Twitter has the limit of 140 characters per tweet, and this limit is even reduced when you add media contents like images. Now that Twitter is “consumed” through the web, there wouldn't be serious reasons not to rise that limit.
When money will begin to run out and we'll realize (again) that there's no value in it, barter will become the most popular way of exchanging and sharing resources: everyone will trade things for things, instead of promises of things for things.
A ramble begins. (Skip it)
What about digital things? These are things that if I have one, I can copy it so that you will have one too, and both of us will be happy. Of course there's a moron who, say, created the first thing at low cost, maybe 100 units, then replicated it millions of time at almost no cost, and then tries to sell each copy as it were the original one. Basically he steals millions of time, with a legal trick that unreasonably enforces material laws upon immaterial stuffs. In fact, copying material stuffs would cost more or less the same 100 units, but immaterial things can be copied at “no cost”.
The problem is blatant: he spends 100 units, plus a very small amount for each copy. The cost of the original should be smeared on each copy, so that, if he forecasts to sell 100 pieces and each has a cost of 5, each copy should have been priced a little bit more than 5, say 10 (he also wants to earn: this is ok). He would earn “only” 10×100 - (100 + 5×100), i.e. 400, for that stuffs. But it is not how it goes: his product is priced as the original, plus a margin: he pretends to make us believe that 105 (instead of 5) is how much he has spent for each copy, hence he sells at 200. Each copy. Earning something like 200×100 - (100 + 5×100), i.e. 19400. That is, more than 40 times the real cost of each copy.
Of course they explain differently how it goes, being it true or not. E.g. they say that there's a lot of original and expensive research before the first product is realized—the first specimen costed 100000, not 100. The trick here is expensive, since almost all such a work hasn't a well known, easily computable cost. The experience has no price? Therefore a thing can cost from nothing to infinity according to how much the market would pay for its immaterial value, and how much I think they would pay (so that I ask for the maximum possible value).
Am I the only one who can fix that bug now? I'll do it for 150k€. It's like blackmailing, indeed. If the company with the bug thinks “ok, it's worth changing our technology: it'd cost us only 100k€”, then I misjudged my value. But the point is that whatever I can do indeed has no real value attached to it. It's all fog. Air. Nothing. Bullshits.
The matter is complicated and I bet many can find example and counterexample to say that I've just written a bunch of meaningless pointless wrong idiocies: things must be paid “the right price” and “the right price is…” There's even a tale about a man who repaired a washing machine just changing a screw and charged an improbable price, according to the owner of the machine, who saw how the worker fixed the problem. The owner asked details: he said “I could have changed the screw by myself!”. The invoice looked like this: call, 10 dollars; screw, 1 cent; paid time to change the screw, 1 dollar; experience and studies to know which screw had to be changed, 200 dollars.
This is funny and it sounds right, but it is a bullshit yet, mainly because 200 dollars is just a random number. (And think about the fact that the washing machine's owner now knows how to fix the very same problem, if it happens it occurs again). Any number would be a random number. The technician pretends to give a price to experience, which is a rather impossible task. Moreover he also pretends to be correctly refunded for the money and any efforts he spent in school where he learned all the theoretical stuffs that made him able to fix a washing machine (and even more).
It's a totally random try and a silly demand. It can't be done like that. I won't elaborate on this now and here, but I hope a casual reader would doubt his own belief the invoice has a proper meaning, in case s/he, the reader, had such a belief, of course.
End of the ramble.
For a mysterious reason, I am in charge of finding ways to share contents, instead of links. Few money-burned-minded assholes would talk about stealing, but they are what they are, hence we can't be surprised. They can kill for money, though. So watch your steps. (Have I said there was an end to the ramble?)
In a world without money, but even in this world with money, immaterial, digital porn would be something you could trade. Toss me a cig, I'll give you some 2D hottie.
When they were pennyless young students, they used to keep prom stuffs and give them to friends in exchange of other things. A barter. Everybody did the same. Now it happens that with the tech jump the challenge to dig this kind of money are changed a lot. In the old times, they raised actual money, sometimes they put them together to buy a VHS they shared (it's my turn this week, next week is X turn… and so on). Almost nobody had a double deck recorder; two recorders and a cable could be enough, but it was a very boring procedure, therefore barter and lending were the main ways of sharing. When the digital era began, everything changed, of course. They started sharing mainly by copying instead of lending or bartering.
The Internet opened the gates of inexhaustible mines but the sharing culture was already changed to embrace the cloning instead of the moving of the same physical object. Silly laws tried to dam “the problem” by stating that physical objects' properties and concepts apply to digital objects too. Changing to adapt to a new reality, or rather trying to change the reality to stay the same without dying? Keep your old business model and starve… You already know how the things are going: they try to adapt the reality to fit themselves, instead of adapting themselves to keep the pace with a changed reality.
Where am I going with all this talk?
Yesterday X gave me a link to a popular pr0n site, asking me to download the video. Here the solution to the problem. It's one of the solutions, of course. I already know you have a better solution. Share it, or shut up.
Open Google Chrome, paste the link in the address bar, load the page. The video will start playing. Open the Developer Tools (the Ctrl+Shift+I shortcut should also work). Select the Network tab and the media subtab. There you should see something loading and exactly the video you would like to download… Likely a
Did I forget to mention the fact all this speech was to answer to the question about how to download a damned pr0n video?
Right click over the row, a menu pops up, pick the
Copy as cURL. It's cURL; a serious distro should have it in the repository — I am talking about GNU/Linux of course, but you can install it on Microsoft Windows too. This is up to you. Once you copied as cURL, you can paste the text in a shell: the text is nothing but a command line that runs
curl with all the right options and the right URL and everything. You just need to add a redirect or the output option, e.g.
-o file.mp4. Wait until done.
It worked in my case, I can't assure it'll work in your case, but it gives an idea, doesn't it? If you're thinking to try it on Youtube, forget it: you won't succeed. This means there's a way any site can avoid the trick. Just a note: in case you don't see anything in the
network tab, try reloading the page.