Page 1 of 1

"You've got to be kidding me."

Posted: 2019-06-05 23:29
by Soul Singin'
Image

What year are we in?

Adobe Flash in 2019? Seriously?

Re: "You've got to be kidding me."

Posted: 2019-06-05 23:39
by sunrat
I hear life (and profits) is tough in the TV business these days. Maybe they can't afford web devs to code HTML video.

Re: "You've got to be kidding me."

Posted: 2019-06-05 23:44
by Soul Singin'
sunrat wrote:Maybe they can't afford web devs to code HTML video.
No problem. I will give it to them for free:

Code: Select all

<video width="640" height="360" controls="controls" preload="none" poster="image.png">
  <source src="video.ogv" type="video/ogg">
</video>

Re: "You've got to be kidding me."

Posted: 2019-06-06 04:58
by Head_on_a_Stick
Flashplayer is the only way to get hardware acceleration for videos in Firefox :mrgreen:

Re: "You've got to be kidding me."

Posted: 2019-06-06 10:09
by dotlj
:D :D :D

What a joke. How far behind is this site? I can't remember the last time I saw that message.

Re: "You've got to be kidding me."

Posted: 2019-06-06 17:26
by Bulkley
MSNBC is probably farming the Flash cookies. There is usually a way around this. For example, the Rachael Maddow show can be found over here. Or, if you stream, this line works in radiotray: https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp ... 779201.mp3

Youtube-dl frequently works to get around Flash. I didn't try it here.

Re: "You've got to be kidding me."

Posted: 2019-06-06 19:02
by Segfault
What's MSNBC? Isn't it one of those former news agencies which turned into leftist political propaganda centers after Trump was elected? I'd say do not go there. :shock:

Re: "You've got to be kidding me."

Posted: 2019-06-06 20:56
by anticapitalista
Segfault wrote:What's MSNBC? Isn't it one of those former news agencies which turned into leftist political propaganda centers after Trump was elected? I'd say do not go there. :shock:
LOL

Re: "You've got to be kidding me."

Posted: 2019-06-06 21:09
by oswaldkelso
Segfault wrote:What's MSNBC? Isn't it one of those former news agencies which turned into leftist political propaganda centers after Trump was elected? I'd say do not go there. :shock:
Damn. That's the only reason I could see for going there.

Badly built sites do no one any favours even my beloved "The Guardian" has become a fat bloated pile of pooh in recent years. The BBC is crap and behaves like it's the official arm of the Brexit party. ( A political party in the UK with no policies or manifesto) I kid you not. And they're the best we have. I currently turn off all cookies or use dillo and read. At least you poor people in the US of A have "democracy now" Even works via bit torrent \o/ https://www.democracynow.org/pages/help/torrent At least someone is doing it right. All the rest are like something out of 1984 and I don't mean the year. Kelsoo goes back to look for his puncture kit. Some nutter burst his blimp.

Re: "You've got to be kidding me."

Posted: 2019-06-06 21:45
by Bulkley
oswaldkelso wrote:Badly built sites do no one any favours . . .
+1.

Re: "You've got to be kidding me."

Posted: 2019-06-07 17:16
by eor2004
Recently, I visited a TV station website to see a live TV show and it said I needed flash player to see that TV show, I said in my mind: flash player, really? they still using frickin flash player, isn't flash player dying? why they still using flash player?. Maybe they didn't get the memo saying that flash player was dying in 2020!

Re: "You've got to be kidding me."

Posted: 2019-06-07 17:21
by Head_on_a_Stick
oswaldkelso wrote:even my beloved "The Guardian" has become a fat bloated pile of pooh in recent years
I think we should cut our beloved Guardian a bit of slack — they've been desperate for money since they moved to their swanky new King's Place site (just before the market for printed newspapers crashed) so I'm just grateful they haven't paywalled their website.

The .gov.uk domain is absolutely excellent in respect of web rendering, as it happens. Their website developers test with Lynx to make sure it all works on even the most basic of browsers, apparently.

Re: "You've got to be kidding me."

Posted: 2019-06-08 11:06
by oswaldkelso
Hoas

The Guardian has a pretty big stash though they are losing money hand over fist. Their problem is they try and make money from "News" and print is dying. Personally I refuse to use paywalls and this has lead to a lot of soul searching on my part. Is donating to them to support their journalists the same as undermining my belief in a the free internet. I think they need to use their capital to run a money making company that funds their news and they need to do it quickly. There are many worthy causes with less cash that need my money.

Re: "You've got to be kidding me."

Posted: 2019-06-12 22:22
by esp7
Honestly I rather prefer readers chipping in 10usd each year for The Guardian than The Guardian going looking for funds in the private sector and heading towards more biased news reporting as today is already the case. Society is lost when all will be owned and controlled by the corporate world. We are not far away from final doom destination honestly...

Re: "You've got to be kidding me."

Posted: 2019-06-13 13:28
by neuraleskimo
oswaldkelso wrote:Personally I refuse to use paywalls and this has lead to a lot of soul searching on my part. Is donating to them to support their journalists the same as undermining my belief in a the free internet. I think they need to use their capital to run a money making company that funds their news and they need to do it quickly. There are many worthy causes with less cash that need my money.
Interesting. I too have been doing some soul searching on this. On one hand, free (free as in beer) information is good, for example, helping to lift the poor out of poverty. Assuming it is high quality and accurate, which is the problem. The political mess in the US has left me feeling that using advertising to make things free is a bad idea. This has made me feel I should support independent journalism by paying for the NY Times and Washington Post, for example. However, if we have to pay for quality news, then that will hurt the less fortunate. I don't have a solution, but I am realizing that the cost of "free" may be too high where corporate/political interests are unchecked.