Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > embed tag

Reply
Thread Tools

embed tag

 
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2005
> From: "Greg N." <(E-Mail Removed)>
>
> dorayme wrote:
>
>> Not true. In general, yes, it should be optional. That's as far
>> as you can go without saying false things. The fundamentalist
>> view expressed by you here would exclude a lot of things that
>> could be a lot of fun, the fun being ruined if one has the
>> choice... It is nice to be helplessly surprised by some things.
>> One does not need to be so in control of every thing at every
>> stage.

>
> Not true. Thoise "things that could be a lot of fun... It is nice to be
> helplessly surprised ..." could be fun or nice for some, but not all
> potential visitors - That's as far as *you* can go without saying false
> things.
>
> I would say that uncontrollable acoustic content, though some may like
> it in some cases, *will*, without any doubt, annoy a percentage of visitors.
>
> The question remains, should a civilized person do things that might be
> offensive to a part (however small) of the audience, without giving them
> a choice. I think the answer is no.
>


OK Greg N...

What exactly out of my paragraph, in which I said a number of
things, is not true? Were they all wrong? I'd be shocked to have
got /everything/ wrong!

In order for it to be nice for some (like those of us without
this old fuddy-duddy, precious, hoity-toity attitude commonly
exhibited about being intruded upon), it is important that some
sounds and images be part of an unannounced package of a
website! It has to be embedded or forced played in order for it
to be a nice surprise on anyone. That it is not nice for all is
one thing. Yes, this is the price. I will come to the nature of
this price in a moment.

Basically, our little dispute here boils down to this: We both
generally agree: Do not embed! You go further and say it is
never worth it. I say it is sometimes worth it.

About civilization old chap... this is quite wrong. If you had
your way, no one would be able to do anything publicly because
it would offend some people. This is, to put it bluntly, stuff
and nonsense. I hate to do this because some naturally cynical
minds will think that somehow I am trying to push my views on
other matters but you do not have to read it all: there is quite
a reasonable explanation about the balance in these matters of
the limits of freedom in my
http://dorayme.150m.com/opinionFolder/drugLaws.html Perhaps you
can look at the first quarter and adapt the sort of reasoning to
this. And then go read Mill for more.

I imagine that if you (in your present mood) ever become king,
you would ban anyone in a public street from playing a guitar
because it is annoying to some! I say this: I would ban it if
people had no chioice but to listen, as outside a private house.
Now, this is about the price, unlike the private house, one can
be rid of an unwanted website at the click of a mouse. So the
price is not as dramatic as you make out.

dorayme

(Would people please refrain from contradicting me unnecessarily
as it causes me to get severe RSIin my tendons from replying at
length.)






 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2005
> From: "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>
> dorayme wrote:
>
>>> From: "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>
>>> Music, or any sounds, on a web site should be optional via a clickable
>>> link.

>>
>> Not true. In general, yes, it should be optional. That's as far as you
>> can go without saying false things. The fundamentalist view expressed
>> by you here would exclude a lot of things that could be a lot of fun,
>> the fun being ruined if one has the choice... It is nice to be
>> helplessly surprised by some things. One does not need to be so in
>> control of every thing at every stage.
>>
>> As we have been lucky enough to learn from Luigi, freedom is very
>> important. But it is not overwhelmingly so in all circumstances.
>>
>> You have been given an argument here. Try to appreciate it before
>> making any fundamentalist reply...

>
> Nope, I'm not going to argue. Music should be optional, the choice of
> the visitor.
>


Ah, Beauregard! But you did not take the other instruction on
board, namely to appreciate the argument before giving a
fundamentalist reply...

dorayme

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
TJ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2005
dorayme wrote:

>> From: "Greg N." <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>
>>> Not true. In general, yes, it should be optional. That's as far
>>> as you can go without saying false things. The fundamentalist
>>> view expressed by you here would exclude a lot of things that
>>> could be a lot of fun, the fun being ruined if one has the
>>> choice... It is nice to be helplessly surprised by some things.
>>> One does not need to be so in control of every thing at every
>>> stage.

>>
>> Not true. Thoise "things that could be a lot of fun... It is nice to
>> be helplessly surprised ..." could be fun or nice for some, but not
>> all potential visitors - That's as far as *you* can go without
>> saying false things.
>>
>> I would say that uncontrollable acoustic content, though some may
>> like
>> it in some cases, *will*, without any doubt, annoy a percentage of
>> visitors.
>>
>> The question remains, should a civilized person do things that might
>> be offensive to a part (however small) of the audience, without
>> giving them
>> a choice. I think the answer is no.
>>

>
> OK Greg N...
>
> What exactly out of my paragraph, in which I said a number of
> things, is not true? Were they all wrong? I'd be shocked to have
> got /everything/ wrong!


Why? I get everything wrong on a consistant basis. I can give you the
wife's email addy if ya don't believe me.

> In order for it to be nice for some (like those of us without
> this old fuddy-duddy, precious, hoity-toity attitude commonly
> exhibited about being intruded upon),


Or the poor souls without mute buttons on their keyboards ...

> it is important that some
> sounds and images be part of an unannounced package of a
> website!


Whoops! Images I don't mind, but we have a problem if you're gonna try to
force sound on me. Ya lost me there. I wanna hear what *I* am listening
to, not what *you* want me to listen to. Ordinarily I disagree with the
poop-sticks that frequent this group, but in *this* case, they are right.
You shouldn't "force" sound on a visitor, but feel free to make it an
option.

> It has to be embedded or forced played in order for it
> to be a nice surprise on anyone.


I don't like *that* kind of surprise. See above.

> That it is not nice for all is
> one thing. Yes, this is the price. I will come to the nature of
> this price in a moment.


No offense, but English isn't your first language, is it?

> Basically, our little dispute here boils down to this: We both
> generally agree: Do not embed! You go further and say it is
> never worth it. I say it is sometimes worth it.


You're wrong. I (like a majority of people) surf around while listening to
music *I* like. I have no interest in having your website garble it up with
what *you* like. Get it?

<snip pontification>


 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2005
> From: "TJ" <(E-Mail Removed)>

> dorayme wrote:
>
>>> From: "Greg N." <(E-Mail Removed)>

>


>> That it is not nice for all is
>> one thing. Yes, this is the price. I will come to the nature of
>> this price in a moment.

>
> No offense, but English isn't your first language, is it?
>


You are right, my first language is Martian. But I want to
improve. Help me out here Mr.
English-Speaker-as-a-First-Language-Man. Tell me how you found
out about me from the sentence "That it is not nice for all is
one thing. Yes, this is the price. I will come to the nature of
this price in a moment"?

>> Basically, our little dispute here boils down to this: We
>> both generally agree: Do not embed! You go further and say
>> it is never worth it. I say it is sometimes worth it.
>> You're wrong.


I am wrong to say that you do not think it worth it? OK, you do
think it worth it. In other words we agree. So what are we
arguing about?

> I (like a majority of people) surf around while listening to
> music *I* like.


Where do you get your data on this from, your school friends
perhaps? My observation is that a great many if not most adults
have no music at all.

> I have no interest in having your website garble it up with
> what *you* like. Get it?


This is a simple enough point, why would I not get it? You mean
that you do not like to be intruded upon, you poor precious
thing...

I like to be surprised, so I hope some people judiciously
embed things now and again to surprise me. Get it?

dorayme

(...who, btw, does not "surf the net" - down under we have
beautiful oceans to do the real thing...)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Toby Inkster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2005
Travis Newbury wrote:

> My standard reference is that google would not be as popular if it
> relied on Flash, and the opposite is true for cartoon network's site.


I suspect that most of the visitors to the Cartoon Network's site do not
care about what technology is used to create the effect. They would be
equally happy if the same effect was implemented via lots of Javascript
and images instead of Flash.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

 
Reply With Quote
 
Travis Newbury
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2005
Toby Inkster <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>> My standard reference is that google would not be as popular if
>> it relied on Flash, and the opposite is true for cartoon
>> network's site.

> I suspect that most of the visitors to the Cartoon Network's
> site do not care about what technology is used to create the
> effect. They would be equally happy if the same effect was
> implemented via lots of Javascript and images instead of Flash.


Even so, it still agrees with my point. They want the animation and
the fun and excitement that it brings. THAT is what adds to the
site. Adding the same thing to google would not bring the same
enthusiasm.

So my point still stands. What makes a sight "popular" is different
for each site.

--
-=tn=-
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2005
With neither quill nor qualm, Travis Newbury quothed:

> Toby Inkster <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
> >> My standard reference is that google would not be as popular if
> >> it relied on Flash, and the opposite is true for cartoon
> >> network's site.

> > I suspect that most of the visitors to the Cartoon Network's
> > site do not care about what technology is used to create the
> > effect. They would be equally happy if the same effect was
> > implemented via lots of Javascript and images instead of Flash.

>
> Even so, it still agrees with my point. They want the animation and
> the fun and excitement that it brings. THAT is what adds to the
> site. Adding the same thing to google would not bring the same
> enthusiasm.
>
> So my point still stands. What makes a sight "popular" is different
> for each site.


And as for the porn sites, Vive la Difference!

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Travis Newbury
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2005
Neredbojias wrote:
> > So my point still stands. What makes a sight "popular" is different
> > for each site.>

> And as for the porn sites, Vive la Difference!


We agree!!
--
-=tn=-

 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2005
With neither quill nor qualm, Travis Newbury quothed:

> Neredbojias wrote:
> > > So my point still stands. What makes a sight "popular" is different
> > > for each site.>

> > And as for the porn sites, Vive la Difference!

>
> We agree!!


Actually, I only visit porn sites to peruse the articles.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Travis Newbury
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2005
Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>> > And as for the porn sites, Vive la Difference!

>> We agree!!

> Actually, I only visit porn sites to peruse the articles.


Not me. I there for the porn

--
-=tn=-
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
how do u invoke Tag b's Tag Handler from within Tag a's tag Handler? shruds Java 1 01-27-2006 03:00 AM
Tragic loss of the "embed" tag Jason Gogela ASP .Net 3 11-15-2005 03:35 AM
Problems with <embed> tag Chris Leffer ASP .Net 0 07-26-2004 08:34 PM
EMBED - how critical a tag is it? The Doormouse HTML 6 04-14-2004 05:45 AM
How to embed the <jsp:plugin> tag into a tag handler class...HELP !! jstack Java 1 07-04-2003 06:58 PM



Advertisments