? Video in posts ??

[B.J.]

I noticed today that several posts indicate VIDEO in the subject line. Since my internet access is either via dialup or a sat service with a MB limit, I never download video. So I have avoided reading those posts.

However, then I read a regular thread which I had been following, and I see a U-tube video in the middle of a post. Is that part of the post, or is this one of those Google-Ads or something??

Either way, I must say that I don't think it's appropriate, not this particular instance, because it seems to be relatively small, but the fact that it is possible for videos to be included in the messages .

Not all readers have high speed internet, and some have limits to the # MBs they can download, and it appears that every time you click on this thread, it downloads the video (which I haven't watched BTW). Anyway, I'm just curious whether there is any way to read messages on this forum without being forced to download videos that potentially can eventually put me over my download limit. This video may not be big, I don't know, but the fact that the capability is there concerns me. And I have avoided reading ANY of these new threads that Sadoun has posted for fear that there is some video there. But at least he has put Video in the title. But I can see that things can get out of hand if it's possible to put big content in the messages. I guess my only option would be to only read this forum from a browser on which I have running in text mode, and I'm not sure that would even work.

Anyway I hope this forum doesn't become something that only people on high speed connections can use. I'm hoping that I'm wrong with respect to the content loading before clicking on it, but it sure looks like it loaded.

Guess I'm just old fashioned, in that I prefer text based mailing lists to these forums, but in this case I don't have other options, since there isn't any unlimited bandwidth high speed internet around here. I have to drive to the next town to find wireless access to high speed internet.

 

[SpiffWilkie]

The videos are actually just embedded youtube videos. I don't belive there's actually a transfer of data unless you click on the link and start the player, at which time it starts the streaming.

Edit: Of course, I'm at work right now, so I can't test my theory due to youtube being blocked.

 

[meinename]

I hear you.

For a good while all I've had was dial-up.

I got using firefox for it's instant rendering of the page.
I'm talking about rendering the info it has instead of waiting for it all to be ready.
I'm thankful extensions/add-ons to firefox.
OT: I loved Adblock. At the time the Ad-servers had wonderful(ly time wasting) scripts that check each server in a round-robin fashion looking for one that wasn't overloaded. A webpage with one of these scripts on dial-ip (let alone Cable or DSL) would take minutes to load just waiting for the ads. The rest of the webpage finished loading in the first minute. Adblock blacklisted those scripts and pages loaded within a minute once more.
NoScript does too good of a job blocking unnecessary bandwidth-wasting crap unless you click on it to to indicate you want to use it. But NoScript is not for everyone, sometimes Flashblock is enough.

If your that much into text-based I believe if you "subscribe to a thread" you should be able to get the forum to e-mail you updates.

@ Spiff:
The Flash-based player still has to be downloaded and it's not always a light file.

 

[SpiffWilkie]

@ Spiff:
The Flash-based player still has to be downloaded and it's not always a light file.

Ah. Didn't consider that. I would say adblock would be the way to go. That's what I use on my end as well.

 

[B.J.]

The videos are actually just embedded youtube videos. I don't belive there's actually a transfer of data unless you click on the link and start the player, at which time it starts the streaming.

Edit: Of course, I'm at work right now, so I can't test my theory due to youtube being blocked.

OH, OK. I hope you're right about content not loading in background. I'll have to check that out with a network sniffer.

However your reply DID remind me of a simple way to control this, ie just block YouTube in my hosts file.

thanks.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Better yet, don't click on any threads with the subject of VIDEO in the title.

The videos Sadoun has been putting up have actually taught me a few things.

 

[B.J.]

I hear you.

For a good while all I've had was dial-up.

I got using firefox for it's instant rendering of the page.
I'm talking about rendering the info it has instead of waiting for it all to be ready.
I'm thankful extensions/add-ons to firefox.

I have firefox loaded, but usually use SeaMonkey. I'll have to check and see if that add-on is available for SeaMonkey. The one I really like is the Pref Bar thing that lets you turn off images, Java, Flash, Popups, etc with a quick click, then turn back on later without going into menus. This sounds like some of the things you mentioned, like Flashblock, but they don't seem to stop things like these from loading for me.

OT: I loved Adblock. At the time the Ad-servers had wonderful(ly time wasting) scripts that check each server in a round-robin fashion looking for one that wasn't overloaded. A webpage with one of these scripts on dial-ip (let alone Cable or DSL) would take minutes to load just waiting for the ads. The rest of the webpage finished loading in the first minute. Adblock blacklisted those scripts and pages loaded within a minute once more.

Yeah, this was one reason I used to block sites via the hosts file, but it got too cumbersome because they were coming from so many different addresses. But yeah, I remember speeding up loading from minutes to seconds by blocking a couple specific URLs.

 

[Anole]

B.J. -

Regarding HOSTs , see this site.
It has a large pre-configured list of junk to block.
Also has a good explanation of how it works, and how to remove or change if you need to.

On my laptop, I just do not have Flash loaded, so that cuts down on the extraneous garbage quite a lot.
If I need to see Flash content, my other computers have it.
Many folks do not have the self-control to keep from loading it, though.

 

[Corrado]

My home dial up connection makes video viewing impossible. Some members post huge photos that take forever to view also I wish I could see. I realize it's the 21st Century...but...

Being a SatelliteGuy, I will never have cable and DSL doesn't exist for me out where I live until the phone company upgrades the 60+ year old wires. Living in the middle of nowhere got me into satellite in the first place.

Even here at work, I need special network permission from the IT Administrator to even be on this website. Luckily, I helped him when he needed a Dish 500 LNBF when he needed one. Youtube will never happen.

 

[Anole]

too-big pix:

Some members post huge photos that take forever to view also I wish I could see.

From time to time, I've found the huge photos of great help.
I've zoomed in on the details and been able to offer better advice or insight.
But the in-line photos posted by some, are just annoying, even on a decent DSL connection, for other reasons.

Of late, I've been posting quite a few pictures, but used the proper thumbnail feature the forum offers.
And to save server space as well as load time for the bandwidth-challenged, I've cropped, shrunk, and recompressed quite a bit.
So, what would be a 1.5 mega byte picture, becomes 250..300k bytes.
Still might be large, but one heck of a lot smaller.
And I verify there's still plenty of detail. Maybe more than necessary.

At least with the thumbnails, the visitor has the choice to load the picture or not.

 

[B.J.]

B.J. -

Regarding HOSTs , see this site.
It has a large pre-configured list of junk to block.
Also has a good explanation of how it works, and how to remove or change if you need to.

On my laptop, I just do not have Flash loaded, so that cuts down on the extraneous garbage quite a lot.
If I need to see Flash content, my other computers have it.
Many folks do not have the self-control to keep from loading it, though.

Thanks, that file makes mine look like a baby. I think I only had about 20 line that I manually entered into mine.

I did manage to filter out the YouTube stuff though, but I'll probably forget once I really WANT to go to youtube.

Thanks, that file looks awsome. Trying it out now.

 

[qwert1515]

In Windows you can disable/enable the hosts file with a batch file (So that you can go to a site that is blocked by the hosts file):

HOWTO: Enable/Disable the HOSTS File On-The-Fly

 

[B.J.]

In Windows you can disable/enable the hosts file with a batch file (So that you can go to a site that is blocked by the hosts file):
...

Thanks, I'll look at that.

But any method requires that I remember that I've blocked the site. I once blocked a site, and a year later I needed to go to that site, and it took me all morning to figure out why I couldn't get there.

 

[Mr Tony]

From time to time, I've found the huge photos of great help.
I've zoomed in on the details and been able to offer better advice or insight.
But the in-line photos posted by some, are just annoying, even on a decent DSL connection, for other reasons.

At least with the thumbnails, the visitor has the choice to load the picture or not.

exactly and that is why I wish folks would use the thumbnail "attachment" option...allows folks to scan past them if they so desire

the videos were moved to the proper subforum too

 

[eurosport]

Just lowly dial-up here too....as for DSL, my phone company keeps giving me the same answer as Dish Network.....SOON.

 

[glen4cindy]

I can't put up a BUD and that makes me SAD.

I CAN use CATV High speed internet, and this makes me HAPPY.

I really feel for anyone who has satellite internet as the only high speed option.

There should be LAWS against bandwidth capping, especially by the likes of HughesNet and WildBlue.

I looked into HughesNet and found a 200MB daily bandwidth LIMIT. That really stinks!

I use Netflix streaming regularly and watch Youtube all the time. I am really thankful that I don't have to deal with dial-up or satellite internet.

I will make sure to use the thumbnail feature when and if I ever post pictures.

I don't suppose there is anything we as a people can do, but, we should try lobby somehow to get bandwidth limits removed, especially for folks that have no other option for high speed internet. I know that is a want and not a NEED like electricity, but, in this day and age, internet access is almost a necissity, and users should not be crippled in how they can surf due to bandwidth limits.

 

[mbarnes]

If you're concerned about bandwidth, then use a text type browser (like w3m or lynx) from the command line. I've got DSL and in w3m these pages load in about a half a second. On a dial-up, I imagine some of the pages might take 3 or 4 seconds, but your bandwidth usage is minimal. You could probably read a couple hundred posts here and still be well under 1 MB of usage.

 

[B.J.]

Just lowly dial-up here too....as for DSL, my phone company keeps giving me the same answer as Dish Network.....SOON.

Here, re DSL phone company says NEVER. Re cable, that's possible, but it looks like the town would have to gurantee that almost every house in town subscribed before they'd go to the expense of running the lines here. I was lucky in that my dialup was usually running in the 50k-baud range. Some neighbors couldn't get above 28K.

...
...
I looked into HughesNet and found a 200MB daily bandwidth LIMIT. That really stinks!
...

It was a real decision re HughesNet vs Wild Blue. One has daily limits, the other has monthly limits. With Hughes it would be basically impossible to transfer a BIG file that was over the daily limit, but it had the advantage of you only being crippled for one day if you did exceed the limits. With Wild Blue, you COULD occasionally transfer a really big file if you needed to, but if you go over the limits, you could be crippled for several weeks. I decided to go with Wild Blue figuring that occasionally I have a need to move a really big file (although I usually drive over to the next town's library when I do that anyway).
Wild Blue is "OK" if you're downloading one big file, and at least a bit faster than dialup when uploading one big file, but the speeds get real slow when multiple files are involved. For example, if I'm downloading mail messages, I can download 70 messages by dialup about 4 times faster via dialup. Upload is really bad with multiple files. I have a weather web page that I upload every couple hours, and it involves transferring about 20 some files. With dialup, it takes me just over 1 minute to upload. With Wild Blue, it takes me 8 or 9 minutes to upload. This seems to be because the overhead for setting up each transfer takes longer than actually transferring the files. Once the transfer starts, it goes fast.
Web pages such as this forum take a long time for pages to load by either dialup or Wild Blue, maybe 30-40 seconds, because it's not just the page that loads, but all the little graphics, adds and stuff. Blocking the ads and YouTube with the hosts file helps a bit, but there is still a timeout involved for each blocked url. Simple pages that just have one or two big images go much faster with Wild Blue. I go to one site that throws up a big weather map, and that map takes maybe 20 seconds to load via dialup, but it snaps in in about 1 second via Wild Blue.
So it's interesting that some things are much better with sat internet, some things are the same and some things are much worse. Re the limits, I generally run around 17% of my monthly limits, but have to keep track of it and avoid sites that load videos and such.
I don't mind a big JPG file as part of a post, but if a video loads in the background without clicking on it, that would be a problem. I've been guilty of putting some good sized JPGs in posts. I'll have to try to remember to try thumbprints in the future, but sometimes it's nice to be able to read text and see images at the same time, so I think it depends upon the situation.

 

[Conky]

If you use firefox try the "ImgLikeOpera" extension
"You can set one of policies for each tab:
- don't load images;
- load cached images only;
- load images for the originating Web site only;
- load all images."

 

[marco916]

Internet over Cellular another option

Just FYI For some of you in the rural areas of country, another option instead of Dial Up or Satellite Internet would be Internet of cellular if you get cellular service in your area.

Out here in the Sacramento area, from time to time I have customers that I support that live up in Sierra's, Sierra Foot Hills that don't want the pay for Satellite Internet "don't blame them" and also can't get DSL service or cable, but can get decent cellular service, I have them get the tethered option from their service provider, they usually charge an extra $10 to $30 dollars extra on top of their monthly for tethered option, but with a decent to good cell signal you can get better then dial up speeds, almost DSL speeds, not fast enough to download Netflix and You Tube videos, but at least you can get email headers in quicker, and better Web site downloads, use your corporate VPN, Most newer cell phones can connect to your laptop or PC either via USB or Bluetooth. I've even had customers buy the Cellular booster amps you can buy nowadays to get a stronger signal in your house or dwelling. "http://www.cyberguys.com/product-details/?productID=20758" <---- just one of many you can buy, this is just one of the more expensive models.

The tethered option just allows internet over your cell phone to your computer, sort of like a wireless modem for your computer. Most cell carriers don't advertise this option to much, because they don't want to flood the airways with more chatter I guess, but as cell service gets faster with 3G and 4G on the way, this is another avenue for internet service in those rural areas. Their is other options out there also like WiMaxx in some areas of the country, getting a slow start if your following that news, and Aircards you can also get from your cell phone carriers.

I was reading some interesting news if you live in some rural areas in Japan, some company is putting up a Satellite soon that will allow something like 50meg download and upload speeds in areas of Japan that don't have no internet at all. That would be sweet for US customers where the internet dose not reach.

Marco