Posted by Immortalist on 01/19/47 11:43

"Sven Hesse" <drmccoy@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
news:slrne2gefk.80f.drmccoy@tchibo.coffee.org...
> Immortalist <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Sven Hesse" <drmccoy@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrne2faep.3sg.drmccoy@tchibo.coffee.org...
>>> Immortalist <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> There is also a way to download the smal flash file, decompile
>>>> the code and find the domain and archie and then past the number in the
>>>> original url on the back and paste it in the address box, click and it
>>>> asks
>>>> you if you want to download.
>>>
>>> That's what I did, you'll get a FLV (Flash Video), playable with
>>> MPlayer or VLC, for example...
>>>
>>
>> Actually there is a further way to get the original uploaded movie file
>> in
>> various formats that it was uploaded in.
>
> That may be, I don't really care that much for these videos...
>

Your supposed to search for the bands you like unless you don't like music.

>>> Nope, capturing the screen is not at all superior, you'll lose quality
>>> by the multiple encodings...
>>>
>>
>> True, but good enough for collecting rare stuff. The quality can be
>> adjusted
>> higher than the original content if your accessing your video and audio
>> drivers from DVDx.
>
> By "original content" you mean what you see when you watch directly from
> YouTube via the flashplayer? If so, then "the quality can be adjusted
> higher" is just plain bullshit. When you capture the screen, you'll get
> images of an already (lossy) compressed video, (lossy-)compressing them
> again when returning these to a video will _never_ increase the quality,
> quite the contrary, it will reduce it severly...
> For me, as a "quality fetishist", it's downright not acceptable...
>

True, but I am at least capturing that quality with a better bit rate so
nothing is missed from what is provided.

Your wrong about the flash player though because the flash player is similar
to any other player. I have learned to make a flash player call in various
movies like .mov, .mpg, .avi, etc. Each time you click on the movie at
youtube the flash player is calling in the originally uploaded movie file.
You may have room to compare the quality of different movie players not the
original content that is called into it.

>>> Crossposting in the many groups, especially since your posts are
>>> completely off-topic in most of them is certainly evil.
>>> Also, you posted this message twice in the span of a few days...
>>>
>>
>> All the groups but philosophy have something to do with music. I normally
>> post from philosophy.
>
> Asking/Advertising how to download videos from YouTube still isn't
> relavent in these groups, IMHO. There's probably a
> alt.comp.internet.culture or something like that, there it would be more
> appropriate...
>

Can you give an example of something that is close to being appropriate and
another that is definately appropriate and then type out the standard we
shall use to determine this, while showing where my actions are in relation
to the criteria? This standard cannot contradict itself in order for me to
agree to what your saying.

>> What do you mean by evil? Is that something you say when you can't think
>> of
>> anything else?
>
> Just a generic word for "bad, don't do that", it's quite commonly used
> for that meaning where I'm at (often pronounced in a ridiculous manner
> of some sort, sounding more like "evul"). I thought it'd would be pretty
> widespread, maybe I was wrong there... *shrug*
>

It's ok as long as you can explain it and its not an ad hominum or other
fallacies of innuendo.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

>> Is it religious
>
> Nope
>
>> just the equivalent to bad?
>
> Yep
>
> [irrelevant stuff snipped]
>
>> All the groups have something to do with music except my main hang out in
>> philosophy.
>
> Yeah, but not directly to YouTube or similar, you can get music videos
> far more easier and with higher quality from nearly everywhere (from one
> of the thousands of P2P-networks, for example).
>

I have more than a thousand videos from those P2P networks but have found
videos in one search on YouTube that I haven't been able to find search
since the original Napster and all her bastard children. P2P is still great
but YouTube is more diverse and has more.

>> What about the others who decide not to post a real name? Are you saying
>> they should be condemned?
>
> Nope, not at all. It also was just a minor point, the other two
> weighting far more.
>
>> Please amplify this ethical standard to better persuade us.
>
> It's just that a real name gives you more credibility, since you're less
> likely to flame or troll away when you're not called "L33THAXORZ" or
> something...

I believe that the most important thing is the worth of the argument and how
well it is argued.

[Back to original message]