceptable.  So I didn't install it, and stopped looking.  I don't really like JavaScript, because I consider sites that require it to be less secure than sites that don't require it.  (I also don't run HTML on my e-mail except when I can both a) verify that it's needed and b) trust the sender.  Which includes some way of verifying that the e-mail is from whom it purports to be from.)
> 
> I acknowledge that mine is a minority position, but it's MY position, and it's not likely to change.  If somebody (anonymous) sends me a postcard, I junk it without checking further.  Ditto for an e-postcard.  My general belief is that if something is only available in flash, it probably isn't worth looking at, and it almost certainly isn't worth the added vulnerability that having flash installed would create.
> 
> Receiving text messages from anonymous strangers only risks wasting my time, not corrupting my system.  Javascript starts to get a bit iffy. Flash is beyond the pale.  (It's not *THAT* dangerous from a system point of view.  I could run it as an unprivileged user from a separate account, with flash only being installed in that account, but that wouldn't solve the legal vulnerabilities created by the EULA, and it would be a real pain to bother using it.)
> 
> Perhaps the recent EULAs have changed.  But I have sufficient doubts that I haven't bothered checking.

Wow! Someone reads EULAs. :-P

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
> "BCS" <none@anon.com> wrote in message news:a6268ff63c58cba9bbc96d82e4@news.digitalmars.com...
>> Hello Nick,
>>
>>> what they can do is additionally provide a
>>> non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
>>> they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in
>>> the first place.
>>
>
> Ha ha, you censored the "f^&*^&*"? :)
>
>> If they can, yes, but they might not have access to general file hosting or if they do, the bandwidth to steam video.
>>
>
> 1. Sure, some people may not, but considering how cheap and easy good hosting packages are these days, I find it hard to believe that, out of a group of programmers, any more than a small minority wouldn't have reasonable hosting. I mean look at me, I can't afford basic airfare to go to a conference (or any of the repairs that my car currently needs), but I still have a gig or so of hosted space and about 100x as much bandwidth as I'm actually using.

Or, you know, maybe we could stop reading so much into Ary's _completely understandable decision_ to host a short video on _the largest video hosting site in the world_.

Give me a break.  You guys act like it's a fucking affront to your religion to have to use Flash or Youtube.

> Give me a break.  You guys act like it's a fucking affront to your
> religion to have to use Flash or Youtube.

Sorry for complaining about the necessity to be forced to install an annoying, crappy, utterly obnoxious plugin like Flash, that barely adds functionality to anything, but instead makes everything slower, harder to use, and you have to figure out things like disabling sounds and tracking Flash cookies. It has some nice additional security holes too. (Oh my, is that what the Internet has become...?)

> browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?

It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.

When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by default. Sometimes, some minor things don't work, and I have to enable JS. Now it's really rare to see functionality that couldn't be provided without JS. Rather, web designers seem to be really dumb and do stuff like replacing real links by script functions. As a prime example take YouTube. It's like YouTube doesn't believe in a life without AJAX! The simplest things don't work anymore. What for?

About AJAX, you know it breaks the back button and all other sorts of practical things you are used from normal web browsing. And occasionally, they use it for animations. Animations what for? They only introduce artificial GUI latency. (You know, Win 3.11 feels faster.) A related example for annoying AJAX things are those "applet" like boxes, that contain a "loading" gif, and apparently loads a HTML subtree using AJAX.

For completely over-engineered AJAX waste look at the Tango docs on dsource. I mean, it emulates frames, and the end result is worse than with good old frames! Ah yes, we all know frames are "outdated", but AJAX is hip and new! Let's emulate frames, because we feel it's too slow to reload the whole page again! (Now now, I wonder if the Tango docs even require a webserver. Maybe that's the reason why there's no downloadable documentation? But maybe I'm blaming the wrong thing here.)

They told use not to use <blink> or <marquee>? OK, we'll just use JS!

Among the best uses of JS I've seen are snow flakes moved by a script.

/rant (I feel better now.)