Saving YouTube Videos via New FireFox V14

[Char Jackson]

LOL. What both of you are missing is - why bother? For what real "gains"
with the new versions?

Ahh, this will fall on deaf ears. It seems some folks just have to have the
"latest and greatest" versions of software titles, with useless added
"features", I guess.

What "versions" are you talking about? No one mentioned changing the
version of software you're running. Your cries of "useless added
features" indicates that you don't understand what's being suggested.

 

[Char Jackson]

Not really you don't, if the following is any guide.

You're forgiven for your bad assumption.

I may be completely wrong, but it sounds as if it didn't even occur to
you that her (and Bill's) eyesight might be such that the smaller text
size was hard to read: did you try giving her a bigger monitor at the
same time you increased her resolution?

Her eyesight is *the* reason for not going to a higher resolution, and
I'm not in a position to be giving her a new monitor.

Have a good weekend! You too, John.

Thanks! You too, what's left of it. (As I said to Bill in company, shall
we take this to email [three-way]? Mine's valid. And the XPites might be
a bit tired of us ...)

Thanks, but I don't mix Usenet and email.

 

[Char Jackson]

No, you both missed it. I didn't need to do any of that, by simply sticking
to the old version 3.5.8. I didn't need to mess with the user agent string!
And as I said, with FF 3.5.8 and Flash 10.3.183, I can still play and
download YouTube videos.

Why would I do "that"? A better question is: why would I want to upgrade FF
to a newer version

Can you point to anyone in this subthread who suggested that you
upgrade your browser? No, you can't, because no one did. All that was
suggested was a quick 5-second config change to your _existing_
browser.

(besides the never ending security holes supposedly being
a "major" issue, and all that - a saga which never ends. I'd call it "The
Never Ending Story" (about constantly plugging the security holes).

You talk about security holes and not wanting to upgrade your outdated
software in the same breath? Thanks for being a responsible member of
the Internet! Oh, wait, you're not. :-/

Kinda reminds me of the dikes in Holland, and that guy who kept putting his
finger in one hole to try and plug it, when another one then sprang up, ad
infinitem. Life is too short.

If that boy were to stop plugging the holes, he would drown in short
order. You're probably drowning and don't know it.

 

[Char Jackson]

What "software" do I have that seems so ridiculous to you? (note: no ad
hominems about the version numbers here - just the software titles, which
would indicate I'm missing some great software, LOL)

But it's more than that. I like trim applications. And Less is More.
Must be the Great Depression era mindset. Get by with the minimum, and
appreciate what you've got. I know that's probably falling on deaf ears,
however.

When you need a word processor, do you reach for Notepad? If not, why
not? Notepad is trim! Word processors are the opposite of trim.

I like to use the tool best suited to the task. If that tool has
features above and beyond what I need for that task, so be it. I have
no patience or sympathy for people who struggle along with tools not
suited to the task at hand, especially when it's out of some kind of
"less is more" mentality. Less is less. It's as simple as that.

Like I said in my first post to this thread, I don't understand the
mindset of people who choose to struggle through life. It's not like
there's some kind of reward at the end, and clearly there's no reward
along the way, so it's lose-lose.

Yes, I know it's hard to understand, but I really like the larger fonts and
type, too, as seen at 800x600 resolution.

I've used the 1024x768 resolution, but I still like 800x600 better - even if
I have to scroll some web pages horizontally (nowadays). Who wants to
squint at the smaller type? But as you said, using a 17" monitor probably
doesn't help in that regard, but it's still smaller type. How large is
yours?. I don't see any pressing need to go out and buy a larger monitor,
however - at least so far.

Suit yourself. You're the one who has to use what you've got, so
you're not hurting anyone else. I suppose I should just ignore your
constant complaints about unnecessary features, bloat, and busy
interfaces.

I already told you my age.

"Old well beyond your years" means that I wasn't referring to your
calendar age. I was referring to your attitudes.

No. You've have leaped one tall building too many on that one. (Have you
been watching the Dark Knight? I expect so

I think I'll stand by my opinion expressed above.

 

[Char Jackson]

They're not new, but the increased PREVALENCE is new. What is it now? 30%
of all births are to unwed teenage moms? If that isn't ominous, I don't
know what is.

Do you have a cite? Sources say, "Since 1991, the overall teen rate
has dropped by 44 percent." Not only that, it continues to fall, year
over year.

<http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/teenbrth.htm>
<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_...es-at-an-all-time-low-across-all-ethnicities/>

And how many families are headed by two parents anymore?

I looked up the first claim and found it to be untrue. I'll leave this
one for you.

All of this has changed for the WORSE. And we're all paying for it.

I assume you mean changed for the better, at least where teen
pregnancy is involved. Let us know what you find regarding family
units.

 

[Char Jackson]

In message <[email protected]>, Bill in Co
[]
If you were to follow his suggestion, you'd see that you're not
actually upgrading anything. You'd still be running your ancient
version. The only difference is that Firefox would lie when web
servers asked what version it is. You could probably even go back to
2.0 and do the same thing, since you seem to be fascinated with old
software.

I don't think he understands the concept of the User-Agent string.

Nope.

LOL. What both of you are missing is - why bother? For what real
"gains"
with the new versions?

Ahh, this will fall on deaf ears. It seems some folks just have to have
the
"latest and greatest" versions of software titles, with useless added
"features", I guess.


No, this time, Bill, _you_'re not getting it. The suggestion of changing
the User-Agent string is a way of continuing to use an old version, but
making it _appear_ to webpages that you're using a later one, for the
brain-dead webpages that won't play ball unless you are.

I just saw his reply to your post and it's clear that he still thinks
it's some kind of upgrade that's being discussed. You can lead a horse
to water...

No, it's you who is misreading (once again) what was written. I never made
any such statement. Sigh.... Reading Comprension 101.

Let me spell it out for you. I am aware of the User Agent string. That
doesn't negate what I wrote. Let me be more explicit just for you.
Changing the user agent is NOT an upgrade, nor did I even suggest such a
thing! Is that clear enough (finally)

Got it!

But I should then point out the obvious. Someone is posting to this
thread and using your name to make it look like you think changing the
User-Agent string involves a software upgrade. Someone pretending to
you has said exactly that, at least three different times.

 

[Char Jackson]

If you think we have (% wise) proportionally fewer unwed teenage moms (vs
wedded moms in two parent homes) than a half century ago, and ditto for the
single parent homes, I give up. There's nothing I can add here.

Are you saying the sources I provided above are wrong? There were a
bunch more where those came from.

I asked above (and John asked, as well) if you have a cite for your
claim of out of control teen pregnancies. If you still think that's
the case, you should be able to find a link to support it.

 

[Char Jackson]

The reward ... is in the journey, grasshopper, in discovering the hidden
gems, on websites like www.oldversions.com and www.oldapps.com. There are
some real beauties in there. (Not that you'd appreciate them

What you call real beauties I call toothless old hags. No thanks.

Well, what size is your monitor? You never answered. Maybe then I could
understand you, and your fascination in having a "busier" screen (with more
visible stuff seen on it all at once, but in small type, of course). Of
course, some of these newer apps require it (higher screen res) for all the
"features" they have added to the latest and greatest version (that rarely
is ever used), but at least keeps the software company solvent by making new
products - just like with newer versions of Windows.

Just because you don't use a feature doesn't mean no one else uses it.
If you want a program to have only the things you want, and nothing
more, you'll have to write it yourself.

 

[Char Jackson]

Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 21:18:37 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

In message <[email protected]>, Bill in Co
[]
If you were to follow his suggestion, you'd see that you're not
actually upgrading anything. You'd still be running your ancient
version. The only difference is that Firefox would lie when web
servers asked what version it is. You could probably even go back
to
2.0 and do the same thing, since you seem to be fascinated with old
software.

I don't think he understands the concept of the User-Agent string.

Nope.

LOL. What both of you are missing is - why bother? For what real
"gains"
with the new versions?

Ahh, this will fall on deaf ears. It seems some folks just have to
have
the
"latest and greatest" versions of software titles, with useless added
"features", I guess.


No, this time, Bill, _you_'re not getting it. The suggestion of
changing
the User-Agent string is a way of continuing to use an old version, but
making it _appear_ to webpages that you're using a later one, for the
brain-dead webpages that won't play ball unless you are.

I just saw his reply to your post and it's clear that he still thinks
it's some kind of upgrade that's being discussed. You can lead a horse
to water...

No, it's you who is misreading (once again) what was written. I never
made
any such statement. Sigh.... Reading Comprension 101.

Let me spell it out for you. I am aware of the User Agent string. That
doesn't negate what I wrote. Let me be more explicit just for you.
Changing the user agent is NOT an upgrade, nor did I even suggest such a
thing! Is that clear enough (finally)

Got it!

But I should then point out the obvious. Someone is posting to this
thread and using your name to make it look like you think changing the
User-Agent string involves a software upgrade. Someone pretending to
you has said exactly that, at least three different times.

Yeah, right. Better check your meds.
Such paranoia almost sounds like the overwhelming majority of Republicans
who still think Obama isn't a US Citizen and was born in Kenya.

Message-ID: <[email protected]>
David Lipman suggested changing the User-Agent string to easily and
quickly get around a problem you were having.

Message-ID: <[email protected]>
You replied, saying "That's fine, as long as you're happy with going
to that version of Firefox. But you don't have to. Version 3.5.8
still works great over here (with Flash 10.3.183). I don't need or
want the extra bells and whistles in the newer versions of FF.
(I would have been happy and stayed with FF 2.0, but too many web
sites complained)."

Clearly, you didn't understand what changing the User-Agent string was
all about. You incorrectly assumed it involved a browser upgrade, and
as you'll see below, it took forever to get that ship turned around.

Message-ID: <[email protected]>
I pointed out that changing your User-Agent string doesn't involve any
upgrades.

Message-ID: <[email protected]>
David Lipman pointed out, a bit tongue in cheek, that you didn't
understand the concept of a User-Agent string.

Message-ID: <[email protected]>
I agreed with David's assessment.

Message-ID: <[email protected]>
You replied, again, objecting to "new versions" and "useless added
features", still oblivious to the fact that changing your User-Agent
string has nothing to do with changing the version of software you're
running, despite multiple attempts to educate you.

Message-ID: <[email protected]>
John Gilliver tries to point out the obvious, that you're completely
misunderstanding what "changing the User-Agent string" means and what
it doesn't mean.

Message-ID: <[email protected]>
You replied to John, asking "why would I want to upgrade FF
to a newer version", clearly demonstrating that you STILL didn't get
it! It's like you have a firewall that allows no facts to get in.

Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Here, you claim to be aware of the User-Agent string and its purpose,
but claim that it doesn't negate what you said earlier (your repeated
whines about not wanting to upgrade), so clearly there's a major
disconnect. If you know what it is, why the repeated whining about not
wanting to upgrade?

Message-ID: <[email protected]>
I point out AGAIN that changing your browser's User-Agent string is
not a version upgrade. It's a simple config change.

Message-ID: <[email protected]>
And yet AGAIN I point out that changing your User-Agent string is not
a version upgrade.

Message-ID: <[email protected]>
And finally, I point out that *someone* in this thread has repeatedly
complained about not wanting to upgrade his browser from one version
to another, when all that was suggested was to change the User-Agent
string, which doesn't involve any software upgrades. The person making
those complaints was you.

 

[Char Jackson]

If you're saying I'm wrong with what I wrote in the paragraph I wrote just
above this, YES I am saying you are wrong.

Well don't just say I'm wrong. Prove it. I already showed you that you
were wrong, so now it's up to you.

Go look up the general stats yourself, if you're that interested.

Umm, that's what I did. See the URL's I posted above? Did you try
clicking on one or more? Do you see now how wrong you were?

Or, you can stay in the bubble and believe what you want.

I've got the CDC in my bubble. They track stuff like this. They're the
authority. Who have you got in your bubble? Where did you come up with
your silly claim that 30% of babies are born to teens? You don't have
to answer that last question. I know where you pulled it from so it's
no surprise that you can't support it.

Oh, and by the way, nobody was talking about 1991
(which was practically yesterday), a point which probably escapes you.

1991? Am I supposed to guess where that came from? The data I provided
was reported 3 months ago, in April 2012.

 

[Char Jackson]

Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 17:39:01 -0600, "Bill in Co"

Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 21:18:37 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

In message <[email protected]>, Bill in
Co
[]
If you were to follow his suggestion, you'd see that you're not
actually upgrading anything. You'd still be running your ancient
version. The only difference is that Firefox would lie when web
servers asked what version it is. You could probably even go back
to
2.0 and do the same thing, since you seem to be fascinated with
old
software.

I don't think he understands the concept of the User-Agent string.

Nope.

LOL. What both of you are missing is - why bother? For what real
"gains"
with the new versions?

Ahh, this will fall on deaf ears. It seems some folks just have to
have
the
"latest and greatest" versions of software titles, with useless
added
"features", I guess.


No, this time, Bill, _you_'re not getting it. The suggestion of
changing
the User-Agent string is a way of continuing to use an old version,
but
making it _appear_ to webpages that you're using a later one, for the
brain-dead webpages that won't play ball unless you are.

I just saw his reply to your post and it's clear that he still thinks
it's some kind of upgrade that's being discussed. You can lead a horse
to water...

No, it's you who is misreading (once again) what was written. I never
made
any such statement. Sigh.... Reading Comprension 101.

Let me spell it out for you. I am aware of the User Agent string.
That
doesn't negate what I wrote. Let me be more explicit just for you.

Changing the user agent is NOT an upgrade, nor did I even suggest such
a
thing! Is that clear enough (finally)

Got it!

But I should then point out the obvious. Someone is posting to this
thread and using your name to make it look like you think changing the
User-Agent string involves a software upgrade. Someone pretending to
you has said exactly that, at least three different times.

Yeah, right. Better check your meds.
Such paranoia almost sounds like the overwhelming majority of
Republicans who still think Obama isn't a US Citizen and was born in
Kenya.

Message-ID: <[email protected]>
David Lipman suggested changing the User-Agent string to easily and
quickly get around a problem you were having.

Yes he did. But in case you forgot, *I* wasn't the one having the problem!
I know, I know, it's difficult to grasp..

Thanks for the reminder, but I didn't forget. I also didn't forget
that you were the (only) one complaining that changing a User-Agent
string would involve upgrading to a newer software version. (Not true,
of course.) As I demonstrated, denying it doesn't work too well.

To recap: there is no need to do ANY of this (changing the user agent OR
upgrading to a newer FF)!

That wasn't the question.

Simply use the older version I've been using (3.5.8) which is better, IMO.
Who WANTS the new one?

Still going on about a new software version, when all we were talking
about was a simple config change to your existing version? Are you
going to deny saying this, too? Do you STILL not get it?

Even the OP wasn't too happy about (what HE thought
he had to do - i.e., go to a new version, but as you pointed out, he could
have changed the user agent string. But I never had to do that.

Get it now?

Get what? That the whole User-Agent thing went over your head, and
continues to sail over your head? Yeah, I get that.

<snip>

I'll shorten this here so you don't get lost once again.


I never said it was. Gimme a break. Is it really that difficult?

As my previous post showed, you said it MULTIPLE times. You even
referred to it AGAIN just above, so you clearly STILL don't get it.
It's difficult to deny saying something when it can be quoted right
back to you. Sorry 'bout that, grasshopper.

I never said he had to upgrade FF to resolve his problem. Geesh.

No one said you did. BTW, where did that random thought come from?
Stick to the topic, please.

But I did complain about the newer versions. At least you got that part
right. I guess that's some degree of progress, however.

Yep, and all of those complaints were in direct response to a
suggestion that you change your browser's User-Agent string, a process
that takes a few seconds and does NOT require a software upgrade.

See above. But please, try slowing down and reading for comprehension. And
stop reading things into things.

Try writing what you mean, then. I'm not a mind reader. I go by what
you type, not by what you might be thinking, especially when what you
type is wrong and wrong and wrong again.

By the way, the classy response to my previous post would have been a
simple apology, not more denials. Oh, well.

 

[Char Jackson]

You keep on bringing this up. Where did I say that? Why don't you just
quote the exact line where I stated that? Keep trying.

I did quote you saying it. I even quoted you saying it multiple times.
Guess what? You simply denied it. Anyone can see that you did say it,
so I don't know what denying it is supposed to get you. Your posts
don't self-destruct, you know. They'll stay out there for anyone who
wants to see them for years to come.

Hint: go back and read the post with all the Message-IDs (MIDs). Click
any of the MIDs to bring up the relevant posts. You know how to use
MIDs, right?

I'll make it easier on you. Why don't you just quote ONE paragraph where I
actually said that and JUST reply to that. Let me be clear again just for
you:
Quote the paragraph where I said changing the User Agent is equivalent to
upgrading the software (a version upgrade".

Was that the problem? You mean I shouldn't have quoted you saying it
multiple times? My apologies, I didn't know that would confuse you.

I never suggested changing the User Agent string, since that step was
completely unnecessary for me.

No one said you did.** Please try to remember who said what, or if
that's too hard, just try to remember what YOU said. I shouldn't have
to keep reminding you.

**David Lipman suggested it, and that's when you went on a bender
about not wanting to upgrade your browser, which of course made no
sense because changing a User-Agent string has nothing to do with
browser upgrades.

 

[Char Jackson]

You STILL don't quote the text where I said that. Interesting....

How many times do I have to do that? Once wasn't enough? You replied
to my post where I quoted you, so you can't say you didn't see it.
Unless you want to deny that, too, of course.

Oh. Is that where all this is coming from? Well, thanks for explaining it.

You wouldn't be diagnosed with senility, would you? Never mind, you
probably don't remember.

 

[Char Jackson]

You've said you're not in a position to get her a larger monitor,

I can only perform so much charity in a year. Just kidding, see below
for the real reason.

but
you haven't said whether her (and Bill's) preference is due to eyesight:
it is possible that your answering of that suggestion might have got
lost in the discussion, so I won't at this point say you don't see that
as a problem, as I don't want to make you sound uncaring if you're not.

I suppose it did get lost, but I specifically said that was the
reason. And in this lady's case, the computer is a laptop and it's on
one of those little desk stands on wheels, (see links), so there's no
room to add a monitor at all, let alone a bigger monitor.

<http://images.bedbathandbeyond.com/assets/product_images/230/6897914825070P.JPG>
<http://www.computerdeskinfo.com/s/10027/MyProducts/cherry_wood_adjustable_laptop_desk.jpg>