Video recording Speccy games on a Mac

[Ivan Shmakov]

[Cross-posting to news:news.misc.]

anyone add rewind to rzx? or get it to work on real hardware?

Thanks for totally missing the point.
How did you lot in here cope with this guy?

There's that little-known KILLFILE feature in every other
newsreader currently in existence.

Thanks for bringing him back from the oblivion by the means of
quoting, however.

(Well, just kidding, as I don't actually use Gnus scoring for
this group. The others may, though.)

[deKay]

Post by Ivan Shmakov
There's that little-known KILLFILE feature in every other
newsreader currently in existence.
Thanks for bringing him back from the oblivion by the means of
quoting, however.
(Well, just kidding, as I don't actually use Gnus scoring for
this group. The others may, though.)

I haven't used a killfile in years! I certainly won't start now. I'll just
be ignoring him instead.

deKay

[Ivan Shmakov]

There's that little-known KILLFILE feature in every other newsreader
currently in existence.
Thanks for bringing him back from the oblivion by the means of
quoting, however.
(Well, just kidding, as I don't actually use Gnus scoring for this
group. The others may, though.)

I haven't used a killfile in years! I certainly won't start now.
I'll just be ignoring him instead.

Does that mean that, effectively, you're going use a "wetware"
implementation of killfiles?

Well, that's my current preference for low-traffic groups, too.

[Ivan Shmakov]

[Cross-posting to news:comp.internet.services.google and
news:news.misc, and setting Followup-To: there.]

I'm on Google Groups so can't use a killfile

Let's hear it for Progress, folks! All those luddites cowering in
corners with their local NNTP clients don't know what they're
missing...

The problem of the "Usenet proper" is not that NNTP user agents
are inherently "worse" than HTTP ones, but that setting up one
of the former is easily ten times as hard as setting up a
Google Groups account, especially for those who already have
accounts on a dozen of other Web services.

However, I believe that there /can/ be a Usenet-like (or
Fidonet-like, if you like) network, with all the "killfiles and
local spools" of Usenet, yet as simple as taking a few clicks to
set up an account -- either free or paid for, and allowing all
the weird stuff common to the Web of today, such as exchanging
photos and the like.

Somehow, however, it makes me doubt that those active on today's
Usenet will be the ones to bring such a new network into
existence, or even to join one once it's started...

... Thanks to Google Groups, however, for providing easy access
to my posts for my less computer-savvy acquaintances.
Unfortunately, now that they're making a switch to a
JavaScript-based interface, my guess is that they won't be
accessible anymore to anyone but those who use one of the
"major" browsers. FWIW, I've left them the following bit as
"the reason I opted to use the old interface:"

Unfortunately, the new version relies on running site-provided
executable (JavaScript) code on my computer, which, although not as
insecure as running site-provided .exe files, I still do not
anticipate.

Besides, it's incompatible with Lynx, my browser of choice.

I guess, there's still hope that given enough feedback of such a
kind, they may revert their decision to take the current,
pure-HTML, interface down.

[Paul E Collins]

Unfortunately, the new version [of Google Groups] relies on running
site-provided executable (JavaScript) code on my computer, which,
although not as insecure as running site-provided .exe files, I still do
not anticipate.

I sent them a similar message not long ago on the same feedback form --
not for security reasons in my case, but because the JavaScript is just
awkward and visually distracting, with things popping up and collapsing
all over the place. Ironically, having submitted my feedback, I wanted to
copy and paste it elsewhere, but couldn't, because the form had been
removed using JavaScript, so there was no way to get the submitted text
back. Way to break the Back button.

I guess, there's still hope that given enough feedback of such a kind,
they may revert their decision to take the current, pure-HTML, interface
down.

Fat chance. The faddish "social" Web is full of JavaScript, and Google is
at the forefront of that.

Eq.

[Juan Wei]

Post by Paul E Collins

Unfortunately, the new version [of Google Groups] relies on running
site-provided executable (JavaScript) code on my computer, which,
although not as insecure as running site-provided .exe files, I still do
not anticipate.

I sent them a similar message not long ago on the same feedback form --
not for security reasons in my case, but because the JavaScript is just
awkward and visually distracting, with things popping up and collapsing
all over the place. Ironically, having submitted my feedback, I wanted to
copy and paste it elsewhere, but couldn't, because the form had been
removed using JavaScript, so there was no way to get the submitted text
back. Way to break the Back button.

I guess, there's still hope that given enough feedback of such a kind,
they may revert their decision to take the current, pure-HTML, interface
down.

Fat chance. The faddish "social" Web is full of JavaScript, and Google is
at the forefront of that.
Eq.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Ivan Shmakov
[Cross-posting to news:comp.internet.services.google and
news:news.misc, and setting Followup-To: there.]

I'm on Google Groups so can't use a killfile

Let's hear it for Progress, folks! All those luddites cowering in
corners with their local NNTP clients don't know what they're
missing...

The problem of the "Usenet proper" is not that NNTP user agents
are inherently "worse" than HTTP ones, but that setting up one
of the former is easily ten times as hard as setting up a
Google Groups account, especially for those who already have
accounts on a dozen of other Web services.

Not that it changes your main point(s), but for the large majority of
users, News is *not* hard to set up.

Just tell them to plug this in their *webbrowser* and away they go:

news://news.aioe.org/news.misc

This works for the Microsoft browser/newsreader combinations, for
FireFox/Thunderbird and should work for any other RFC (1738) compliant
combination.

For example for the Microsoft browser/newsreader combinations,
invoking the above URL will:

- Invoke OE/W[L]M.
- Create a News Account named "news.aioe.org" for the server
news.aioe.org.
- Will download the latest (normally 300) articles in
news.misc from news.aioe.org.
- Will present the (Subject/From/Sent/Size) list of these articles in
the upper-right pane, ready for the user to start reading.

And that is all done *fully automatically*.

[...]

[Ivan Shmakov]

[...]

Post by Frank Slootweg

The problem of the "Usenet proper" is not that NNTP user agents are
inherently "worse" than HTTP ones, but that setting up one of the
former is easily ten times as hard as setting up a Google Groups
account, especially for those who already have accounts on a dozen
of other Web services.

Not that it changes your main point(s), but for the large majority of
users, News is *not* hard to set up.
news://news.aioe.org/news.misc
This works for the Microsoft browser/newsreader combinations, for
FireFox/Thunderbird and should work for any other RFC (1738)
compliant combination.

I can agree with "large", but is it exactly the /majority/? My
perception here is that the majority of the /mail/ users will
use some kind of a Web interface these days. Thus, they're much
more likely to install the browser alone, without any
{mail,news}reader package whatsoever.

And the rest may still be bitten by that "can't use the proxy"
issue.

But actually, my point is that given that the today's Internet
readily allows for passing GiB's worth of traffic via P2P
filesharing networks (whose implementations are quite likely to
implement proxy support, NAT traversal, and what not), and that
the hard disks of every other Usenet reader are likely to allow
for a few months of the groups being read to be stored on, do we
exactly need for the /newsreaders/ to connect to /newsservers/,
rather than directly to one another?

Given some kind of DHT as a peer discovery mechanism, this new
Internet application may require virtually no further manual
configuration than the user's own name, and the identifiers of
the "groups" he or she wants to join.

[...]

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Ivan Shmakov
[...]

Post by Frank Slootweg

The problem of the "Usenet proper" is not that NNTP user agents are
inherently "worse" than HTTP ones, but that setting up one of the
former is easily ten times as hard as setting up a Google Groups
account, especially for those who already have accounts on a dozen
of other Web services.

Not that it changes your main point(s), but for the large majority of
users, News is *not* hard to set up.
news://news.aioe.org/news.misc
This works for the Microsoft browser/newsreader combinations, for
FireFox/Thunderbird and should work for any other RFC (1738)
compliant combination.

I can agree with "large", but is it exactly the /majority/? My
perception here is that the majority of the /mail/ users will
use some kind of a Web interface these days. Thus, they're much
more likely to install the browser alone, without any
{mail,news}reader package whatsoever.

Don't know about that. I've never seen stats on (mostly) webmail
versus (mostly) non-webmail users. My friends, family, etc. use both.
Also with the trend to mobile (laptop, tablet, phone, etc.) use, I think
those users will at least *also* use a mailreader, which, in the case of
a computer, is often also a newsreader.

Post by Ivan Shmakov
And the rest may still be bitten by that "can't use the proxy"
issue.

If you mean the need to use another port than NNTP/119 which is
likely to be blocked, then that's no problem because the "news:" URL
format can also specify a port-number:

news://<host>:<port>/<newsgroup-name>

Post by Ivan Shmakov
But actually, my point is that given that the today's Internet
readily allows for passing GiB's worth of traffic via P2P
filesharing networks (whose implementations are quite likely to
implement proxy support, NAT traversal, and what not), and that
the hard disks of every other Usenet reader are likely to allow
for a few months of the groups being read to be stored on, do we
exactly need for the /newsreaders/ to connect to /newsservers/,
rather than directly to one another?

Theoretically there's no need, but I take servers over P2P any day.
Not just for News, but for mail, web and most everything.

Post by Ivan Shmakov
Given some kind of DHT as a peer discovery mechanism, this new
Internet application may require virtually no further manual
configuration than the user's own name, and the identifiers of
the "groups" he or she wants to join.
[...]