On 2010-09-20, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote: > On 2010-09-20, Tim Harig <user...@ilthio.net> wrote: >> 1. Don't bother to manually paste when you can use something like urlview >> to lauch directly. > > I don't know that this would actually be better than what I currently do, > which is grab text and middle-click in another window.
I don't know. Personally, I almost never use a mouse, so if I take my hands off of my keyboard, it really annoys me. >> If you want this behavior by default, you can easily wrap urlview >> to automatically add the prefix. > > True, but since my news reading is not on the machine my web browser is > on, it seems like it might get annoying. You could simply place the filter in slrn; then, any urls that you see in your reader would already be shown with the preview prefix suitable for cut and paste mechanisms. If you wanted, you can even have your script download the preview and automatically convert it back to the full origional URL. >> I question first whether most tinyurl links are really of such an >> intransient nature that they need to be long lasting. I personally use >> them most when writing paper notes. They only need to last long enough >> for me, or whoever I made the note for, to get back to them. > > By default, I assume that Usenet posts are for the longer term, and a > Usenet post which relies for its content on tinyurl is thus somewhat > more vulnerable than one which doesn't. In particular, consider things > like archive.org; they may well be able to find a long-dead web page, > but not a long-dead tinyurl link. I assume just the opposite. Once the post has been removed from the server, it is gone to me. I am not fond of the various archives that are otherwise available on the web. Those who should be using them never do and when I searching for the answer to a serious problem, I find myself inundated with thousands of posts that never would have been asked had the poster simply RTFM from mailing lists, web forums, and usernet that are difficult to filter out because they happen to contain the same basic subject matter that I am looking for. Google is particulary bad about this. Often the top posts have high ranks because they have been around so long that they are considered the definitive source; however the information in them is no longer accurate or even relevant. No, I tend to think is is much better that posts simply expire by their use by date. >> But why should the rest of us be penalized because you make the choice >> not to use (or not take full advantage of) all of the tools that are >> available to you? > > For about the same reason that I should be penalized because someone else > wanted things done differently. Which is to say, it's a tradeoff, the > right choice to make depends on what your goals are. If you want a > piece of information to have maximal longevity, something like tinyurl > is probably a bad way to transmit it. If you want something small that > survives line wrapping, it's probably a good way. I don't personally any problem with either mechanism -- especially in usernet where I have full control over how my client displays posts. Other media are less flexible. Nevertheless, I do have a problem with the constant nagging sentiment that tinyurl and kin are totally immoral to use. If this was something that was forced upon you, then I might have some sympathy; however, I see it as the poster's right to do what he thinks will make his post more effective. If that turns out to by tinyurl, then so be it. If you don't like tinyurls then you are free to filter them out in your newsreader or simply ignore the post. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
