http://www.silvergames.com/game/quake-flash/

*is impressed*

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> http://www.silvergames.com/game/quake-flash/
> 

For the record, I don't think Flash is good for youtube ;)

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> http://www.silvergames.com/game/quake-flash/
>
> *is impressed*

This is great!

Post a reply to this message

On 11/25/09 17:53, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> http://www.silvergames.com/game/quake-flash/
>>
>
> For the record, I don't think Flash is good for youtube ;)

	I concur. There's a site out there that converts (live, I believe), 
whatever video you wish to watch to something that is HTML5 compliant, 
so that if you have a decent browser, it will play it without the need 
for plugins. In Linux, that's a Good Thing because it means your CPU 
won't be hogged.

	Unfortunately, last time I looked at it, it didn't work with Firefox as 
FF only supported Ogg, or something similar. Works on some other 
browsers, though.

-- 
ASCII and ye shall receive.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> something that is HTML5 compliant, 
> if you have a decent browser, it will play it
> it didn't work with Firefox 

Implying neither of the two major browsers (IE, Firefox) are decent.

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that to effectively peddle your 
newfangled HTML5 compliant format.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that to effectively peddle your 
> newfangled HTML5 compliant format.

After having participated in the IETF, where nothing is a standard until 
there are two independent interoperating implementations available to the 
public, I always find W3C's standard process rather amusing.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   You know the kamikaze monsters in Serious Sam
     with the bombs for hands, that go AAAAAHHHHHHHH!
   I want that for a ring tone.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that to effectively peddle 
>> your newfangled HTML5 compliant format.
> 
> After having participated in the IETF, where nothing is a standard until 
> there are two independent interoperating implementations available to 
> the public, I always find W3C's standard process rather amusing.
> 
Except for the minor issue that they are trying to describe a standard, 
while everyone else is... well, lets just say that interoperable in this 
context doesn't seem to mean, "Actually works the same in both 
implementations". lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Tim Cook wrote:
>>> I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that to effectively peddle 
>>> your newfangled HTML5 compliant format.
>>
>> After having participated in the IETF, where nothing is a standard 
>> until there are two independent interoperating implementations 
>> available to the public, I always find W3C's standard process rather 
>> amusing.
>>
> Except for the minor issue that they are trying to describe a standard, 

*Who* is trying to describe a standard?  W3C seems to make up "standards" 
out of whole cloth, and then people get upset when those who are already 
following de facto standards don't switch to use W3C's poorly thought-out 
messes and make themselves unmarketable commodities at the same time.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   You know the kamikaze monsters in Serious Sam
     with the bombs for hands, that go AAAAAHHHHHHHH!
   I want that for a ring tone.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/25/09 19:47, Tim Cook wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> something that is HTML5 compliant, if you have a decent browser, it
>> will play it
>> it didn't work with Firefox
>
> Implying neither of the two major browsers (IE, Firefox) are decent.
>
> I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that to effectively peddle your
> newfangled HTML5 compliant format.

	At least the HTML5 compliant format works properly, when it works. 
Unlike the Flash plugin.


-- 
When a person criticizes another's stance as irrational, it is merely a 
statement that he/she lacks the reasoning ability to comprehend the other.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> *Who* is trying to describe a standard?  W3C seems to make up 
> "standards" out of whole cloth, and then people get upset when those who 
> are already following de facto standards don't switch to use W3C's 
> poorly thought-out messes and make themselves unmarketable commodities 
> at the same time.

 From what I've seen, the W3C standards are _mostly_ reasonable, whereas 
the ad-hoc made-up stuff that browser implementors come up with is a 
nightmare.

Then again, W3C does from time to time come up with a few questionable 
design decisions.

Post a reply to this message