Are you Ken Wesson with a new account? On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Cedric Greevey <cgree...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Damien Lepage <damienlep...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Everyone, >> >> You may have seen this already, if not I believe it's worth investing 1h of >> your life: >> http://vimeo.com/36579366 >> >> That's already a good candidate for the technical talk of the year, if not >> the decade IMO. > > What is it with people these days and using videos for stuff that > could be far better posted as text? > > A "talk" can inherently be presented as text, perhaps HTML with a few > inline images if there are slides. > > And text (or HTML) has some HUGE advantages: > > * Download size is kilobytes, not gigabytes > > * Can be viewed on dialup, mobile, etc. without stuttering, not > working at all, costing an arm and a leg, or etc. > > * Google can find it by the full content of the talk, not just what > few keywords someone slaps onto the video's youtube page plus the > inanities added by the inevitable swarm of troll commenters. > > * You can search in it yourself with ctrl-F in your browser. > > * You can skim it. > > * If you're a fast reader, you can probably read it and comprehend > it all in less than an hour. > > * You can navigate in it very easily, using normal scrolling, search, > and other browser tools, and see where you're going while you > scroll, rather than having to drag a tiny little thingy across a > tiny little seek bar blind, drop it, and then wait 40 seconds while > a little wheel spins for the Flash player to *maybe* jump to the > spot in the video, whereupon you will repeat the process a few > times with ever finer adjustments; but the player might hang > or snap back to where it was or crash instead. > > * You can keep a copy for offline viewing without needing: > a) hacking tools to bypass the attempts by the popular video > sites to be streaming-only, > b) one or another big bloated piece of media player software that > will steal file associations at inconvenient and random times, > and > c) a shitload of disk space. > > * No extra plugins etc. needed to view it that guzzle CPU and > memory, crash at inconvenient times, and the like. You can view > it in Lynx (minus the slides, if any) if you want to. You can > view it on a 286 with no graphics card (not no 3D card, no > graphics, period, just 80x24 text mode). You can view it on your > old Commodore 64 with 300 baud modem if you want to and it won't > take sixty thousand years to download on that either. > > * You can copy and paste bits of it into a snippets file or > whatever, if there's bits you want to refer back to later that > gave you technical ideas. Or print it out and apply hiliter to > key passages. Or etc. > > * If you're blind you can still get screen-reader software to > read it for you. If you're deaf, on the other hand, a video is > quite likely to be completely useless, since streaming framerates > and lip-reading don't tend to mix and none of these things seem > to be closed-captioned. > > * Text is easy and cheap to mirror widely around the net and > relatively easy to translate to other languages. Video can be > hosted free at only a handful of sites and is more work to > translate. > > What does video get you that text or HTML+images couldn't get you? > > * You can hear what the guy's voice actually sounds like. > > * You get to see a talking head bobbing around and lips moving in > a jerky, stuttery sort of way. > > * You get the pronunciation, but not the spelling, of the obscure > technical/latin words that get used, instead of the other way > 'round. > > * There can be full-motion video demonstrations of things. > > Not worth what you lose, IMO, even if you aren't deaf, and especially > if you are. Full-motion video demonstrations can be separate short > videos embedded in a text+images web page. > > Oh, and by the way, your post doesn't even bother to actually say > what, exactly, the talk is about. It implies strongly that it has > something to do with interactive development tools, and it's clear > that something in it wowed you, but that's it, and the URL itself is > completely opaque. Apparently the only way to find out in more detail > what the talk's topic is is to click the link, at minimum, and maybe > you even have to play the video part-way. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
