Boeing 747 & 777 autoland in crosswind certification video - impressive!

[Alt Beer]

Anyone here ever landed in such a strong crosswind?
Found this posted to another group.


> This is a great video of 747 and 777 doing auto land certification
> crosswind landings, the 3rd and 4th shot are the best. It takes a
> minute to download and get through the credits but its worth it.
>
> It is hard to believe that these "digital" touchdowns don't shear off
> the main landing gear.
>
> Watch the 777's wings flex during the third clip.
>
> http://www.linhadafrente.net/bin/Pousos.wmv

[Darkwing]

"Alt Beer" > wrote in message
...
> Anyone here ever landed in such a strong crosswind?
> Found this posted to another group.
>
>
>> This is a great video of 747 and 777 doing auto land certification
>> crosswind landings, the 3rd and 4th shot are the best. It takes a
>> minute to download and get through the credits but its worth it.
>>
>> It is hard to believe that these "digital" touchdowns don't shear off
>> the main landing gear.
>>
>> Watch the 777's wings flex during the third clip.
>>
>> http://www.linhadafrente.net/bin/Pousos.wmv
>
>

My instructor when I was getting my private told me he made a complete
rudder deflection landing in a C172 once, glad I wasn't with him. Said he
had so much aileron in the thing that the windside wing was only a few feet
off the runway.

-----------------------------------------------
DW

[Jay Honeck]

If you like that, you'll LOVE this:

http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Boeing%20747%20Extreme%20Landing.mpg

See a bunch more here:

http://alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[JohnH]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> If you like that, you'll LOVE this:
>
> http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Boeing%20747%20Extreme%20Landing.mpg
>
> See a bunch more here:
>
> http://alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm

Is this working for anyone?

[Matt Whiting]

JohnH wrote:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>If you like that, you'll LOVE this:
>>
>>http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Boeing%20747%20Extreme%20Landing.mpg
>>
>>See a bunch more here:
>>
>>http://alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm
>
>
> Is this working for anyone?
>
>
Not me. Quicktime crashes every time I try to view one of Jay's
quicktime clips. The other media formats, however, work fine.

Matt

[DanH]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> JohnH wrote:
>
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>>If you like that, you'll LOVE this:
>>>
>>>http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Boeing%20747%20Extreme%20
>>>Landing.mpg
>>>
>>>See a bunch more here:
>>>
>>>http://alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm
>>
>>
>> Is this working for anyone?
>>
>>
> Not me. Quicktime crashes every time I try to view one of Jay's
> quicktime clips. The other media formats, however, work fine.
>
> Matt

Not working here. At this and other sites, Quicktime either doesn't work
at all, or plays with weird audio that makes it worthless. Downloading
the newest version and reinstalling doesn't help.

[George Patterson]

JohnH wrote:

> Is this working for anyone?

Not I. Winamp just brings up a token and sits there.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Skywise]

"JohnH" > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> If you like that, you'll LOVE this:
>>
>> http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Boeing%20747%20Extreme%20La
>> nding.mpg
>>
>> See a bunch more here:
>>
>> http://alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm
>
> Is this working for anyone?

Working for me....Never had a problem with any of his videos.

Don't know if it makes a difference, but I save the files to
disk then play them.

I have quicktime 6.5 and it has no problems with the files
I've downloaded.

George P, what file are you trying that's bringing up Winamp?
Sounds like you have some file extension association problems.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Supernews sucks - blocking google, usenet.com & newsfeeds.com posts

[Matt Whiting]

DanH wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>JohnH wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you like that, you'll LOVE this:
>>>>
>>>>http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Boeing%20747%20Extreme%20
>>>>Landing.mpg
>>>>
>>>>See a bunch more here:
>>>>
>>>>http://alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>Is this working for anyone?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Not me. Quicktime crashes every time I try to view one of Jay's
>>quicktime clips. The other media formats, however, work fine.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Not working here. At this and other sites, Quicktime either doesn't work
> at all, or plays with weird audio that makes it worthless. Downloading
> the newest version and reinstalling doesn't help.

Sounds like my problem. No idea what it is, but I haven't found a
solution yet. The files actually download to my hard drive, but then
whey they attempt to run I get either the "broken" move strip icon or QT
simply causes a fault and crashes.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Skywise wrote:

> "JohnH" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>>If you like that, you'll LOVE this:
>>>
>>>http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Boeing%20747%20Extreme%20La
>>>nding.mpg
>>>
>>>See a bunch more here:
>>>
>>>http://alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm
>>
>>Is this working for anyone?
>
>
> Working for me....Never had a problem with any of his videos.
>
> Don't know if it makes a difference, but I save the files to
> disk then play them.
>
> I have quicktime 6.5 and it has no problems with the files
> I've downloaded.

Are you using IE? I'm using Netscape. Maybe that makes a difference.

Matt

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>> Is this working for anyone?
>
>Working for me....Never had a problem with any of his videos.
>

Works for me too. I can play all these videos in RealPlayer.

A note on the content though -
The video entitled "Airbus Autoland Crash" has nothing to do with autoland.
The plane was being manually flown on a demonstration flight at the time.
The pilot claims he pushed it forward after his low pass, and the engines
just "coughed" and waited forever before spooling up. The embarrassed
manufacturer claims the pilot simply botched the low pass, flew too low and
did not begin his recovery in time.

G Faris

[Flyingmonk]

Not for me.

[Stefan]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Not me. Quicktime crashes every time I try to view one of Jay's
> quicktime clips. The other media formats, however, work fine.

Download the file and play it from your local disc, this works for me.
Playing QuickTime movies online from Jay's site has never worked, must
be a broken installation at his server.

Stefan

[George Patterson]

Skywise wrote:

> George P, what file are you trying that's bringing up Winamp?

When I click on the link Jay posted, A little box comes up with the file name
"Boeing 747 Extreme Landing.mpg", the text ":what do you want to do with this
file?", and two radio buttons, the top one of which says "Open with." The windo
beside that button has "Winamp (default)" in it. When I click OK, that box
disappears, I get a "downloads complete" message, then the Winamp window
appears. It has the file name in it, but nothing else. Clicking "Play" has no
effect.

> Sounds like you have some file extension association problems.

Quite likely. I've had some problems with spyware lately, and Ad-aware has
probably reset some stuff. What's a good player for these on a Windows 2000 OS?

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[George Patterson]

Skywise wrote:

> George P, what file are you trying that's bringing up Winamp?

Additional info. The wmv file that Bob Fry posted displays perfectly.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Darrell S]

JohnH wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> If you like that, you'll LOVE this:
>>
>> http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Boeing%20747%20Extreme%20Landing.mpg
>>
>> See a bunch more here:
>>
>> http://alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm
>
> Is this working for anyone?

Works fine for me. So I saved it to my hard drive.

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Alt Beer" > wrote:

> Anyone here ever landed in such a strong crosswind?
> Found this posted to another group.
>
>
> > This is a great video of 747 and 777 doing auto land certification
> > crosswind landings, the 3rd and 4th shot are the best. It takes a
> > minute to download and get through the credits but its worth it.
> >
> > It is hard to believe that these "digital" touchdowns don't shear off
> > the main landing gear.
> >
> > Watch the 777's wings flex during the third clip.
> >
> > http://www.linhadafrente.net/bin/Pousos.wmv

Any idea what the soundtrack is? I'd love to get a (legal) copy of that.

rg

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>> > http://www.linhadafrente.net/bin/Pousos.wmv
>
> Any idea what the soundtrack is? I'd love to get a (legal) copy of that.

Enigma (2) - "Return to Innocence", from the "Cross of Changes" album


I could swear there is a free web site where you can upload a music file and
have it identify the song for you, but I can't find the link for it right
now. I guess I'll have to leave off the "here, you can do it yourself"
comment. :)

Pete

[[email protected]]

Yikes, those were some sick xwinds - I was expecting to see the clip at
Hong Kong's Kai Tak of the 747 landing and dragging the #4 engine in a
shower of sparks...

I can just imagine the conversation on the 777 flight deck - F/O: "The
wind's one-eight-zero at 25..." CPT: "Great! Ask if two-seven is
available and have 'em roll the the trucks..This oughta be good..."

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> I could swear there is a free web site where you can upload a music file
> and have it identify the song for you, but I can't find the link for it
> right now.

Okay, I found it: www.musicbrainz.org

Though, as it turns out, that song doesn't appear to be in their database
(at least, my attempt to look it up failed). So it wouldn't have helped
anyway. :(

[Jay Honeck]

>> Not me. Quicktime crashes every time I try to view one of Jay's
>> quicktime clips. The other media formats, however, work fine.

Getting "single-click playback" on a computer is not as easy as it seems.
Both Quicktime and RealPlayer have "issues"...

In fact, this is such a common problem, that I've created this page:

http://alexisparkinn.com/video_tech_support.htm

Try following the instructions there -- let me know if you still can't get
'em to go.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Stefan]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> In fact, this is such a common problem, that I've created this page:
>
> http://alexisparkinn.com/video_tech_support.htm

Jay, the problem with your QuickTime movies is definitely at the serer
(i.e. your) side. I'm working on a Mac (i.e. no wincrap player) and
watch streamed ("one-click", as you call it) QuickTime movies pretty
often from within many different browsers and standalone players. This
has always worked without any glitch, except from your site.

Stefan

[Skywise]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:ovmaf.2360$lb.177570
@news1.epix.net:

<Snipola>
> Are you using IE? I'm using Netscape. Maybe that makes a difference.
>
> Matt

Netscape 7.1 on W2Kpro SP4, but I use GetRight download manager
for all my downloads. I need the resume d/l capability for those
100+ megabyte downloads on this slow dial up. Can't get any form
of high speed at my location. :(

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Supernews sucks - blocking google, usenet.com & newsfeeds.com posts

[Peter Duniho]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Jay, the problem with your QuickTime movies is definitely at the serer
> (i.e. your) side.

If it's his server, then why do Quicktime files play just fine on my
computer, with a single click?

[Skywise]

George Patterson > wrote in
news:oDqaf.16777$mb3.11779@trndny06:

> Skywise wrote:
>
>> George P, what file are you trying that's bringing up Winamp?
>
> When I click on the link Jay posted, A little box comes up with the file
> name "Boeing 747 Extreme Landing.mpg", the text ":what do you want to do
> with this file?", and two radio buttons, the top one of which says "Open
> with." The windo beside that button has "Winamp (default)" in it. When I
> click OK, that box disappears, I get a "downloads complete" message,
> then the Winamp window appears. It has the file name in it, but nothing
> else. Clicking "Play" has no effect.

Winamp (AFAIK) only plays audio, no video. MP3 is an mpeg format so
there could be some confusion going on there.


>> Sounds like you have some file extension association problems.
>
> Quite likely. I've had some problems with spyware lately, and Ad-aware
> has probably reset some stuff. What's a good player for these on a
> Windows 2000 OS?

I have several multimedia players and sometimes I have to open
the appropriate player and load the file from within rather than
the double-click method. Some formats, like avi, can have a wide
variety of possible codecs. One avi will play in one player, the
next may need a different player.

But in answer to your question, I have PowerDVD 4.0, Quicktime 6.5,
Real Player 10.5, and Divx 2.5.3, and tons of codecs. I rarely
have a problem except with some .wmv files and that I don't have
the newest codecs yet.

Come to think of it, it may just be a codec problem.





>
> George Patterson
> Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your
> neighbor. It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you
> miss him.
>



--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Supernews sucks - blocking google, usenet.com & newsfeeds.com posts

[Stefan]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> If it's his server, then why do Quicktime files play just fine on my
> computer, with a single click?

I have no idea, sometimes some combinations work and others don't, and
sometimes it's just the karma of the user. But since I have been
watching streamed QT movies from a myriad of servers with no glitch, and
since there are obviously many others who have a problem with his
server, the conclusion that the problem is at his side is valid.
Besides, if there's one installation with an absolutley clean QuickTime
environment with the newest components in the universe, then it's
certainly my Mac.

Stefan

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I could swear there is a free web site where you can upload a music file
> > and have it identify the song for you, but I can't find the link for it
> > right now.
>
> Okay, I found it: www.musicbrainz.org
>
> Though, as it turns out, that song doesn't appear to be in their database
> (at least, my attempt to look it up failed). So it wouldn't have helped
> anyway. :(

I found it on iTunes. Thanks!

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Stefan > wrote:

> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> > If it's his server, then why do Quicktime files play just fine on my
> > computer, with a single click?
>
> I have no idea, sometimes some combinations work and others don't, and
> sometimes it's just the karma of the user. But since I have been
> watching streamed QT movies from a myriad of servers with no glitch, and
> since there are obviously many others who have a problem with his
> server, the conclusion that the problem is at his side is valid.
> Besides, if there's one installation with an absolutley clean QuickTime
> environment with the newest components in the universe, then it's
> certainly my Mac.

The most likely cause is that the server is sending the wrong
"Content-type" header. Some systems can recover from this (by e.g.
letting the file extension override the content-type header) and others
can't (or haven't been configured to).

rg

[Stefan]

Ron Garret wrote:

> The most likely cause is that the server is sending the wrong
> "Content-type" header. Some systems can recover from this (by e.g.
> letting the file extension override the content-type header) and others
> can't (or haven't been configured to).

I have not too much insight into the technical details of QT, but this
explanation makes sense for three reasons.

1. If I try to watch the movie on line, the player (whichever) downloads
the whole file and displays the error mesage only at the moment when it
tries to play the file.

2. File name extensions have no tradition on Macs, so no Mac user in his
right mind would overwrite the information given within a file by this
silly three letter extension.

3. Off-line watching works, so the file data are correct.

Stefan

[George Patterson]

Skywise wrote:

> Winamp (AFAIK) only plays audio, no video.

It seems to do wmv just fine. Maybe it just can't handle mp3.

I'll take a look at some of the other packages you mentioned.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Dave]

Same here..hit 'n git.
Worked fine for me..

Dave


On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 13:29:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>> Jay, the problem with your QuickTime movies is definitely at the serer
>> (i.e. your) side.
>
>If it's his server, then why do Quicktime files play just fine on my
>computer, with a single click?
>

[Jay Honeck]

>> In fact, this is such a common problem, that I've created this page:
>>
>> http://alexisparkinn.com/video_tech_support.htm
>
> Jay, the problem with your QuickTime movies is definitely at the serer
> (i.e. your) side. I'm working on a Mac (i.e. no wincrap player) and watch
> streamed ("one-click", as you call it) QuickTime movies pretty often from
> within many different browsers and standalone players. This has always
> worked without any glitch, except from your site.

Interesting. Jav Henderson (of this very newsgroup) provides hosting
services for our website -- so perhaps he can shed light on this problem?

To be honest, I've had so many problems with Quicktime lately that I've
pretty much dumped it, and reverted to RealPlayer.

But don't think I'm against Quicktime. About a year ago, I got so
frustrated with RealPlayer trying to "hijack" my system (and everyone
else's) that I completely removed it from my computer. It's good to see
that the latest version of RP no longer "holds" parts of your system (like
it used to) when you try to make (for example) Windows Media Player your
default video player. That REALLY ****ed me off, and caused video playback
to fail in whatever player you used.

I'm sure whatever screwed up Quicktime's quirks will be addressed and fixed
soon -- probably at the expense of one of the other video players...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Skywise]

George Patterson > wrote in
news:Wowaf.5792$9E4.4834@trndny02:

> Skywise wrote:
>
>> Winamp (AFAIK) only plays audio, no video.
<Snipola>

I use Winamp to play my mp3 audio files. There is no video capability.
Looking at the file extensions it can read I see no video formats.

But then, I am using an older version (2.8) so maybe they added it.
Hmmmmm...just looked at the website and the current version (5.11)
apparently can do video.

Well, I'm not upgrading. I went back to 2.8 after trying 3.0 when
it came out. The feature set didn't expand, it changed. There was
some features I liked that were taken out and what they replaced
them with just didn't do it for me. All I use it for is mp3's. If
I want to watch a video, I already have at least 4 other programs
for that.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Supernews sucks - blocking google, usenet.com & newsfeeds.com posts

[Joe Feise]

Ron Garret wrote on 11/03/05 14:13:

> In article >,
> Stefan > wrote:
>
>
>>Peter Duniho wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If it's his server, then why do Quicktime files play just fine on my
>>>computer, with a single click?
>>
>>I have no idea, sometimes some combinations work and others don't, and
>>sometimes it's just the karma of the user. But since I have been
>>watching streamed QT movies from a myriad of servers with no glitch, and
>>since there are obviously many others who have a problem with his
>>server, the conclusion that the problem is at his side is valid.
>>Besides, if there's one installation with an absolutley clean QuickTime
>>environment with the newest components in the universe, then it's
>>certainly my Mac.
>
>
> The most likely cause is that the server is sending the wrong
> "Content-type" header.


Apparently not:
$> wget -S http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/747_test.mov
--00:02:02-- http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/747_test.mov
=> `747_test.mov'
Resolving alexisparkinn.com... 69.36.241.130
Connecting to alexisparkinn.com|69.36.241.130|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response...
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:02:02 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.33 (Unix) FrontPage/5.0.2.2623 PHP/4.3.10
Last-Modified: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 00:08:50 GMT
ETag: "20cb1-b8006-4037f312"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 753670
Keep-Alive: timeout=15, max=100
Connection: Keep-Alive
Content-Type: video/quicktime

-Joe

[Ron Garret]

In article >, Joe Feise >
wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote on 11/03/05 14:13:
>
> > In article >,
> > Stefan > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Peter Duniho wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>If it's his server, then why do Quicktime files play just fine on my
> >>>computer, with a single click?
> >>
> >>I have no idea, sometimes some combinations work and others don't, and
> >>sometimes it's just the karma of the user. But since I have been
> >>watching streamed QT movies from a myriad of servers with no glitch, and
> >>since there are obviously many others who have a problem with his
> >>server, the conclusion that the problem is at his side is valid.
> >>Besides, if there's one installation with an absolutley clean QuickTime
> >>environment with the newest components in the universe, then it's
> >>certainly my Mac.
> >
> >
> > The most likely cause is that the server is sending the wrong
> > "Content-type" header.
>
>
> Apparently not:
> $> wget -S http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/747_test.mov
> --00:02:02-- http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/747_test.mov
> => `747_test.mov'
> Resolving alexisparkinn.com... 69.36.241.130
> Connecting to alexisparkinn.com|69.36.241.130|:80... connected.
> HTTP request sent, awaiting response...
> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:02:02 GMT
> Server: Apache/1.3.33 (Unix) FrontPage/5.0.2.2623 PHP/4.3.10
> Last-Modified: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 00:08:50 GMT
> ETag: "20cb1-b8006-4037f312"
> Accept-Ranges: bytes
> Content-Length: 753670
> Keep-Alive: timeout=15, max=100
> Connection: Keep-Alive
> Content-Type: video/quicktime
>
> -Joe

But 747_test.mov works properly in all browsers. If you're going to
check this you have to test one of the files that doesn't work:

[ron@Mini:~]$ wget -S
http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Boeing%20747%20Extreme%20Lan
ding.mpg
--08:27:03--
http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Boeing%20747%20Extreme%20Lan
ding.mpg
=> `Boeing 747 Extreme Landing.mpg.1'
Resolving alexisparkinn.com... 69.36.241.130
Connecting to alexisparkinn.com[69.36.241.130]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response...
1 HTTP/1.1 200 OK
2 Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:27:03 GMT
3 Server: Apache/1.3.33 (Unix) FrontPage/5.0.2.2623 PHP/4.3.10
4 Last-Modified: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:14:07 GMT
5 ETag: "209ff-dea68-3f6736cf"
6 Accept-Ranges: bytes
7 Content-Length: 911976
8 Keep-Alive: timeout=15, max=100
9 Connection: Keep-Alive
10 Content-Type: video/mp4
^^^

As you can see, the file extension says it's an mpeg (which it is), but
the content-type header says it's an mp4. So any browser that believes
the content-type header will try to play it as an mp4 and barf. (This
explains why it works when you download it first, because then the
information from the content-type header is lost and the (correct) file
extension is used instead.)

rg

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> As you can see, the file extension says it's an mpeg (which it is), but
> the content-type header says it's an mp4. So any browser that believes
> the content-type header will try to play it as an mp4 and barf. (This
> explains why it works when you download it first, because then the
> information from the content-type header is lost and the (correct) file
> extension is used instead.)

I'm not sure I completely get your point here. "mp4" is short for "MPEG4",
which is an MPEG format (the one that the current Quicktime and Windows
Media Video are both based on), just as the file extension suggests. It's
not actually a Quicktime format file (in spite of the close relation to
Quicktime), and so I don't see how it's relevant to the question of people
having problems with Quicktime movies.

Your statement that "the file extension says it's an mpeg (which it is)"
isn't inconsistent with the "Content-Type:" field.

"MPEG" by itself isn't a format, it's a standards group. The MPEG formats
all have version numbers, and the most common MPEG format found for online
videos is MPEG4 (MPEG1 is out of favor, MPEG2 is the format used for DVDs
and requires non-free decoders to play, and MPEG3 doesn't really exist in
the wild as far as I know).

I can see how, if someone has their Quicktime plug-in configured to attempt
to play those "video/mp4" files, that might cause problems (if the Quicktime
player doesn't handle them correctly...my computer is configured to use
Windows Media Player for those files, and it works fine). But that's still
an issue with the client configuration, not the server.

Pete

[george]

Ron Garret wrote:
> In article >, Joe Feise >
> wrote:

>
> But 747_test.mov works properly in all browsers. If you're going to
> check this you have to test one of the files that doesn't work:
>
> [ron@Mini:~]$ wget -S
> http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Boeing%20747%20Extreme%20Lan
> ding.mpg
> --08:27:03--
> http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Boeing%20747%20Extreme%20Lan
> ding.mpg
> => `Boeing 747 Extreme Landing.mpg.1'
> Resolving alexisparkinn.com... 69.36.241.130
> Connecting to alexisparkinn.com[69.36.241.130]:80... connected.
> HTTP request sent, awaiting response...
> 1 HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> 2 Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:27:03 GMT
> 3 Server: Apache/1.3.33 (Unix) FrontPage/5.0.2.2623 PHP/4.3.10
> 4 Last-Modified: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:14:07 GMT
> 5 ETag: "209ff-dea68-3f6736cf"
> 6 Accept-Ranges: bytes
> 7 Content-Length: 911976
> 8 Keep-Alive: timeout=15, max=100
> 9 Connection: Keep-Alive
> 10 Content-Type: video/mp4
> ^^^
>
> As you can see, the file extension says it's an mpeg (which it is), but
> the content-type header says it's an mp4. So any browser that believes
> the content-type header will try to play it as an mp4 and barf. (This
> explains why it works when you download it first, because then the
> information from the content-type header is lost and the (correct) file
> extension is used instead.)
>
I downloaded the pousos.wmv and it ran well. The others either didn't
download or were broken.
As a by the by the pilot earned his money with landing in those
conditions

[Skywise]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

<Snipola>
> "MPEG" by itself isn't a format, it's a standards group. The MPEG
> formats all have version numbers, and the most common MPEG format found
> for online videos is MPEG4 (MPEG1 is out of favor, MPEG2 is the format
> used for DVDs and requires non-free decoders to play, and MPEG3 doesn't
> really exist in the wild as far as I know).
<Snipola>

I thought "mp3" was short for "MPEG3"?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Supernews sucks - blocking google, usenet.com & newsfeeds.com posts

[[email protected]]

Just save them to your drive and delete the extra .mp4 extention off
the end. I noticed it too when I grabbed it. I do believe it was
working correctly a couple months ago when I had last hit up his site.

Jim in Rockford MI

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> I'm sure whatever screwed up Quicktime's quirks will be addressed and
fixed
> soon -- probably at the expense of one of the other video players...

I have only Windows Media Player on my system, and it does everything I ask
it to play; even quicktime formats.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> I thought "mp3" was short for "MPEG3"?

It's not. "MP3" is "MPEG1 Layer 3", referring to the an audio subset of the
MPEG1 specification.

[Skywise]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I thought "mp3" was short for "MPEG3"?
>
> It's not. "MP3" is "MPEG1 Layer 3", referring to the an audio subset of
> the MPEG1 specification.

Oh yeah...now that you mention it, I recall it.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Supernews sucks - blocking google, usenet.com & newsfeeds.com posts

[Jay Honeck]

> Just save them to your drive and delete the extra .mp4 extention off
> the end. I noticed it too when I grabbed it. I do believe it was
> working correctly a couple months ago when I had last hit up his site.

If you look at the source code on the site, (
http://alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm ) the movies aren't in .mp4
format.

It seems that SOME systems try to read them as such, however. I have no
idea why.

Any recommendations from you web gurus? Is there anything Jav Henderson
can do from the server end to fix this problem?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

go into you host and check out mime types mine is set up like
video/mpeg mpeg mpg mpe
yours is probablly set up like this
video/mp4 mpeg mpg mpe
so it is pushing the mp4 extention on to all the mpeg and mpg files
when it's requested.
if it won't let you edit it it should let you delete that mime and add
it back in correctly.

Jim in Rockford Michigan
PPSEL(hoping to take up first passangers Sat lol The kids are going to
love it)

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...]
> > As you can see, the file extension says it's an mpeg (which it is), but
> > the content-type header says it's an mp4. So any browser that believes
> > the content-type header will try to play it as an mp4 and barf. (This
> > explains why it works when you download it first, because then the
> > information from the content-type header is lost and the (correct) file
> > extension is used instead.)
>
> I'm not sure I completely get your point here. "mp4" is short for "MPEG4",
> which is an MPEG format (the one that the current Quicktime and Windows
> Media Video are both based on), just as the file extension suggests. It's
> not actually a Quicktime format file (in spite of the close relation to
> Quicktime), and so I don't see how it's relevant to the question of people
> having problems with Quicktime movies.
>
> Your statement that "the file extension says it's an mpeg (which it is)"
> isn't inconsistent with the "Content-Type:" field.
>
> "MPEG" by itself isn't a format, it's a standards group. The MPEG formats
> all have version numbers, and the most common MPEG format found for online
> videos is MPEG4 (MPEG1 is out of favor, MPEG2 is the format used for DVDs
> and requires non-free decoders to play, and MPEG3 doesn't really exist in
> the wild as far as I know).
>
> I can see how, if someone has their Quicktime plug-in configured to attempt
> to play those "video/mp4" files, that might cause problems (if the Quicktime
> player doesn't handle them correctly...my computer is configured to use
> Windows Media Player for those files, and it works fine). But that's still
> an issue with the client configuration, not the server.

I'm not an expert on codecs, but I've set up a little demo to show that
there is an mpeg format that is distinct from the mp4 format (and that
the video in question is an mpeg file and NOT an mp4 file):

http://www.flownet.com/ron/video.html

There are two little movies there, one in mpeg format (the 747 landing
video in question) and one in mp4 format. There are two links to each
file. One serves the file with the correct content-type header, and the
other serves up the same file with the incorrect header. If you are on
a Mac you will see that both files work fine with the correct header,
and both break when the header is incorrect.

QED.

rg

[Joe Feise]

Ron Garret wrote on 11/04/05 08:34:

> In article >, Joe Feise >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Ron Garret wrote on 11/03/05 14:13:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Stefan > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Peter Duniho wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If it's his server, then why do Quicktime files play just fine on my
>>>>>computer, with a single click?

....

>
> But 747_test.mov works properly in all browsers. If you're going to
> check this you have to test one of the files that doesn't work:
>
> [ron@Mini:~]$ wget -S
> http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Boeing%20747%20Extreme%20Lan
> ding.mpg
> --08:27:03--
> http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Boeing%20747%20Extreme%20Lan
> ding.mpg


Well, these are not Quicktime files.
You may have quicktime configured to play these files, but that has nothing to
do with the content-type header for quicktime files.
I answered to the question about the content-type header for Quicktime files.

-Joe

[Stefan]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Any recommendations from you web gurus? Is there anything Jav Henderson
> can do from the server end to fix this problem?

I'm not a web guru, so I can't answer your question. But here's the
bummer for you: I just uploaded the file into my directory at my
provider's, and bingo, it plays online. I didn't do anything else, just
uploaded the file. So it can't be too hard.

You can veryfy it when you put
http://home.balcab.ch/stefan/public/Boeing.mpg
into the address field of your browser. (I didn't install a link to
click, and I changed the file name to Boeing.mpg to make it easy to
enter it into the address field.)

Stefan

[Jay Honeck]

> I just uploaded the file into my directory at my provider's, and bingo, it
> plays online. I didn't do anything else, just uploaded the file. So it
> can't be too hard.

Interesting. I've emailed Jav to see if he knows what to do with this. All
I do is upload it, so it must be some setting at his end.

Thanks!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Garret]

In article <oZ2bf.515779$x96.377419@attbi_s72>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > I just uploaded the file into my directory at my provider's, and bingo, it
> > plays online. I didn't do anything else, just uploaded the file. So it
> > can't be too hard.
>
> Interesting. I've emailed Jav to see if he knows what to do with this. All
> I do is upload it, so it must be some setting at his end.
>
> Thanks!

The problem is that the server is sending out the wrong "content-type"
header. It's sending "video/mp4" and it should be sending "video/mpeg".

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >, Joe Feise >
wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote on 11/04/05 08:34:
>
> > In article >, Joe Feise >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron Garret wrote on 11/03/05 14:13:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>> Stefan > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Peter Duniho wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>If it's his server, then why do Quicktime files play just fine on my
> >>>>>computer, with a single click?
>
> ...
>
> >
> > But 747_test.mov works properly in all browsers. If you're going to
> > check this you have to test one of the files that doesn't work:
> >
> > [ron@Mini:~]$ wget -S
> > http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Boeing%20747%20Extreme%20Lan
> > ding.mpg
> > --08:27:03--
> > http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Boeing%20747%20Extreme%20Lan
> > ding.mpg
>
>
> Well, these are not Quicktime files.

No, they are mpeg files, but the server says that they are mp4 files.
MPEG and MPEG-4 are not the same thing. See
http://www.flownet.com/ron/video.html for a demonstration.

> You may have quicktime configured to play these files, but that has nothing to
> do with the content-type header for quicktime files.

True. It has to do with the content-type header for mpeg files.

rg

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 03:59:41 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<N6Waf.512897$x96.7438@attbi_s72>::

>If you look at the source code on the site, (
>http://alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm ) the movies aren't in .mp4
>format.
>
>It seems that SOME systems try to read them as such, however. I have no
>idea why.
>
>Any recommendations from you web gurus? Is there anything Jav Henderson
>can do from the server end to fix this problem?


You could consider posting this question in an appropriate newsgroup
such as:

microsoft.public.windowsxp.video
comp.os.ms-windows.video

[Stefan]

Ron Garret wrote:

> No, they are mpeg files, but the server says that they are mp4 files.
> MPEG and MPEG-4 are not the same thing. See
> http://www.flownet.com/ron/video.html for a demonstration.

Yes, number 2 and 4 behave exactly as the MPEG-files at Jay's.

Stefan

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> I'm not an expert on codecs, but I've set up a little demo to show that
> there is an mpeg format that is distinct from the mp4 format

There is no such thing as an "mpeg" format; without a version number, the
phrase "mpeg" by itself does not describe a video compression format. Your
demo simply illustrates that there are two different "Content-Type" tags.

Now, it may well be that the wrong tag is used, and on a computer where
different media players are configured to play different tags, a problem
would arise when the wrong tag is used. But Windows Media Player is
"intelligent" enough to look past the tag (and file extension) when trying
to play a file. I find it odd that the media player you're using on your
Mac is not.

Pete

[Stefan]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "intelligent" enough to look past the tag (and file extension) when trying
> to play a file. I find it odd that the media player you're using on your
> Mac is not.

There are reasons for both approaches. You might argue that if a server
tells you explicitely with format to use, it might have its reasons. I
tend to support the latter apprach, since I hate software that tries to
be smarter than the user.

Stefan

[Darrell S]

Ron Garret wrote:
> In article >,
> "Alt Beer" > wrote:
>
>> Anyone here ever landed in such a strong crosswind?
>> Found this posted to another group.
>>
>>
>>> This is a great video of 747 and 777 doing auto land certification
>>> crosswind landings, the 3rd and 4th shot are the best. It takes a
>>> minute to download and get through the credits but its worth it.
>>>
>>> It is hard to believe that these "digital" touchdowns don't shear
>>> off the main landing gear.
>>>
>>> Watch the 777's wings flex during the third clip.
>>>
>>> http://www.linhadafrente.net/bin/Pousos.wmv
>
> Any idea what the soundtrack is? I'd love to get a (legal) copy of
> that.
>
> rg

Set up your computer to record "what u hear". When the movie starts, record
the sound.

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm not an expert on codecs, but I've set up a little demo to show that
> > there is an mpeg format that is distinct from the mp4 format
>
> There is no such thing as an "mpeg" format; without a version number, the
> phrase "mpeg" by itself does not describe a video compression format. Your
> demo simply illustrates that there are two different "Content-Type" tags.

No, it illustrates that there are two different file formats that go
along with those two different content-type tags.

> Now, it may well be that the wrong tag is used, and on a computer where
> different media players are configured to play different tags, a problem
> would arise when the wrong tag is used. But Windows Media Player is
> "intelligent" enough to look past the tag (and file extension) when trying
> to play a file. I find it odd that the media player you're using on your
> Mac is not.

It's not at all odd. Microsoft has a long history of breaking industry
standards in order to foster incompatibilities that make its competitors
products appear inferior.

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Ron Garret > wrote:

> In article >,
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>
> > "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I'm not an expert on codecs, but I've set up a little demo to show that
> > > there is an mpeg format that is distinct from the mp4 format
> >
> > There is no such thing as an "mpeg" format; without a version number, the
> > phrase "mpeg" by itself does not describe a video compression format. Your
> > demo simply illustrates that there are two different "Content-Type" tags.
>
> No, it illustrates that there are two different file formats that go
> along with those two different content-type tags.

Here's the definitive scoop.

There is such a thing as "an mpeg format." It is not a video
compression format, it is a file format. It is described here:

http://www.graphcomp.com/info/specs/ms/editmpeg.htm

Files of this format typically have an extension of .mpg or .mpeg, and
can usually be identified by the sequence header code 000001B3 at the
beginning of the file. (I say usually because a file starting with this
sequence may or may not be a .mpeg file, but a .mpeg file will always
start with 000001B3.)

The 747 extreme landing video file is in this format.

There is a distinct MPEG-4 file format (which is related to but not the
the same thing as the MPEG-4 video compression format) described here:

http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/standards/mpeg-4/mpeg-4.htm#10.9

Files in this format normally have an extension of .mp4. They do NOT
start with the .mpg sequence header code. In fact, as far as I can tell
there is no way to definitively identify a .mp4 file from its data, but
typically a .mp4 file will contain MPEG-4 encoded video which can be
identified by the header 'moov' (in ascii).

The Alexis Inn site is serving a file in the first format with a
content-type header for the second format. This is definitively a
server-side bug (notwithstanding that some clients are able to recover
from this).

rg

[Peter Duniho]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> There are reasons for both approaches. You might argue that if a server
> tells you explicitely with format to use, it might have its reasons. I
> tend to support the latter apprach, since I hate software that tries to be
> smarter than the user.

I'm not saying the player should ignore what the server says. Simply that
if it fails to play the media using what the server says, the "intelligent"
thing is to figure out what the media type actually is.

How in the world can this be a bad thing? The user doesn't give a crap
whether the server is providing accurate information or not. All they care
about is that their media gets played.

As far as "software that tries to be smarter than the user", I understand
that frustration. But usually, the software IS smarter than the user. Most
users are pretty dumb.

Pete

[Montblack]

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
[snip]
> As far as "software that tries to be smarter than the user", I understand
> that frustration. But usually, the software IS smarter than the user.
> Most users are pretty dumb.


<http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/see-say2.htm>
This is about where I got left in the dust!


Montblack says 'You gonna finish those fries?'

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> It's not at all odd. Microsoft has a long history of breaking industry
> standards in order to foster incompatibilities that make its competitors
> products appear inferior.

Now you're being ridiculous. That statement is just like the idiotic
accusations from the Firefox-worshipers that Microsoft is bad because IE
works with poorly-written HTML, even HTML that doesn't conform to the
standards.

As I mentioned in my reply to Stefan, the end-user doesn't give a crap about
whether standards were conformed to. They care about seeing the web page,
and they care about it being displayed correctly.

It cracks me up, people who go around claiming Microsoft is guilty of some
conspiracy, when what they've actually done is improve the end-user
experience.

They don't do it for the purpose of making their competitors products look
inferior. Their competitors products ARE inferior. It's not Microsoft's
fault that the competitors wind up looking poor in comparison.

Not that the Linux/Firefox/etc apologists will ever accept this truth. But
anyone who isn't blinded by their prejudice does.

Pete

[Morgans]

"Montblack" > wrote

> <http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/see-say2.htm>
> This is about where I got left in the dust!

Me too! I figure if all else fails, I really didn't want to see the clip,
that bad! <g>

All bets are off, for that RC Airbus 380, though. I would have really
missed seeing that one!

What do you figure that cost? My guess is 16 to 18 thousand. Anyone want
to write me a check for that amount? I'll teach you to fly it!

Jim (with an Airbus 380 type certification) in NC

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> > It's not at all odd. Microsoft has a long history of breaking industry
> > standards in order to foster incompatibilities that make its competitors
> > products appear inferior.
>
> Now you're being ridiculous. That statement is just like the idiotic
> accusations from the Firefox-worshipers that Microsoft is bad because IE
> works with poorly-written HTML, even HTML that doesn't conform to the
> standards.

[snip]
> It cracks me up, people who go around claiming Microsoft is guilty of some
> conspiracy, when what they've actually done is improve the end-user
> experience.
>
> They don't do it for the purpose of making their competitors products look
> inferior. Their competitors products ARE inferior. It's not Microsoft's
> fault that the competitors wind up looking poor in comparison.
>
> Not that the Linux/Firefox/etc apologists will ever accept this truth. But
> anyone who isn't blinded by their prejudice does.

now who is being ridiculous?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>It's not at all odd. Microsoft has a long history of breaking industry
>>standards in order to foster incompatibilities that make its competitors
>>products appear inferior.
>
>
> Now you're being ridiculous. That statement is just like the idiotic
> accusations from the Firefox-worshipers that Microsoft is bad because IE
> works with poorly-written HTML, even HTML that doesn't conform to the
> standards.
>
> As I mentioned in my reply to Stefan, the end-user doesn't give a crap about
> whether standards were conformed to. They care about seeing the web page,
> and they care about it being displayed correctly.
>
> It cracks me up, people who go around claiming Microsoft is guilty of some
> conspiracy, when what they've actually done is improve the end-user
> experience.
>
> They don't do it for the purpose of making their competitors products look
> inferior. Their competitors products ARE inferior. It's not Microsoft's
> fault that the competitors wind up looking poor in comparison.
>
> Not that the Linux/Firefox/etc apologists will ever accept this truth. But
> anyone who isn't blinded by their prejudice does.

This is too funny.

Matt

[Jose]

> How in the world can this be a bad thing? The user doesn't give a crap
> whether the server is providing accurate information or not.

Well, that's another way to invite trojan horses in. Say it's one thing
(to get past certain filters) and then actually =be= something else
(which the computer will figure out). The same game is played with file
extensions and (Windows) Explorer. Name an executable with a double
extension and it will show up as one thing, and =do= something else.

Not that there's much of a defense when it comes to software. :/

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> > It's not at all odd. Microsoft has a long history of breaking industry
> > standards in order to foster incompatibilities that make its competitors
> > products appear inferior.
>
> Now you're being ridiculous. That statement is just like the idiotic
> accusations from the Firefox-worshipers that Microsoft is bad because IE
> works with poorly-written HTML, even HTML that doesn't conform to the
> standards.
>
> As I mentioned in my reply to Stefan, the end-user doesn't give a crap about
> whether standards were conformed to. They care about seeing the web page,
> and they care about it being displayed correctly.
>
> It cracks me up, people who go around claiming Microsoft is guilty of some
> conspiracy, when what they've actually done is improve the end-user
> experience.

First, the fact that Microsoft has engaged in criminal conspiracies (and
actual criminal acts by the way) is a matter of record. That's
"conspiracies" and "acts" -- both plural.

Second, engaging in a conspiracy and improving the user experience are
not mutually exclusive.

Third, whether Microsoft really improves the user's experience is
arguable. The customers of drug dealers probably think that they are
having a good user experience too.

(The drug-dealer metaphor is actually pretty apt. Once you start using
Microsoft products it is very hard to quit even if you want to, and it
generally involves a long and painful detoxification process.)

I don't want to get too deeply into an argument about Microsoft, but
I'll just point out one thing that is relevant to the current situation:
the only reason we even have to have content-type headers is because
Microsoft led us down a path where files as a matter of course do not
contain their own metadata. But most people are so ignorant that they
don't even know what that means, let alone understand that Microsoft is
responsible for this sorry state of affairs.

> They don't do it for the purpose of making their competitors products look
> inferior.

Of course they do. Not that an apologist for Microsoft will ever accept
this truth.

rg

[sfb]

Cites for Microsoft criminal acts please. Microsoft has been the target
of numerous civil lawsuits including one big one with the DOJ, but none
for criminal acts that I can find on the Internet.

Confusing criminal and civil acts sort of knocks credibility out of
one's arguments.

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message news:rNOSPAMon-
>
> First, the fact that Microsoft has engaged in criminal conspiracies
> (and
> actual criminal acts by the way) is a matter of record. That's
> "conspiracies" and "acts" -- both plural.
>

[george]

Ron Garret wrote:
> In article >,
snip
> It's not at all odd. Microsoft has a long history of breaking industry
> standards in order to foster incompatibilities that make its competitors
> products appear inferior.

As I see it Microsoft and Apple/Mac are the ordinary everyday user
standards.
Each write software for their own platform.
If the user is unable to open a file with one program surely they have
the acumen to try other programs ?

And yes I also use Linux.

[Ron Garret]

In article <rlsbf.8816$dU6.2588@trnddc03>, "sfb" > wrote:

> Cites for Microsoft criminal acts please.

http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+convicted

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Ron Garret > wrote:

> In article <rlsbf.8816$dU6.2588@trnddc03>, "sfb" > wrote:
>
> > Cites for Microsoft criminal acts please.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+convicted

So I am not a lawyer, and I concede that I did confuse "criminal act"
and "breaking the law", which are not the same thing (though I'm still
not entirely clear on where the distinction lies). I should have said:

"The fact that Microsoft has engaged in conspiracies to break the law
(and been convicted of illegal acts) is a matter of record. That's
"conspiracies" and "acts" -- both plural."

Nonetheless, Microsoft has been convicted at least once of an actual
criminal act, as the above link documents.

rg

[Jose]

> It cracks me up, people who go around claiming Microsoft is guilty of some
> conspiracy, when what they've actually done is improve the end-user
> experience.
>
> They don't do it for the purpose of making their competitors products look
> inferior. Their competitors products ARE inferior. It's not Microsoft's
> fault that the competitors wind up looking poor in comparison.

Actually they are more subtle. They ignore the standards, creating
variants of features that only work properly for those who use Microsoft
products to access them. Then most of the world creates product that
works with the Microsoft feature set, because that's what most of the
world has. Case in point: Microsoft Front Page. Once in Front Page,
always in Front Page. Only works with Front Page. Requires the server
to have Front Page. But everyone =has= Front Page already, so there you
go. Nonetheless, Front Page cannot be described politely.

They call this "improving the end-user experience".

What this has to do with the 747 I don't really know.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skywise]

Jose > wrote in news:IYobf.5388$8W.3511
@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com:

>> How in the world can this be a bad thing? The user doesn't give a crap
>> whether the server is providing accurate information or not.
>
> Well, that's another way to invite trojan horses in. Say it's one thing
> (to get past certain filters) and then actually =be= something else
> (which the computer will figure out). The same game is played with file
> extensions and (Windows) Explorer. Name an executable with a double
> extension and it will show up as one thing, and =do= something else.
<Snipola>

That is because by default explorer is set to hide extensions. So
when a person downloads "nakedbritney.jpg.exe", all they see is
"nakedbritney.jpg". Then when they double click on it, they expect
their favorite picture viewing software to load and show them a
picture of britney, when in fact the file is run as an executable.

tools -> folder options -> view -> uncheck "hide file extensions for
known file types" and make sure you apply it to all folders. I also
check "show hidden files and folders" and uncheck "hide protected
operating system files". That way you see everything for what it
really is.

I do tend to agree though that microsoft defaults to leaving all the
doors and windows open and unlocked. Then it's up to the user to
figure where all the openings are and close them. If you forget one
or simply don't know there's an unlocked door hiding somewhere, well
tough ****, huh? (purely personal opinion based on my experience)

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Supernews sucks - blocking google, usenet.com & newsfeeds.com posts

[sfb]

My bad except intellectual property disputes which are common in the
software business are civil actions in the US. There is nothing in the
French court actions that comes to a "criminal conspiracy".

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> In article <rlsbf.8816$dU6.2588@trnddc03>, "sfb" > wrote:
>
>> Cites for Microsoft criminal acts please.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+convicted
>
> rg

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> First, the fact that Microsoft has engaged in criminal conspiracies (and
> actual criminal acts by the way) is a matter of record. That's
> "conspiracies" and "acts" -- both plural.

They have NOT been even accused of a conspiracy such as the one you
described (to "...breaking industry standards in order to foster
incompatibilities that make its competitors products appear inferior"),
never mind have they been convicted of such.

> Second, engaging in a conspiracy and improving the user experience are
> not mutually exclusive.

They are in this case.

> Third, whether Microsoft really improves the user's experience is
> arguable.

No, it's not arguable at all. Either the video plays, or it does not. You
cannot mount any serious argument that the user's experience is improved by
NOT playing the video.

> [...]
> (The drug-dealer metaphor is actually pretty apt.

No, actually it's pretty idiotic.

> [...]
> I don't want to get too deeply into an argument about Microsoft,

You don't? Fooled me.

> but I'll just point out one thing that is relevant to the current
> situation:

Well, it's about time you did.

> the only reason we even have to have content-type headers is because
> Microsoft led us down a path where files as a matter of course do not
> contain their own metadata.

Baloney. First of all, the HTTP specification was developed completely
independently of Windows. Windows wasn't even a predominate operating
system when it was created. Secondly, the idea of files that "do not
contain their own metadata" existed LONG before Microsoft had any input. It
predates the PC industry completely. It's idiotic to blame them for that
state of affairs.

> But most people are so ignorant that they
> don't even know what that means, let alone understand that Microsoft is
> responsible for this sorry state of affairs.

Most people who bother to think about it can understand that Microsoft is
NOT "responsible for this sorry state of affairs".

>> They don't do it for the purpose of making their competitors products
>> look
>> inferior.
>
> Of course they do.

No they don't. And you have absolutely no justification for claiming that
they do. Where is your evidence? What proof do you have that someone at
Microsoft decided "hey, I know...we want to make our competitors products
look inferior, so we'll change ours so that it works with a wider variety of
web sites"?

The competitors products look inferior because they ARE inferior.

> Not that an apologist for Microsoft will ever accept this truth.

What truth? Most of your post is wishful thinking or outright lies.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> Well, that's another way to invite trojan horses in. Say it's one thing
> (to get past certain filters) and then actually =be= something else (which
> the computer will figure out).

There aren't any filters that let only "video/mp4" files past, but not
"video/mpeg" or vice a versa. Nor would there be any good reason to
implement such a filter.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> Actually they are more subtle. They ignore the standards, creating
> variants of features that only work properly for those who use Microsoft
> products to access them.

I agree that the whole "make up your own standards" issue is annoying. I am
critical of Microsoft for that. Front Page is a great example.

However, that has nothing to do with a media player that bothers to actually
look at the data in a file and figure out how to play it, even when the
description external to the file is incorrect.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

>> Interesting. I've emailed Jav to see if he knows what to do with this.
>> All
>> I do is upload it, so it must be some setting at his end.
>
> The problem is that the server is sending out the wrong "content-type"
> header. It's sending "video/mp4" and it should be sending "video/mpeg".

Try the "problem" videos again, please. Jav says he's got the problem
licked!

http://alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>Interesting. I've emailed Jav to see if he knows what to do with this.
>>>All
>>>I do is upload it, so it must be some setting at his end.
>>
>>The problem is that the server is sending out the wrong "content-type"
>>header. It's sending "video/mp4" and it should be sending "video/mpeg".
>
>
> Try the "problem" videos again, please. Jav says he's got the problem
> licked!
>
> http://alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm

Still no joy. I get the following errors:

"B-52 Crash.mpg.mp4" is not a valid MPEG-4 file.

No 'moov' atom could be found.


This is with QuickTime 6.5.2 running on Windoze ME.

I downloaded RealPlayer yesterday and was able to see most of the clips
by downloading them first and then viewing them with RealPlayer.
However, whatever change was made has now made RealPlayer crash when I
try to view the same files I viewed last evening and it still doesn't
let QuickTime view them. :-(


Matt

[Jose]

> That is because by default explorer is set to hide extensions. So
> when a person downloads "nakedbritney.jpg.exe", all they see is
> "nakedbritney.jpg". Then when they double click on it, they expect
> their favorite picture viewing software to load and show them a
> picture of britney, when in fact the file is run as an executable.
>
> tools -> folder options -> view -> uncheck "hide file extensions for
> known file types" and make sure you apply it to all folders. I also
> check "show hidden files and folders" and uncheck "hide protected
> operating system files". That way you see everything for what it
> really is.

Gotcha!

Go to the DOS prompt and create a file called test.lnk and then go to
Windows Explorer and see if you can see its extension.

Then get back to me.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> There aren't any filters that let only "video/mp4" files past, but not
> "video/mpeg" or vice a versa. Nor would there be any good reason to
> implement such a filter.

I used the term loosely. Say in two different places that a file is two
different things, and some programs will listen to one, some to the
other, some to both, and some ignore both. These programs act as
"filters" in that they decide what, of the files they =would= be able to
play, they decide to =try= to play.

I don't say right or wrong. I say is.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>It's not at all odd. Microsoft has a long history of breaking industry
>>standards in order to foster incompatibilities that make its competitors
>>products appear inferior.
>
> Now you're being ridiculous.

Not at all. They've done this with various standards, including HTML and XML.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Garner Miller]

In article <C8ybf.549766$xm3.473267@attbi_s21>, Jay Honeck
> wrote:

> Try the "problem" videos again, please. Jav says he's got the problem
> licked!

I'm still getting both .mpg and .mpeg files dished out as Video/MP4,
and failing to play. The other formats play fine.

I checked your site at http://web-sniffer.net and it's still sending
out the wrong content-type header in response to the http "get"
command.

It looks like your server's running Apache. The default file to set
this all up in Apache is the "mime.types" file. It tells the HTTP
server what file type to send based on its file extension.

See if your admin can locate this and edit it properly. (It's in
/etc/httpd/ on my system; it may be in a different spot on his.) Here
are a couple of relevant lines from the mime.types file on my server
(these are the defaults, incidentally):

video/mp4 mp4
video/mpeg mpeg mpg mpe


My guess is that he has "mpeg mpg mpe" on the upper line, too, so it's
never getting to the video/mpeg entry at all. It finds a match and
moves on, as I understand it. "mp4" is the ONLY thing that should be
on that first line.

Let us know, we'll try again!

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=
http://www.garnermiller.com/

[Garner Miller]

Jay -- One other thought. Perhaps he needs to restart the server after
making the configuration changes? The Apache documentation mentions
that the main configuration files aren't recognized until a restart,
although I'm not sure of the mime.types file is a "main" one or not.
Worth a shot before he continues troubleshooting, at least.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=
http://www.garnermiller.com/

[Garner Miller]

In article <ABybf.1804$Y97.829@trndny05>, George Patterson
> wrote:

> >>It's not at all odd. Microsoft has a long history of breaking industry
> >>standards in order to foster incompatibilities that make its competitors
> >>products appear inferior.
> >
> > Now you're being ridiculous.
>
> Not at all. They've done this with various standards, including HTML and XML.

And Java. They tried to "extend" Java for their own use and change the
way it worked. They were sued by Sun, its creator, because they
effectively broke what was supposed to be a cross-platform computer
language. They settled out of court, greatly in Sun's favor.


From C|NET:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-251401.html

"Under the settlement, Microsoft will pay Sun $20 million and is
permanently prohibited from using 'Java compatible' trademarks on its
products, according to Sun. Sun also gets to terminate the licensing
agreement it signed with Microsoft."

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=
http://www.garnermiller.com/

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Try the "problem" videos again, please. Jav says he's got the problem
> licked!

Nope. It's interesting, though. If I click on one (like the Sukhoi under the
bridge) and ask Winamp to play it, it gets downloaded as an ".mpeg.mp4" file,
but if I download it to disk, I only get the .mpeg extension. That plays fine.
Your .wmv files play just fine.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >>>Interesting. I've emailed Jav to see if he knows what to do with this.
> >>>All
> >>>I do is upload it, so it must be some setting at his end.
> >>
> >>The problem is that the server is sending out the wrong "content-type"
> >>header. It's sending "video/mp4" and it should be sending "video/mpeg".
> >
> >
> > Try the "problem" videos again, please. Jav says he's got the problem
> > licked!
> >
> > http://alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm
>
> Still no joy. I get the following errors:
>
> "B-52 Crash.mpg.mp4" is not a valid MPEG-4 file.

Just out of interest, what happens if you change the file extension from
..mp4 to mpeg.

Work for you now?

--
Duncan

[Skywise]

Jose > wrote in news:pyybf.4348$Lv.3094
@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:

>> That is because by default explorer is set to hide extensions. So
>> when a person downloads "nakedbritney.jpg.exe", all they see is
>> "nakedbritney.jpg". Then when they double click on it, they expect
>> their favorite picture viewing software to load and show them a
>> picture of britney, when in fact the file is run as an executable.
>>
>> tools -> folder options -> view -> uncheck "hide file extensions for
>> known file types" and make sure you apply it to all folders. I also
>> check "show hidden files and folders" and uncheck "hide protected
>> operating system files". That way you see everything for what it
>> really is.
>
> Gotcha!
>
> Go to the DOS prompt and create a file called test.lnk and then go to
> Windows Explorer and see if you can see its extension.
>
> Then get back to me.
>
> Jose

You're right. That is an exception. And I can see how that could be
a problem. I wonder if there might be a registry key that can override
this, or some other solution. Yep, first hit on a google search
gives instructions. Simply delete all keys that have the value
"NeverShowExt".

This affects .shb, .url, .lnk, .pif, .scf, and .shs.

http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/627/

I'll be applying this change after I'm done here online.

Just another example of leaving hidden doors unlocked. How do you know
to lock them if you don't know they exist? Certainly not the way I'd
do it if it were up to me. :)

BTW, thanks.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Supernews sucks - blocking google, usenet.com & newsfeeds.com posts

[Jose]

> This affects .shb, .url, .lnk, .pif, .scf, and .shs.

It affects quite a few others too. It's not a bug. It's deliberate on
Microsoft's part. I found this out by accident - on another machine I
had text files with extensions for the months of the year - .jan, .feb,
..mar, etc. When I transferred them over to this machine, I found that
the .mar extension was not showing up. I then created files with all
possible three-or-fewer-letter extensions, and found a dozen or more
that were super-hidden like that.

It turns out I would have never come across this if I didn't have Access
on my system. The install program creates more super-hidden file
extensions and .mar is one of them.

Furthermore, the operating system will re-super-hide these extensions
every now and then. Keep checking the registry for NeverShowExt. It
will return. Sometimes. Probably with every bug-fix and security update
they put out.

BTW, some of these extensions are executable. .lnk for example, is a
shortcut. It can be its own target and can contain the entry point for
its target (itself). .scf and .shs are also very dangerous. One of
them I believe is a "scrap object" and can contain anything. So, just
create a virus, name it clickme.txt.lnk and make it point to itself with
the right entry point. The nerds, who have set their computers to show
all extensions for JUST THIS REASON, will see clickme.txt, which is a
safe-to-click file. It will call notepad. (If it's too big, Notepad
will offer Wordpad, and nerds know to say no). Nonetheless, the nerds
get hozed by the virus, which if clever enough, uses the notepad icon
and even runs notepad in the foreground.

I have run into only one supernerd - somebody who knew this before I
told them. She was a young (and very pretty) health care worker who
happened to work for google in a prior life. I myself am no supernerd;
I just hit this by accident by doing something odd.

BTW, you're welcome. :)

Jose
PS - have I mentioned SONY's rootkit?
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/31/2016223&from=rss
These companies are EVIL.
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> > First, the fact that Microsoft has engaged in criminal conspiracies (and
> > actual criminal acts by the way) is a matter of record. That's
> > "conspiracies" and "acts" -- both plural.
>
> They have NOT been even accused of a conspiracy such as the one you
> described (to "...breaking industry standards in order to foster
> incompatibilities that make its competitors products appear inferior"),

Of course they have. They may not have been formally accused of this,
but that MS engages in such tactics is common knowledge. But you are
confusing three different issues: 1) whether MS has been convicted of
criminal acts (they have, at least on one occasion), 2) whether MS has
been convicted of violating the law (they have, on multiple occasions)
and 3) whether MS uses illegal/unethical tactics for which they have not
been formally charged. That last one is, of course, harder to establish.

> > Second, engaging in a conspiracy and improving the user experience are
> > not mutually exclusive.
>
> They are in this case.

No, they aren't. But I concede that this particular problem is not the
result of an MS conspiracy.

> > Third, whether Microsoft really improves the user's experience is
> > arguable.
>
> No, it's not arguable at all. Either the video plays, or it does not. You
> cannot mount any serious argument that the user's experience is improved by
> NOT playing the video.

That is a very short sighted view. Breaking standards has long-term
negative consequences far beyond the immediate gratification of having a
video play.

> > the only reason we even have to have content-type headers is because
> > Microsoft led us down a path where files as a matter of course do not
> > contain their own metadata.
>
> Baloney. First of all, the HTTP specification was developed completely
> independently of Windows. Windows wasn't even a predominate operating
> system when it was created.

HTTP was first described by Berners-Lee et al. in RFC 1945 in May 1996.
Windows95 first shipped in August 1995. So if Windows was not the
predominant OS when HTTP was invented, what was? OS/2?

Nonetheless, I will concede that it was unfair to lay this particular
problem on Microsoft's doorstep. It is a stretch to think that
Berners-Lee was catering to Windows in 1996. It was probably more Unix
than Windows that drove the inclusion of the content-type and
content-encoding headers.

> >> They don't do it for the purpose of making their competitors products
> >> look inferior.
> >
> > Of course they do.
>
> No they don't. And you have absolutely no justification for claiming that
> they do. Where is your evidence? What proof do you have that someone at
> Microsoft decided "hey, I know...we want to make our competitors products
> look inferior, so we'll change ours so that it works with a wider variety of
> web sites"?

It is among the findings of fact in United States versus Microsoft.
(Also, I'm fairly certain, in Sun Microsystems v. Microsoft in the Java
lawsuit.)

rg

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> Of course they have. They may not have been formally accused of this,
> but that MS engages in such tactics is common knowledge.

"Common knowledge" is a lot like "common sense". Except that it's the
second word that's in short supply, rather than the first.

> But you are confusing three different issues:

No, YOU are confusing those issues with something that is relevant to this
discussion. They are not relevant at all.

> No, they aren't. But I concede that this particular problem is not the
> result of an MS conspiracy.

Well, your claim that it is was is what I refuted in your post. I guess
that wraps this up.

> [...]
> That is a very short sighted view. Breaking standards has long-term
> negative consequences far beyond the immediate gratification of having a
> video play.

Or maybe not...you're still arguing about it.

There's no standard that says that the media player SHOULD NOT play a file
that it recognizes. The standards only describe what the media player (or
other software) SHOULD do.

It doesn't "break" a standard to play a file even when the standard doesn't
provide sufficient information to play it. The only entity that "broke" the
standard was the one that didn't conform to it in the first place (e.g. the
web developer, web site, web server, etc.)

All the media player does is to try to make an educated guess as to what was
actually intended, thus providing the end user with the experience they
expect in spite of the erroneous data.

> HTTP was first described by Berners-Lee et al. in RFC 1945 in May 1996.
> Windows95 first shipped in August 1995. So if Windows was not the
> predominant OS when HTTP was invented, what was? OS/2?

First of all, his work predates the publication date by a significant
amount. Secondly, even in 1996 it is not my recollection that Windows held
even 50% of the total market share for operating systems. Only five years
earlier, Windows was still struggling to get over the legacy of versions 1.0
and 2.0. Plenty of people were still using DOS (Windows most significant
competitor at the time), and a host of other options.

> [...]
> It is among the findings of fact in United States versus Microsoft.
> (Also, I'm fairly certain, in Sun Microsystems v. Microsoft in the Java
> lawsuit.)

If you're going to state that as fact, I assume you have citations to back
it up. There were plenty of accusations reported in the press, but I never
heard one that complained about Microsoft's software tolerating poor
third-party developers better than their competitors.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:ABybf.1804$Y97.829@trndny05...
> Not at all. They've done this with various standards, including HTML and
> XML.

Those actions were not designed to make its competitors appear inferior.
They were done in an attempt to control the standard.

Whether that's better or worse behavior is irrelevant. The fact is, the two
motivations are completely different.

The idea that the reason Windows Media Player will correctly figure out the
media type even when the HTTP header is incorrect is that Microsoft is
specifically trying to make its competitors appear inferior most certainly
IS ridiculous.

Unless, of course, you consider simply trying to make a better product to be
the same as intentionally making your competitors products look inferior.
If that's the case, I guess we'd better sic the government regulators on the
luxury car manufacturers, and the camera manufacturers (those *******s,
always trying to one-up each other), and for sure we'd better sic them on
Apple. Have you seen that iPod? Puts all the other media players to shame
(most of the time, anyway).

As the end-user, all I care about is whether my video plays. I don't give a
crap about how it plays or why it plays, and I get mad when it doesn't play.
It is absolutely ridiculous for someone to complain about a media player
that plays the video correctly.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Garner Miller" > wrote in message
...
> And Java. They tried to "extend" Java for their own use and change the
> way it worked. They were sued by Sun, its creator, because they
> effectively broke what was supposed to be a cross-platform computer
> language. They settled out of court, greatly in Sun's favor.

The primary reason they lost that suit is that their license from Sun
essentially prohibited them from doing what they did. It was a contract
dispute, nothing more. The case certainly doesn't suggest there's anything
wrong with trying to make something "better" (however one might want to
define that).

Sun's interest in Java is no more pure than Microsoft's was. They intended
to take over the web as a platform by providing a standard to replace the
usual operating system. Still do, for that matter. I wish them luck. But
I don't imagine that they have anyone's best interest but their own in mind.

Pete

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> The only entity that "broke" the
> standard was the one that didn't conform to it in the first place (e.g. the
> web developer, web site, web server, etc.)

Well, at least we agree that something on the server side is the root
cause of the problem here.

> It doesn't "break" a standard to play a file even when the standard doesn't
> provide sufficient information to play it.

A straw man (or perhaps it's a non-sequitur). The standard does provide
enough information. What is happening here is that the server is lying
about what kind of file it is serving.

> All the media player does is to try to make an educated guess as to what was
> actually intended

No, the media player is doing more than that. The media player is
*ignoring* the content-type information sent by the server.

Here's an aviation analogy: imagine that you had a magic gadget that
could convert Jet-A to 100LL. You install one of these on your
piston-powered airplane. Now when you fill up you can take either Jet-A
or 100LL. You no longer care. One day you get to an airport where the
pump marked 100LL is in fact dispensing Jet-A. From your point of view
this is not a problem. But from everyone else's point of view it is.

So... should everyone have to install one of these magic gadgets on
their planes? Or are the people without the gadget right to insist that
the fuel pumps ought to be marked correctly?

That is an exact analogy to the current situation.

rg

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> Well, at least we agree that something on the server side is the root
> cause of the problem here.

I didn't realize that was ever in disagreement.

>> It doesn't "break" a standard to play a file even when the standard
>> doesn't
>> provide sufficient information to play it.
>
> A straw man (or perhaps it's a non-sequitur). The standard does provide
> enough information. What is happening here is that the server is lying
> about what kind of file it is serving.

It's not a "straw man". You simply misinterpreted my meaning. By "the
standard doesn't provide sufficient information", all I mean is that the
instance of the use of the standard doesn't.

>> All the media player does is to try to make an educated guess as to what
>> was
>> actually intended
>
> No, the media player is doing more than that. The media player is
> *ignoring* the content-type information sent by the server.

As well it should, since that information is erroneous.

I tend to ignore erroneous information as well. Are you saying that you do
not?

> Here's an aviation analogy: imagine that you had a magic gadget that
> could convert Jet-A to 100LL. You install one of these on your
> piston-powered airplane. Now when you fill up you can take either Jet-A
> or 100LL. You no longer care. One day you get to an airport where the
> pump marked 100LL is in fact dispensing Jet-A. From your point of view
> this is not a problem. But from everyone else's point of view it is.
>
> So... should everyone have to install one of these magic gadgets on
> their planes? Or are the people without the gadget right to insist that
> the fuel pumps ought to be marked correctly?
>
> That is an exact analogy to the current situation.

No, it's not. Or if it does, it fails to prove your point.

In this current situation, Windows Media Player is the gadget, not the fuel
dispenser. The incorrectly labeled fuel dispenser is equivalent to the
server, not the media player.

If you want to complain about anyone, complain about the server serving up
the incorrect content type information, not the media player that correctly
figures out how to play the file in spite of that incorrect information.

Pete

[Cub Driver]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 06:09:22 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>I then created files with all
>possible three-or-fewer-letter extensions, and found a dozen or more
>that were super-hidden like that.

As a matter of curiosity, how many files is that?

26 plus 26 squared plus 26 cubed?

Is it possible to work in numbers as well?


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 07:52:20 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>> Not that the Linux/Firefox/etc apologists will ever accept this truth. But
>> anyone who isn't blinded by their prejudice does.
>
>now who is being ridiculous?

I don't know about Linux, but Firefox is a great browser. Does that
make me an "apologist" (in the word of the first poster, who I've
evidently put in my kill file, since I didn't see the post)?

What's the difference between an apologist and a fan?

I can see how someone who defended Internet Explorer might be an
apologist, since there are many of us who detest the browser (and
Microsoft) and so IE is under attack, but I don't understand how
liking an alternative requires an apology. It's better, that's all. I
don't apologize for that; I feel good about it!



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Jay Honeck]

> Nope. It's interesting, though. If I click on one (like the Sukhoi under
> the bridge) and ask Winamp to play it, it gets downloaded as an
> ".mpeg.mp4" file, but if I download it to disk, I only get the .mpeg
> extension. That plays fine. Your .wmv files play just fine.

Thanks, all. I've forwarded your responses to Jav. He's working on it!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Javier Henderson]

> If you look at the source code on the site, (
> http://alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm ) the movies aren't in .mp4
> format.
>
> It seems that SOME systems try to read them as such, however. I have no
> idea why.

Fixed now. Enjoy.

-jav

[Jay Honeck]

> Thanks, all. I've forwarded your responses to Jav. He's working on it!

OK, this time for sure!

Please try them again, and let me know if they work for you now...

http://alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm

Thanks!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Garner Miller]

In article <FbIbf.527767$_o.75399@attbi_s71>, Jay Honeck
> wrote:

> Please try them again, and let me know if they work for you now...

That did it! .mpg and .mpeg files are now properly reporting their
file type, and are playing fine.


I first tried it, and it didn't work. So I checked with
http://web-sniffer.net/ and it reported the content-type *correctly*
this time (it's the same check I did last night). Knowing that, I
cleared the browser cache in Firefox, and now it's working like a
champ. Good work!

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=
http://www.garnermiller.com/

[Jay Honeck]

> That did it! .mpg and .mpeg files are now properly reporting their
> file type, and are playing fine.

Thanks a million for your help, Garner! (And others, of course.)

This really is a fantastic newsgroup, in so many ways...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> As a matter of curiosity, how many files is that?
> 26 plus 26 squared plus 26 cubed?

Digits can be in the extension also, so it's
1 + 36+ 36^2 + 36^3
The 1 is for the null extension.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Those actions were not designed to make its competitors appear inferior.
> They were done in an attempt to control the standard.
>
> Whether that's better or worse behavior is irrelevant. The fact is, the two
> motivations are completely different.

By controlling the standard they ensure that other standards get
orphaned, and they get a competitive and temporal advantage unrelated to
quality. This does have the effect of "making their competitors appear
inferior", though that's not the intent I percieve.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> OK, this time for sure!

I checked several. Files like the Tbird crash and supersonic flyby now display
just fine. Under the bridge still comes down with the extra mp4 extension and
will not display.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Garner Miller]

In article <_GKbf.3793$SV1.533@trndny01>, George Patterson
> wrote:

> I checked several. Files like the Tbird crash and supersonic flyby now
> display
> just fine. Under the bridge still comes down with the extra mp4 extension and
> will not display.

George, try clearing your cache out and then try to view the video
again. I ran into the same issue after the server was fixed, but my
browser was still pulling up the (incorrectly-tagged) cached file.

I'm seeing the Under the Bridge video fine now.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=
http://www.garnermiller.com/

[George Patterson]

Garner Miller wrote:

> George, try clearing your cache out and then try to view the video
> again.

Yep, that did it.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[George Patterson]

Ron Garret wrote:

> HTTP was first described by Berners-Lee et al. in RFC 1945 in May 1996.

HTTP was invented in 1990. One of the earliest standards publications came out
in 1992. Berners-Lee had an HTML browser editor out by 1992.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blhtml.htm

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Well, at least we agree that something on the server side is the root
> > cause of the problem here.
>
> I didn't realize that was ever in disagreement.
>
> >> It doesn't "break" a standard to play a file even when the standard
> >> doesn't
> >> provide sufficient information to play it.
> >
> > A straw man (or perhaps it's a non-sequitur). The standard does provide
> > enough information. What is happening here is that the server is lying
> > about what kind of file it is serving.
>
> It's not a "straw man". You simply misinterpreted my meaning. By "the
> standard doesn't provide sufficient information", all I mean is that the
> instance of the use of the standard doesn't.

Ah, I see we have a fundamental philosophical difference here...

> >> All the media player does is to try to make an educated guess as to what
> >> was
> >> actually intended
> >
> > No, the media player is doing more than that. The media player is
> > *ignoring* the content-type information sent by the server.
>
> As well it should, since that information is erroneous.
>
> I tend to ignore erroneous information as well.

So when your AI flops over you just ignore it? Me, I'd get it fixed.

> Are you saying that you do not?

Absolutely. Erroneous information is almost always an indication of a
problem that needs to be fixed. Just ignoring it can cause real harm.

If I roll up to a fuel pump labelled "100LL" and Jet-A comes out I'd be
pretty upset. But you would just say, "Oh, I guess when they said 100LL
they *meant* Jet-A" and figure that makes it OK.

> > Here's an aviation analogy: imagine that you had a magic gadget that
> > could convert Jet-A to 100LL. You install one of these on your
> > piston-powered airplane. Now when you fill up you can take either Jet-A
> > or 100LL. You no longer care. One day you get to an airport where the
> > pump marked 100LL is in fact dispensing Jet-A. From your point of view
> > this is not a problem. But from everyone else's point of view it is.
> >
> > So... should everyone have to install one of these magic gadgets on
> > their planes? Or are the people without the gadget right to insist that
> > the fuel pumps ought to be marked correctly?
> >
> > That is an exact analogy to the current situation.
>
> No, it's not. Or if it does, it fails to prove your point.
>
> In this current situation, Windows Media Player is the gadget, not the fuel
> dispenser. The incorrectly labeled fuel dispenser is equivalent to the
> server, not the media player.

That's right.

> If you want to complain about anyone, complain about the server serving up
> the incorrect content type information, not the media player that correctly
> figures out how to play the file in spite of that incorrect information.

I am complaining about both. I am complaining about the server as the
root cause of the problem, and about the media player causing a
significant number of people to think that there is no problem and
therefore making it that much less likely that the problem will be fixed.

The problem with the media player is not so much that it plays the
video, but that it does so without providing any indication that there
is a problem. If the player put up a warning message along the lines of
"The server says this is an MP4 file but in fact it is not. This
indicates a problem with the server's configuration. Please notify the
maintainer of this site," before playing the video I would have no
quarrel with it.

What the player is doing is masking (part of) a common-mode failure and
making it appear as if it is not a common-mode failure. IMO, being
complacent about that sort of thing is the first step on the road to
disaster.

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article <12Obf.6062$41.5518@trndny04>,
George Patterson > wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
>
> > HTTP was first described by Berners-Lee et al. in RFC 1945 in May 1996.
>
> HTTP was invented in 1990. One of the earliest standards publications came
> out
> in 1992. Berners-Lee had an HTML browser editor out by 1992.
>
> http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blhtml.htm

I stand corrected.

rg

[Skywise]

Jose > wrote in news:mcCbf.9842$Lv.2337
@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:

>> This affects .shb, .url, .lnk, .pif, .scf, and .shs.
>
> It affects quite a few others too. It's not a bug. It's deliberate on
> Microsoft's part. I found this out by accident
<Snipola of discovery story>

> Furthermore, the operating system will re-super-hide these extensions
> every now and then. Keep checking the registry for NeverShowExt. It
> will return. Sometimes. Probably with every bug-fix and security update
> they put out.
<Snipola>

Well, if .lnk ever gets re-hidden I'll know it immediately by my
shortcut icon descriptions. The others I may have to specifically
check for.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Supernews sucks - blocking google, usenet.com & newsfeeds.com posts

[Stubby]

George Patterson wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
>
>> HTTP was first described by Berners-Lee et al. in RFC 1945 in May 1996.
>
>
> HTTP was invented in 1990. One of the earliest standards publications
> came out in 1992. Berners-Lee had an HTML browser editor out by 1992.
>
> http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blhtml.htm

I'm not much of a historian, but I remember the work going on at SRI
International (nee, Stanford Reasearch Institute) in the late 1970s.
This was in the group headed by Doug Engelbart who invented WYSISYG
edit-compile-debug developments, the mouse, chordic keyboards, etc.
"Hyper text" was just beginning to span networks back then. A link
simply expanded to the associated file and there was no interpreter
looking for tags. That's what Berners-Lee added.

[Matt Whiting]

Garner Miller wrote:

> In article <FbIbf.527767$_o.75399@attbi_s71>, Jay Honeck
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Please try them again, and let me know if they work for you now...
>
>
> That did it! .mpg and .mpeg files are now properly reporting their
> file type, and are playing fine.
>
>
> I first tried it, and it didn't work. So I checked with
> http://web-sniffer.net/ and it reported the content-type *correctly*
> this time (it's the same check I did last night). Knowing that, I
> cleared the browser cache in Firefox, and now it's working like a
> champ. Good work!
>

Yep, I seem to be OK now as well, however, it did break RealPlayer.
However, I uninstalled RealPlayer and went back to QuickTime and all
seems right with the world.

Thanks,
Matt

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> OK, this time for sure!
>
>
> I checked several. Files like the Tbird crash and supersonic flyby now
> display just fine. Under the bridge still comes down with the extra mp4
> extension and will not display.

I just tried it and got the mpeg.mp2 extension and it played just fine.

Matt

[Peter R.]

Matt Whiting > wrote:

> However, I uninstalled RealPlayer and went back to QuickTime and all
> seems right with the world.

If only the world were that simple.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> [...] This does have the effect of "making their competitors appear
> inferior", though that's not the intent I percieve.

It's not the intent I perceive either, and the question here is intent, not
result.

[Jose]

> It's not the intent I perceive either, and the question here is intent, not
> result.

Uh.... they intend the result, even if they don't intend the result.

That is to say (before somebody quotes this as the mark of a moron - I
may be a moron but that's not my mark...) they intend to dominate the
desktop and obliterate the competition. They don't care how they do it.
They may =intend= to do so by co-opting the file formats and making
people who don't use Microsoft Products not fare well (e.g. those who
program Java will tend to use the Microsoft extensions because they are
common though nonstandard, but they won't show up in competing
platforms, but who cares - there aren't enough of them...)

This has the intended effect of causing people to buy Microsoft products
(they sort of have to) and the unintended effect of making Microsoft
appear superior (because nonstandard but common stuff works with
Microsoft but not the competing =standard= platforms)

Microsoft likes the unintended effect.

There is plausible deniability.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[customairmodels]

i always get those problems when downloading video. i always stick to mpg or mpeg

www.customairmodels.com
immortalize your baby. get a custom built model of your aircraft
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----[/QUOTE]

[AJ]

You're right -- I love it!

[AJ]

Try cleaning your cache and then your registry.

AJ

[Jay Honeck]

> Try cleaning your cache and then your registry.

I understand the cache, but how does one clean the registry?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I understand the cache, but how does one clean the registry?

I use a product called "RegCleaner." It's of limited use to me, though, because
I don't know what a lot of the programs listed actually are. I periodically
check for new items, though, and delete any I don't recall installing.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Stefan]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> Those actions were not designed to make its competitors appear inferior.
> They were done in an attempt to control the standard.

I'm not exactly sure how this is related to the Boeing 747, but I know
several persons who have installed IE only and only because many web
sites didn't show in other browsers. Incidently, most of those sites
were "programmed" with FrontPage. The less technically caring users
tended to think that those other browsers were crap. I tend to believe
that this was the intent of MS.

Stefan

[Jose]

>>
I'm not exactly sure how this is related to the Boeing 747, but I know
several persons who have installed IE only and only because many web
sites didn't show in other browsers. Incidently, most of those sites
were "programmed" with FrontPage. The less technically caring users
tended to think that those other browsers were crap. I tend to believe
that this was the intent of MS.
<<

Bingo

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack]

("Jose" wrote)
> I'm not exactly sure how this is related to the Boeing 747, but I know
> several persons who have installed IE only and only because many web sites
> didn't show in other browsers.


I use Firefox. The guy who put together our football pool website did it for
IE. Works great in IE, has a few glitches in Firefox - like submitting picks
online.

It took me a while to figure out a (default browser) work-around that didn't
include me copy/pasting the football link - after opening IE. No matter what
I tried, things opened in Firefox.

Then it dawned on me, both browsers open to Google. My solution was to set
the Blue E's Home page to my football pool and run everything else with
(default) Firefox. Problem solved - I was quite proud of myself.


Montblack

[Peter Duniho]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> I'm not exactly sure how this is related to the Boeing 747

Your post is not at all related to the issues surrounding this thread.

[George Patterson]

Stefan wrote:

> I tend to believe that this was the intent of MS.

Yep.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.