I already regret asking this.
I need a lightweight free to cheap mp3 audio player. It should have a
start and stop feature and auto play on page load.
I don't want any guff on why this shouldn't be done. So, if you know
how this stupid stupid task can be done, point me at it. If you want to
preach at me, ask yourself whether it is worth driving away another
alt.html reader.
Jeff
In article <13pg39m5ag6gk53@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeff
> I need a lightweight free to cheap mp3 audio player. It should have a
> start and stop feature and auto play on page load.
I use Quicktime or iTunes or (quite often the brilliant Preview
feature in the Finder on Mac) I think at least you can get the
first two free for a PC?
--
dorayme
dorayme wrote:
> In article <13pg39m5ag6gk53@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jeff
>
>> I need a lightweight free to cheap mp3 audio player. It should have a
>> start and stop feature and auto play on page load.
>
> I use Quicktime or iTunes or (quite often the brilliant Preview
> feature in the Finder on Mac) I think at least you can get the
> first two free for a PC?
>
Many thanks. I'd completely forgotten about quicktime. And with that bit
of a hint I found the object/embed code.
Thanks again,
Jeff
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 03:59:46 GMT
Jeff scribed:
> I already regret asking this.
>
> I need a lightweight free to cheap mp3 audio player. It should have a
> start and stop feature and auto play on page load.
>
> I don't want any guff on why this shouldn't be done. So, if you know
> how this stupid stupid task can be done, point me at it. If you want to
> preach at me, ask yourself whether it is worth driving away another
> alt.html reader.
Oh my GAWD! Autoplay??!!! Did your mother drop you on your head? Is your
underwear too tight? Are you a sadist in the making? Did dodo cast a
spell on your eternal psyche? What in tarnation is WRONG with you, son???
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.
Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 03:59:46 GMT
> Jeff scribed:
>
>> I already regret asking this.
>>
>> I need a lightweight free to cheap mp3 audio player. It should have a
>> start and stop feature and auto play on page load.
>>
>> I don't want any guff on why this shouldn't be done. So, if you know
>> how this stupid stupid task can be done, point me at it. If you want to
>> preach at me, ask yourself whether it is worth driving away another
>> alt.html reader.
>
> Oh my GAWD! Autoplay??!!! Did your mother drop you on your head? Is your
> underwear too tight? Are you a sadist in the making? Did dodo cast a
> spell on your eternal psyche? What in tarnation is WRONG with you, son???
>
My client insisted, I resisted, she got someone else to do it and it
damaged our relationship.
I'm in no mood for any of this.
Jeff
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 05:46:18
GMT Jeff scribed:
> Neredbojias wrote:
>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008
>> 03:59:46 GMT Jeff scribed:
>>
>>> I already regret asking this.
>>>
>>> I need a lightweight free to cheap mp3 audio player. It should
>>> have a
>>> start and stop feature and auto play on page load.
>>>
>>> I don't want any guff on why this shouldn't be done. So, if you
>>> know
>>> how this stupid stupid task can be done, point me at it. If you want
>>> to preach at me, ask yourself whether it is worth driving away
>>> another alt.html reader.
>>
>> Oh my GAWD! Autoplay??!!! Did your mother drop you on your head?
>> Is your underwear too tight? Are you a sadist in the making? Did
>> dodo cast a spell on your eternal psyche? What in tarnation is WRONG
>> with you, son???
>>
> My client insisted, I resisted, she got someone else to do it and it
> damaged our relationship.
Give her a spanking. It may not improve your relationship, but at least
you'll be doing your part to put women in their proper place.
> I'm in no mood for any of this.
Moods are for dames. Men have _attitudes_.
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.
In article <13pg9he5uub84b4@corp.supernews.com>, jeff@spam_me_not.com
says...
> Neredbojias wrote:
> > Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 03:59:46 GMT
> > Jeff scribed:
> >
> >> I already regret asking this.
> >>
> >> I need a lightweight free to cheap mp3 audio player. It should have a
> >> start and stop feature and auto play on page load.
> >>
> >> I don't want any guff on why this shouldn't be done. So, if you know
> >> how this stupid stupid task can be done, point me at it. If you want to
> >> preach at me, ask yourself whether it is worth driving away another
> >> alt.html reader.
> >
> > Oh my GAWD! Autoplay??!!! Did your mother drop you on your head? Is your
> > underwear too tight? Are you a sadist in the making? Did dodo cast a
> > spell on your eternal psyche? What in tarnation is WRONG with you, son???
> >
> My client insisted, I resisted, she got someone else to do it and it
> damaged our relationship.
>
> I'm in no mood for any of this.
>
> Jeff
>
A lesson in this business that I learned a long time ago - do what the
customer wants, no matter how stupid it seems. Why give the work (and
money) to someone else?
On Jan 23, 10:49 pm, Jeff
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <13pg39m5ag6g...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > Jeff
>
> >> I need a lightweight free to cheap mp3 audio player. It should have a
> >> start and stop feature and auto play on page load.
>
> > I use Quicktime or iTunes or (quite often the brilliant Preview
> > feature in the Finder on Mac) I think at least you can get the
> > first two free for a PC?
>
> Many thanks. I'd completely forgotten about quicktime. And with that bit
> of a hint I found the object/embed code.
>
> Thanks again,
> Jeff
Jeff,
You really need to stay away from Quicktime it is not used by most
people and requires a lengthy download to use, and it tends to take
over a person's computer like a nasty virus. It is much better to
embed Windows media player because it is more universal and in most
instances requires no download by the user. For W3C valid code and a
complete tutorial on how to use visit http://a-ok-site.com/webdesign/embed_files.html
or do a Google search for embedding media files.
Daniel
http://a-ok-site.com
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "aoksite1@gmail.com"
@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> You really need to stay away from Quicktime it is not used by most
> people and requires a lengthy download to use, and it tends to take
> over a person's computer like a nasty virus.
There are ways to stop Quicktime and others from doing this. Try using
Startup Monitor from Mike Lin [www.mlin.net/]. It sits in memory (very
small), and stops things from trying to load on start. He also has StartUp
Control Panel, which allows you to get to all the things that are already
there, that you might not want. I've been using both for years, and
recommend them highly.
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
On Jan 24, 10:19 am, Adrienne Boswell
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "aoksi...@gmail.com"
> @s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > You really need to stay away from Quicktime it is not used by most
> > people and requires a lengthy download to use, and it tends to take
> > over a person's computer like a nasty virus.
>
> There are ways to stop Quicktime and others from doing this. Try using
> Startup Monitor from Mike Lin [www.mlin.net/]. It sits in memory (very
> small), and stops things from trying to load on start. He also has StartUp
> Control Panel, which allows you to get to all the things that are already
> there, that you might not want. I've been using both for years, and
> recommend them highly.
>
> --
> Adrienne Boswell at Home
> Arbpen Web Site Design Serviceshttp://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
> Please respond to the group so others can share
You can also use msconfig ( if running Windows) to stop Qucktime but
every time you update you have to do it all again. The point is it
requires a lengthy download and installs a lot of junk like iTunes
that you might not want.
Daniel
aoksite1@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 23, 10:49 pm, Jeff
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <13pg39m5ag6g...@corp.supernews.com>,
>>> Jeff
>>>> I need a lightweight free to cheap mp3 audio player. It should have a
>>>> start and stop feature and auto play on page load.
>>> I use Quicktime or iTunes or (quite often the brilliant Preview
>>> feature in the Finder on Mac) I think at least you can get the
>>> first two free for a PC?
>> Many thanks. I'd completely forgotten about quicktime. And with that bit
>> of a hint I found the object/embed code.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> Jeff
>
> Jeff,
>
> You really need to stay away from Quicktime it is not used by most
> people and requires a lengthy download to use, and it tends to take
> over a person's computer like a nasty virus. It is much better to
> embed Windows media player because it is more universal and in most
> instances requires no download by the user. For W3C valid code and a
> complete tutorial on how to use visit http://a-ok-site.com/webdesign/embed_files.html
> or do a Google search for embedding media files.
Thanks, I had found a flash component and used that, but I have another
bit I need to do and will use the WMP. Times change. I know at one tim
eit would have been the other way.
Jeff
>
> Daniel
>
> http://a-ok-site.com
Adrienne Boswell wrote:
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "aoksite1@gmail.com"
> @s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
>> You really need to stay away from Quicktime it is not used by most
>> people and requires a lengthy download to use, and it tends to take
>> over a person's computer like a nasty virus.
>
> There are ways to stop Quicktime and others from doing this. Try using
> Startup Monitor from Mike Lin [www.mlin.net/]. It sits in memory (very
> small), and stops things from trying to load on start. He also has StartUp
> Control Panel, which allows you to get to all the things that are already
> there, that you might not want. I've been using both for years, and
> recommend them highly.
Better idea, uninstall the nasty thing and install open source Quicktime
Alternative that knows how to keeps in its place...
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/QuickTime_Alternative.ht m
Been using it for years. While you're at it remove that even nastier
produce Real One Player and replace with Real Alternative
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Real_Alternative.htm
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:11:39
GMT aoksite1@gmail.com scribed:
>> > Jeff
>>
>> >> I need a lightweight free to cheap mp3 audio player. It should
>> >> have a start and stop feature and auto play on page load.
>>
>> > I use Quicktime or iTunes or (quite often the brilliant Preview
>> > feature in the Finder on Mac) I think at least you can get the
>> > first two free for a PC?
>>
>> Many thanks. I'd completely forgotten about quicktime. And with that
>> bit of a hint I found the object/embed code.
>
> Jeff,
>
> You really need to stay away from Quicktime it is not used by most
> people and requires a lengthy download to use, and it tends to take
> over a person's computer like a nasty virus. It is much better to
> embed Windows media player because it is more universal and in most
> instances requires no download by the user. For W3C valid code and a
> complete tutorial on how to use visit
> http://a-ok-site.com/webdesign/embed_files.html or do a Google search
> for embedding media files.
I totally agree and second this. There may be insulators as Adrienne has
suggested, but why deal with crap in the first place? And Jeff, if the
user doesn't have Quicktime/(generic) on his box, it won't work.
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:45:25
GMT SAZ scribed:
> In article <13pg9he5uub84b4@corp.supernews.com>, jeff@spam_me_not.com
> says...
>> >> I need a lightweight free to cheap mp3 audio player. It should
>> >> have a
>> >> start and stop feature and auto play on page load.
>> >>
>> >> I don't want any guff on why this shouldn't be done. So, if you
>> >> know
>> >> how this stupid stupid task can be done, point me at it. If you
>> >> want to preach at me, ask yourself whether it is worth driving
>> >> away another alt.html reader.
>> >
>> > Oh my GAWD! Autoplay??!!! Did your mother drop you on your head?
>> > Is your underwear too tight? Are you a sadist in the making? Did
>> > dodo cast a spell on your eternal psyche? What in tarnation is
>> > WRONG with you, son???
>> >
>> My client insisted, I resisted, she got someone else to do it and
>> it
>> damaged our relationship.
>>
>> I'm in no mood for any of this.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
> A lesson in this business that I learned a long time ago - do what the
> customer wants, no matter how stupid it seems. Why give the work (and
> money) to someone else?
Well, yes, as I told Travis, that's irrefutable in a sense. And in some
(desperate) cases, I would do it. However, I'm basically one of those
American employees who have not yet assimilated the same loss of ethics as
their employers so under any but the most dire circumstances I will refuse
certain things I do not well-abide.
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.
SAZ wrote:
> A lesson in this business that I learned a long time ago - do what the
> customer wants, no matter how stupid it seems. Why give the work (and
> money) to someone else?
Because that isn't the only consideration in the world?
In article <5vsfb3F1ogr1tU1@mid.individual.net>,
hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net says...
> SAZ wrote:
>
> > A lesson in this business that I learned a long time ago - do what the
> > customer wants, no matter how stupid it seems. Why give the work (and
> > money) to someone else?
>
> Because that isn't the only consideration in the world?
>
You can be as self-righteous as you want. You can advise against
something all day, but if the client wants it and it's legal, give it to
him or be prepared to lose the business.
Anyone who has any kind of business sense knows that it's cheaper and
easier to keep a customer than find a new one.
SAZ wrote:
> In article <5vsfb3F1ogr1tU1@mid.individual.net>,
> hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net says...
>> SAZ wrote:
>>
>>> A lesson in this business that I learned a long time ago - do what the
>>> customer wants, no matter how stupid it seems. Why give the work (and
>>> money) to someone else?
>> Because that isn't the only consideration in the world?
>>
>
> You can be as self-righteous as you want. You can advise against
> something all day, but if the client wants it and it's legal, give it to
> him or be prepared to lose the business.
I heard you the first time. And then you asked, "why give the work to
someone else?" And I responded, "because [keeping the client's business]
isn't the only consideration in the world." You asked a question and I
answered it. I don't care if you don't like the answer. It's the answer.
> Anyone who has any kind of business sense knows that it's cheaper and
> easier to keep a customer than find a new one.
And again: that isn't the only consideration in the world. You may
choose to ignore as many of the other considerations as you like, but
they are still there, and I'm sure you would start to agree if your
client said to keep his business you, for example, must have an arm
removed. So please get off *your* high horse about how keeping a client
is the only consideration worth caring about.
In article <5vsindF1nv7nhU1@mid.individual.net>,
hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net says...
> SAZ wrote:
> > In article <5vsfb3F1ogr1tU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net says...
> >> SAZ wrote:
> >>
> >>> A lesson in this business that I learned a long time ago - do what the
> >>> customer wants, no matter how stupid it seems. Why give the work (and
> >>> money) to someone else?
> >> Because that isn't the only consideration in the world?
> >>
> >
> > You can be as self-righteous as you want. You can advise against
> > something all day, but if the client wants it and it's legal, give it to
> > him or be prepared to lose the business.
>
> I heard you the first time. And then you asked, "why give the work to
> someone else?" And I responded, "because [keeping the client's business]
> isn't the only consideration in the world." You asked a question and I
> answered it. I don't care if you don't like the answer. It's the answer.
>
> > Anyone who has any kind of business sense knows that it's cheaper and
> > easier to keep a customer than find a new one.
>
> And again: that isn't the only consideration in the world. You may
> choose to ignore as many of the other considerations as you like, but
> they are still there, and I'm sure you would start to agree if your
> client said to keep his business you, for example, must have an arm
> removed. So please get off *your* high horse about how keeping a client
> is the only consideration worth caring about.
>
I hardly see where your analogy of having an arm removed is the same as
giving the customer an mp3 player on the site.
I'm not on a high horse. Those of us with successful, profitable
businesses will agree - keeping the client happy is paramount.
SAZ wrote:
> In article <5vsindF1nv7nhU1@mid.individual.net>,
> hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net says...
>> SAZ wrote:
>>> In article <5vsfb3F1ogr1tU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net says...
>>>> SAZ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A lesson in this business that I learned a long time ago - do what the
>>>>> customer wants, no matter how stupid it seems. Why give the work (and
>>>>> money) to someone else?
>>>> Because that isn't the only consideration in the world?
>>>>
>>> You can be as self-righteous as you want. You can advise against
>>> something all day, but if the client wants it and it's legal, give it to
>>> him or be prepared to lose the business.
>> I heard you the first time. And then you asked, "why give the work to
>> someone else?" And I responded, "because [keeping the client's business]
>> isn't the only consideration in the world." You asked a question and I
>> answered it. I don't care if you don't like the answer. It's the answer.
>>
>>> Anyone who has any kind of business sense knows that it's cheaper and
>>> easier to keep a customer than find a new one.
>> And again: that isn't the only consideration in the world. You may
>> choose to ignore as many of the other considerations as you like, but
>> they are still there, and I'm sure you would start to agree if your
>> client said to keep his business you, for example, must have an arm
>> removed. So please get off *your* high horse about how keeping a client
>> is the only consideration worth caring about.
>>
> I hardly see where your analogy of having an arm removed is the same as
> giving the customer an mp3 player on the site.
The point of an analogy is to highlight something that isn't obvious in
the original case. Therefore, the thing being compared to is likely to
be more *extreme*. That doesn't mean it isn't *relevant*. The point here
is that your attitude "there is nothing in this world worth considering
other than whether you keep your client", expressed as an axiom, is not one.
In article
SAZ
> In article <5vsfb3F1ogr1tU1@mid.individual.net>,
> hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net says...
> > SAZ wrote:
> >
> > > A lesson in this business that I learned a long time ago - do what the
> > > customer wants, no matter how stupid it seems. Why give the work (and
> > > money) to someone else?
> >
> > Because that isn't the only consideration in the world?
> >
>
> You can be as self-righteous as you want.
To say that it is not the only consideration is not self
righteous, it is just a salute in the direction of self respect...
--
dorayme
On Jan 24, 6:39 pm, dorayme
> In article
>
> SAZ
> > In article <5vsfb3F1ogr1...@mid.individual.net>,
> > hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net says...
> > > SAZ wrote:
>
> > > > A lesson in this business that I learned a long time ago - do what the
> > > > customer wants, no matter how stupid it seems. Why give the work (and
> > > > money) to someone else?
>
> > > Because that isn't the only consideration in the world?
>
> > You can be as self-righteous as you want.
>
> To say that it is not the only consideration is not self
> righteous, it is just a salute in the direction of self respect...
>
> --
> dorayme
I believe the OP has left the building...LOL.
Daniel
http://a-ok-site.com
aoksite1@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 24, 6:39 pm, dorayme
>> In article
>>
>> SAZ
>>> In article <5vsfb3F1ogr1...@mid.individual.net>,
>>> hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net says...
>>>> SAZ wrote:
>>>>> A lesson in this business that I learned a long time ago - do what the
>>>>> customer wants, no matter how stupid it seems. Why give the work (and
>>>>> money) to someone else?
>>>> Because that isn't the only consideration in the world?
>>> You can be as self-righteous as you want.
>> To say that it is not the only consideration is not self
>> righteous, it is just a salute in the direction of self respect...
>>
>> --
>> dorayme
>
> I believe the OP has left the building...LOL.
Out the door, but not quite gone. I peeked back in to see if anything
relevant had happened. Nope. Same old argument between the pragmatists
and the ideologues.
Jeff
>
> Daniel
>
> http://a-ok-site.com
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:28:02
GMT SAZ scribed:
> In article <5vsfb3F1ogr1tU1@mid.individual.net>,
> hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net says...
>> SAZ wrote:
>>
>> > A lesson in this business that I learned a long time ago - do what
>> > the customer wants, no matter how stupid it seems. Why give the
>> > work (and money) to someone else?
>>
>> Because that isn't the only consideration in the world?
>>
>
> You can be as self-righteous as you want. You can advise against
> something all day, but if the client wants it and it's legal, give it
> to him or be prepared to lose the business.
There is no disagreement with that statement. The discussion is about
whether to do it regardless for other reasons, and legal is not always
ethical or just.
> Anyone who has any kind of business sense knows that it's cheaper and
> easier to keep a customer than find a new one.
How profound. But how cheap do you sell yourself to keep that customer?
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:39:56
GMT dorayme scribed:
> In article
> SAZ
>
>> In article <5vsfb3F1ogr1tU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net says...
>> > SAZ wrote:
>> >
>> > > A lesson in this business that I learned a long time ago - do
>> > > what the customer wants, no matter how stupid it seems. Why give
>> > > the work (and money) to someone else?
>> >
>> > Because that isn't the only consideration in the world?
>> >
>>
>> You can be as self-righteous as you want.
>
> To say that it is not the only consideration is not self
> righteous, it is just a salute in the direction of self respect...
That's the second thing you've said in this thread that I've liked...
Unfortunately, the other stuff blows.
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.
Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:28:02
> GMT SAZ scribed:
>
>> In article <5vsfb3F1ogr1tU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net says...
>>> SAZ wrote:
>>>
>>>> A lesson in this business that I learned a long time ago - do what
>>>> the customer wants, no matter how stupid it seems. Why give the
>>>> work (and money) to someone else?
>>> Because that isn't the only consideration in the world?
>>>
>> You can be as self-righteous as you want. You can advise against
>> something all day, but if the client wants it and it's legal, give it
>> to him or be prepared to lose the business.
>
> There is no disagreement with that statement. The discussion is about
> whether to do it regardless for other reasons, and legal is not always
> ethical or just.
>
>> Anyone who has any kind of business sense knows that it's cheaper and
>> easier to keep a customer than find a new one.
>
> How profound. But how cheap do you sell yourself to keep that customer?
Just how high and mighty do you think you are?
This whole thread is about background music on one of the pages of one
of my clients. That's a little cheesy, but it hardly means I've sold
myself cheaply. Now, I've listened to that music I resisted, and I've
come to the conclusion that if it makes my client and her visitors happy
(it's a metaphysical type site) than why not. Why should she, her
clients, or myself care if you want to throw a righteous hissy fit.
Jeff
>
On Jan 24, 12:01 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:
> Been using it for years. While you're at it remove that even nastier
> produce Real One Player and replace with Real Alternative
>
> http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Real_Alternative.htm
Yes, if Real 11 available for your OS, you should remove Real One now,
even if you like it, because the Real 11 is just out of beta where it
had been for some time.
I have WMP11, Real11, QT, iTunes, Winamp, AVS, GOM, FLV, Media Player
Classic, Nero Show Time, Cyberlink PowerDVD, and Nero Media Player all
installed. By far the most nasty is the Nero Media Player. It very
often grabs media files for itself that have been assigned to other
players as primary. This player is part of a large Nero suite. When I
get time, I likely will remove it if that is not too much trouble. If
you carefully assign what player is primary for what media file type
and do not have conflicts, the mentioned players usually all work well
together. You have to watch out when you download a new player and
select the advanced setting for file types it offers to play. The best
thing to do is not check any file types. Then come back and check file
types as you need them to be primary on the new player. If you have
WinPatrol installed, it usually will catch a player trying to steal
files from another, and you must approve the change before WinPatrol
will let it happen. I use most of the players just for checking web
pages to see if they will work properly on a file type. If you use a
player only for testing, you can set it to be primary for no file
types. Then when you want to use the player, you first bring it up and
usually under the file tab you choose to enter a local media file or a
url. Also, it is important not to allow all of the players to start up
when you turn the computer on, or you may have a very long wait.
It is true that Apple now offers the QT download along with iTunes.
None of the players are very big files on comparison to many high
resolution video files when you often use several 1 GB vob files for a
single feature link movie. Even iTunes/QT downloads fairly fast on a
good high broadband connection if their server is not overloaded. I
usually do long downloads at night. However some of the players would
be rather slow downloads on dialup.
In article
monstersquasher@yahoo.com says...
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:28:02
> GMT SAZ scribed:
>
> > In article <5vsfb3F1ogr1tU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net says...
> >> SAZ wrote:
> >>
> >> > A lesson in this business that I learned a long time ago - do what
> >> > the customer wants, no matter how stupid it seems. Why give the
> >> > work (and money) to someone else?
> >>
> >> Because that isn't the only consideration in the world?
> >>
> >
> > You can be as self-righteous as you want. You can advise against
> > something all day, but if the client wants it and it's legal, give it
> > to him or be prepared to lose the business.
>
> There is no disagreement with that statement. The discussion is about
> whether to do it regardless for other reasons, and legal is not always
> ethical or just.
>
> > Anyone who has any kind of business sense knows that it's cheaper and
> > easier to keep a customer than find a new one.
>
> How profound. But how cheap do you sell yourself to keep that customer?
>
>
Cheap is relative. My clients pay me $75/hour to do whatever they want.
cwdjrxyz wrote:
> On Jan 24, 12:01 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
> wrote:
>
>> Been using it for years. While you're at it remove that even nastier
>> produce Real One Player and replace with Real Alternative
>>
>> http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Real_Alternative.htm
>
> Yes, if Real 11 available for your OS, you should remove Real One now,
> even if you like it, because the Real 11 is just out of beta where it
> had been for some time.
Man, what has happened to all these players? I remember using the
real player in it's earliest incarnations and it was the coolest thing.
Streaming audio over a 14.4 connection (and sounding pretty good at
56k), and it never tried to do anything but push the content you wanted.
You could adjust it so it only had the features you wanted. Now
everything looks like a flash component and it takes guess work just to
figure out how it works.
It would be nice if they did what you needed rather than look gorgeous.
Jeff
>
> I have WMP11, Real11, QT, iTunes, Winamp, AVS, GOM, FLV, Media Player
> Classic, Nero Show Time, Cyberlink PowerDVD, and Nero Media Player all
> installed. By far the most nasty is the Nero Media Player. It very
> often grabs media files for itself that have been assigned to other
> players as primary. This player is part of a large Nero suite. When I
> get time, I likely will remove it if that is not too much trouble. If
> you carefully assign what player is primary for what media file type
> and do not have conflicts, the mentioned players usually all work well
> together. You have to watch out when you download a new player and
> select the advanced setting for file types it offers to play. The best
> thing to do is not check any file types. Then come back and check file
> types as you need them to be primary on the new player. If you have
> WinPatrol installed, it usually will catch a player trying to steal
> files from another, and you must approve the change before WinPatrol
> will let it happen. I use most of the players just for checking web
> pages to see if they will work properly on a file type. If you use a
> player only for testing, you can set it to be primary for no file
> types. Then when you want to use the player, you first bring it up and
> usually under the file tab you choose to enter a local media file or a
> url. Also, it is important not to allow all of the players to start up
> when you turn the computer on, or you may have a very long wait.
>
> It is true that Apple now offers the QT download along with iTunes.
> None of the players are very big files on comparison to many high
> resolution video files when you often use several 1 GB vob files for a
> single feature link movie. Even iTunes/QT downloads fairly fast on a
> good high broadband connection if their server is not overloaded. I
> usually do long downloads at night. However some of the players would
> be rather slow downloads on dialup.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:23:20
GMT Jeff scribed:
>>>> SAZ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A lesson in this business that I learned a long time ago - do what
>>>>> the customer wants, no matter how stupid it seems. Why give the
>>>>> work (and money) to someone else?
>>>> Because that isn't the only consideration in the world?
>>>>
>>> You can be as self-righteous as you want. You can advise against
>>> something all day, but if the client wants it and it's legal, give it
>>> to him or be prepared to lose the business.
>>
>> There is no disagreement with that statement. The discussion is about
>> whether to do it regardless for other reasons, and legal is not always
>> ethical or just.
>>
>>> Anyone who has any kind of business sense knows that it's cheaper and
>>> easier to keep a customer than find a new one.
>>
>> How profound. But how cheap do you sell yourself to keep that
customer?
>
> Just how high and mighty do you think you are?
5'8", 155lbs. of pure piss-powered man-meat. Hell, I could tie
Schwarzeneggar in a knot before he had time to move if I hit him below
the belt.
> This whole thread is about background music on one of the pages of one
> of my clients.
Not exactly, but in any case my reply was to a message about giving the
client what he wants.
> That's a little cheesy, but it hardly means I've sold
> myself cheaply. Now, I've listened to that music I resisted, and I've
> come to the conclusion that if it makes my client and her visitors
> happy (it's a metaphysical type site) than why not.
Because as I implied and Harlan Messinger stated more directly, there are
other considerations. However, it doesn't mean you "sold yourself
cheaply", either. I was speaking in general terms with that.
> Why should she, her
> clients, or myself care if you want to throw a righteous hissy fit.
Perhaps one or more of them are members of Hissy Fittists Anonymous. Who
knows?
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:39:33 GMT
SAZ scribed:
> In article
> monstersquasher@yahoo.com says...
>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:28:02
>> GMT SAZ scribed:
>>
>> > In article <5vsfb3F1ogr1tU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> > hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net says...
>> >> SAZ wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > A lesson in this business that I learned a long time ago - do what
>> >> > the customer wants, no matter how stupid it seems. Why give the
>> >> > work (and money) to someone else?
>> >>
>> >> Because that isn't the only consideration in the world?
>> >>
>> >
>> > You can be as self-righteous as you want. You can advise against
>> > something all day, but if the client wants it and it's legal, give it
>> > to him or be prepared to lose the business.
>>
>> There is no disagreement with that statement. The discussion is about
>> whether to do it regardless for other reasons, and legal is not always
>> ethical or just.
>>
>> > Anyone who has any kind of business sense knows that it's cheaper and
>> > easier to keep a customer than find a new one.
>>
>> How profound. But how cheap do you sell yourself to keep that customer?
>>
>>
> Cheap is relative. My clients pay me $75/hour to do whatever they want.
Well, I get $110/hour and set the limits, so I guess it _is_ relative.
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.
Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:23:20
> GMT Jeff scribed:
>
>>>>> SAZ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A lesson in this business that I learned a long time ago - do what
>>>>>> the customer wants, no matter how stupid it seems. Why give the
>>>>>> work (and money) to someone else?
>>>>> Because that isn't the only consideration in the world?
>>>>>
>>>> You can be as self-righteous as you want. You can advise against
>>>> something all day, but if the client wants it and it's legal, give it
>>>> to him or be prepared to lose the business.
>>> There is no disagreement with that statement. The discussion is about
>>> whether to do it regardless for other reasons, and legal is not always
>>> ethical or just.
>>>
>>>> Anyone who has any kind of business sense knows that it's cheaper and
>>>> easier to keep a customer than find a new one.
>>> How profound. But how cheap do you sell yourself to keep that
> customer?
>> Just how high and mighty do you think you are?
>
> 5'8", 155lbs. of pure piss-powered man-meat. Hell, I could tie
> Schwarzeneggar in a knot before he had time to move if I hit him below
> the belt.
6'6" 225lbs.
>
>> This whole thread is about background music on one of the pages of one
>> of my clients.
>
> Not exactly, but in any case my reply was to a message about giving the
> client what he wants.
No, you were proselytizing when it was specifically requested that you
stay on the sidelines unless you had something technical to contribute.
>
>> That's a little cheesy, but it hardly means I've sold
>> myself cheaply. Now, I've listened to that music I resisted, and I've
>> come to the conclusion that if it makes my client and her visitors
>> happy (it's a metaphysical type site) than why not.
>
> Because as I implied and Harlan Messinger stated more directly, there are
> other considerations. However, it doesn't mean you "sold yourself
> cheaply", either. I was speaking in general terms with that.
Just leave it be. Does this always have to degenerate into
personality conflicts?
>
>> Why should she, her
>> clients, or myself care if you want to throw a righteous hissy fit.
>
> Perhaps one or more of them are members of Hissy Fittists Anonymous. Who
> knows?
Call it what you may. But don't you see how this drives people away
from an html group when they get more attitude than answers? All the
longest threads are like that. We all know where each other is coming
from, it's not like we're covering new ground.
There's a few authoring and design issues I'd like to discuss, but it's
hard breaking any new ground when you are treated like a heretic. I'd
rather save the energy.
Perhaps I just don't have the patience for this anymore.
Jeff
>
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:07:39
GMT Jeff scribed:
>>>>> You can be as self-righteous as you want. You can advise against
>>>>> something all day, but if the client wants it and it's legal, give
>>>>> it to him or be prepared to lose the business.
>>>> There is no disagreement with that statement. The discussion is
>>>> about whether to do it regardless for other reasons, and legal is
>>>> not always ethical or just.
>>>>
>>>>> Anyone who has any kind of business sense knows that it's cheaper
>>>>> and easier to keep a customer than find a new one.
>>>> How profound. But how cheap do you sell yourself to keep that
>> customer?
>>> Just how high and mighty do you think you are?
>>
>> 5'8", 155lbs. of pure piss-powered man-meat. Hell, I could tie
>> Schwarzeneggar in a knot before he had time to move if I hit him
>> below the belt.
>
> 6'6" 225lbs.
Ho, a big 'un! How's the weather up thare?
>>> This whole thread is about background music on one of the pages of
>>> one of my clients.
>>
>> Not exactly, but in any case my reply was to a message about giving
>> the client what he wants.
>
> No, you were proselytizing when it was specifically requested that
> you
> stay on the sidelines unless you had something technical to
> contribute.
Proselytizing isn't illegal, and in this case, my client (me) wanted to
do it. Furthermore, professing one's beliefs isn't detrimental to
humanity when those beliefs are true and valid.
>>> That's a little cheesy, but it hardly means I've sold
>>> myself cheaply. Now, I've listened to that music I resisted, and
>>> I've come to the conclusion that if it makes my client and her
>>> visitors happy (it's a metaphysical type site) than why not.
>>
>> Because as I implied and Harlan Messinger stated more directly, there
>> are other considerations. However, it doesn't mean you "sold
>> yourself cheaply", either. I was speaking in general terms with
>> that.
>
> Just leave it be. Does this always have to degenerate into
> personality conflicts?
What personality conflict? Do you believe that your personality is in
conflict with my personality? That can hardly be true because you don't
even know me well. However, I know you well enough to see that you seem
to grasp onto the nearest trite cliche, slogan, or dogma to express
yourself.
>>> Why should she, her
>>> clients, or myself care if you want to throw a righteous hissy fit.
>>
>> Perhaps one or more of them are members of Hissy Fittists Anonymous.
>> Who knows?
>
> Call it what you may. But don't you see how this drives people away
> from an html group when they get more attitude than answers? All the
> longest threads are like that.
Sure, that's pretty accurate. But their expectations of a helpdesk are
rather unrealistic, anyway, and as I said before, the answerers are here
for reasons of their own as well. I enjoy helping people sometimes but
I'm not going to kiss their asses to do it and I am going to express my
opinions as I, not they, see fit. If they don't like it, let them take a
hike.
> We all know where each other is coming
> from, it's not like we're covering new ground.
>
> There's a few authoring and design issues I'd like to discuss, but
> it's hard breaking any new ground when you are treated like a heretic.
> I'd rather save the energy.
As big as you are physically, you sound rather weak in spirit.
> Perhaps I just don't have the patience for this anymore.
Perhaps. Or perhaps you're just tired of the bullshit. Maybe you're
getting old, too. (Look at what happened to Blinky.) Btw, you shrink
when you age if you haven't already noticed.
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.
Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:07:39
> GMT Jeff scribed:
>
>>>>>> You can be as self-righteous as you want. You can advise against
>>>>>> something all day, but if the client wants it and it's legal, give
>>>>>> it to him or be prepared to lose the business.
>>>>> There is no disagreement with that statement. The discussion is
>>>>> about whether to do it regardless for other reasons, and legal is
>>>>> not always ethical or just.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone who has any kind of business sense knows that it's cheaper
>>>>>> and easier to keep a customer than find a new one.
>>>>> How profound. But how cheap do you sell yourself to keep that
>>> customer?
>>>> Just how high and mighty do you think you are?
>>> 5'8", 155lbs. of pure piss-powered man-meat. Hell, I could tie
>>> Schwarzeneggar in a knot before he had time to move if I hit him
>>> below the belt.
>> 6'6" 225lbs.
>
> Ho, a big 'un! How's the weather up thare?
I think the old line is I'll spit in your eye and you'll know it's
raining up here.
>
>>>> This whole thread is about background music on one of the pages of
>>>> one of my clients.
>>> Not exactly, but in any case my reply was to a message about giving
>>> the client what he wants.
>> No, you were proselytizing when it was specifically requested that
>> you
>> stay on the sidelines unless you had something technical to
>> contribute.
>
> Proselytizing isn't illegal, and in this case, my client (me) wanted to
> do it. Furthermore, professing one's beliefs isn't detrimental to
> humanity when those beliefs are true and valid.
>
>>>> That's a little cheesy, but it hardly means I've sold
>>>> myself cheaply. Now, I've listened to that music I resisted, and
>>>> I've come to the conclusion that if it makes my client and her
>>>> visitors happy (it's a metaphysical type site) than why not.
>>> Because as I implied and Harlan Messinger stated more directly, there
>>> are other considerations. However, it doesn't mean you "sold
>>> yourself cheaply", either. I was speaking in general terms with
>>> that.
>> Just leave it be. Does this always have to degenerate into
>> personality conflicts?
>
> What personality conflict? Do you believe that your personality is in
> conflict with my personality?
Well, no.
That can hardly be true because you don't
> even know me well. However, I know you well enough to see that you seem
> to grasp onto the nearest trite cliche, slogan, or dogma to express
> yourself.
>
>>>> Why should she, her
>>>> clients, or myself care if you want to throw a righteous hissy fit.
>>> Perhaps one or more of them are members of Hissy Fittists Anonymous.
>>> Who knows?
>> Call it what you may. But don't you see how this drives people away
>> from an html group when they get more attitude than answers? All the
>> longest threads are like that.
>
> Sure, that's pretty accurate. But their expectations of a helpdesk are
> rather unrealistic, anyway, and as I said before, the answerers are here
> for reasons of their own as well. I enjoy helping people sometimes but
> I'm not going to kiss their asses to do it and I am going to express my
> opinions as I, not they, see fit. If they don't like it, let them take a
> hike.
I really don't have a problem with that. I read a few technical
groups and it's expected for people to research before they post. Taking
OPs down that don't is fair game.
>
>> We all know where each other is coming
>> from, it's not like we're covering new ground.
>>
>> There's a few authoring and design issues I'd like to discuss, but
>> it's hard breaking any new ground when you are treated like a heretic.
>> I'd rather save the energy.
>
> As big as you are physically, you sound rather weak in spirit.
>
>> Perhaps I just don't have the patience for this anymore.
>
> Perhaps. Or perhaps you're just tired of the bullshit.
Mostly. I've got a lot to do and don't have the time for this. Surely,
you've bee there?
Maybe you're
> getting old, too. (Look at what happened to Blinky.) Btw, you shrink
> when you age if you haven't already noticed.
Jeff
>
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:38:14
GMT Jeff scribed:
>>> 6'6" 225lbs.
>>
>> Ho, a big 'un! How's the weather up thare?
>
> I think the old line is I'll spit in your eye and you'll know it's
> raining up here.
>>>>> Why should she, her
>>>>> clients, or myself care if you want to throw a righteous hissy
>>>>> fit.
>>>> Perhaps one or more of them are members of Hissy Fittists
>>>> Anonymous. Who knows?
>>> Call it what you may. But don't you see how this drives people
>>> away
>>> from an html group when they get more attitude than answers? All the
>>> longest threads are like that.
>>
>> Sure, that's pretty accurate. But their expectations of a helpdesk
>> are rather unrealistic, anyway, and as I said before, the answerers
>> are here for reasons of their own as well. I enjoy helping people
>> sometimes but I'm not going to kiss their asses to do it and I am
>> going to express my opinions as I, not they, see fit. If they don't
>> like it, let them take a hike.
>
> I really don't have a problem with that. I read a few technical
> groups and it's expected for people to research before they post.
> Taking OPs down that don't is fair game.
Of course. Otoh, it is true the people sometimes become fairly abusive
in responding to posts but the correct procedure is just to ignore those
and address the constructive replies only. It takes 2 (or more) to
argue.
>>> We all know where each other is coming
>>> from, it's not like we're covering new ground.
>>>
>>> There's a few authoring and design issues I'd like to discuss, but
>>> it's hard breaking any new ground when you are treated like a
>>> heretic. I'd rather save the energy.
>>
>> As big as you are physically, you sound rather weak in spirit.
>>
>>> Perhaps I just don't have the patience for this anymore.
>>
>> Perhaps. Or perhaps you're just tired of the bullshit.
>
> Mostly. I've got a lot to do and don't have the time for this. Surely,
> you've bee there?
Oh yeah. Sometimes when I get real busy I get dingy. But when the smoke
clears and the money rolls in, it seems like it's all worth it. I
wonder, though, if it is.
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.
In article
Neredbojias
> But when the smoke
> clears and the money rolls in, it seems like it's all worth it.
I understand you earn big money at web related things. Good for
you. I make my money in another way:
In Australia at the beaches, there are are public showers. For
water conservation reasons, the local councils have button taps
on them, these must be kept pressed for the water to flow. They
are small and smooth and the tiles or stainless steel sheeting
behind them are smooth too (precluding any easy jamming device).
It is very hard to keep the shower going without a human finger.
I employ an army of little boys and girls (these little suckers I
pay absolute peanuts to) to offer swimmers, for a small fee, to
hold the button that keeps the public showers going. It is a big
money spinner and as a result, I am able to offer my web services
completely for free.
--
dorayme
On Jan 26, 1:58 pm, dorayme
> In article
>
> Neredbojias
> > But when the smoke
> > clears and the money rolls in, it seems like it's all worth it.
>
> I understand you earn big money at web related things. Good for
> you. I make my money in another way:
>
> In Australia at the beaches, there are are public showers. For
> water conservation reasons, the local councils have button taps
> on them, these must be kept pressed for the water to flow. They
> are small and smooth and the tiles or stainless steel sheeting
> behind them are smooth too (precluding any easy jamming device).
> It is very hard to keep the shower going without a human finger.
>
> I employ an army of little boys and girls (these little suckers I
> pay absolute peanuts to) to offer swimmers, for a small fee, to
> hold the button that keeps the public showers going. It is a big
> money spinner and as a result, I am able to offer my web services
> completely for free.
>
> --
> dorayme
And you are proud of exploiting children?
Daniel
In article
<7d5f0933-1368-4e20-a529-48a9d71ef91a@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.co
m>,
"aoksite1@gmail.com"
> On Jan 26, 1:58 pm, dorayme
> > In article
> >
> > Neredbojias
> > > But when the smoke
> > > clears and the money rolls in, it seems like it's all worth it.
> >
> > I understand you earn big money at web related things. Good for
> > you. I make my money in another way:
> >
> > In Australia at the beaches, there are are public showers. For
> > water conservation reasons, the local councils have button taps
> > on them, these must be kept pressed for the water to flow. They
> > are small and smooth and the tiles or stainless steel sheeting
> > behind them are smooth too (precluding any easy jamming device).
> > It is very hard to keep the shower going without a human finger.
> >
> > I employ an army of little boys and girls (these little suckers I
> > pay absolute peanuts to) to offer swimmers, for a small fee, to
> > hold the button that keeps the public showers going. It is a big
> > money spinner and as a result, I am able to offer my web services
> > completely for free.
> >
> > --
> > dorayme
>
> And you are proud of exploiting children?
>
No, I am deeply ashamed. It is no excuse that they enjoy the
work, entertain the crowds that gather (the showers are on public
promenades), get extra hidden tips from the swimmers (which, btw,
I am trying to stamp out or get a cut of). But I have checked
with my lawyers and it is perfectly legal if it is done in a
certain way. Apparently there is a little known 19th century
Australian law that allows it, if, in effect, the adult openly
dresses in the manner of Fagin and stoops around smiling with
coins jingling ostentatiously in the pocket.
--
dorayme
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:58:00 GMT
dorayme scribed:
> In article
> Neredbojias
>
>> But when the smoke
>> clears and the money rolls in, it seems like it's all worth it.
>
> I understand you earn big money at web related things. Good for
> you. I make my money in another way:
Ahh, there's more to the story but I won't explain it because doing so can
only be detrimental to my personal fortune. I'm not the greatest web
author or programmer who ever lived; there are people here undoubtedly
better and more talented, but sometimes I do have a certain tenacity of
purpose which serves me in good form and circumstances have smiled upon me
occasionally as well.
> In Australia at the beaches, there are are public showers. For
> water conservation reasons, the local councils have button taps
> on them, these must be kept pressed for the water to flow. They
> are small and smooth and the tiles or stainless steel sheeting
> behind them are smooth too (precluding any easy jamming device).
> It is very hard to keep the shower going without a human finger.
>
> I employ an army of little boys and girls (these little suckers I
> pay absolute peanuts to) to offer swimmers, for a small fee, to
> hold the button that keeps the public showers going. It is a big
> money spinner and as a result, I am able to offer my web services
> completely for free.
Just goes to show what an obdurate finger can accomplish.
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:04:03 GMT
aoksite1@gmail.com scribed:
>> I employ an army of little boys and girls (these little suckers I
>> pay absolute peanuts to) to offer swimmers, for a small fee, to
>> hold the button that keeps the public showers going. It is a big
>> money spinner and as a result, I am able to offer my web services
>> completely for free.
>>
>> --
>> dorayme
>
> And you are proud of exploiting children?
What else are they good for (-possibly besides an occasional snack)?
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.