F-22s arrive at Langely

[Stubby]

I have a nice (U) video of the first Raptors over Norfolk. If someone
can tell me how to put it up on a web site, I'll be happy to make it
publicly available.

[Jay Honeck]

> I have a nice (U) video of the first Raptors over Norfolk. If someone
> can tell me how to put it up on a web site, I'll be happy to make it
> publicly available.

How big is it?

If you can break it into 10 mb "bites", you can email them to me as
attachments, and I'll put 'em on our aviation video page.

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

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I have a nice (U) video of the first Raptors over Norfolk. If someone
>> can tell me how to put it up on a web site, I'll be happy to make it
>> publicly available.
>
> How big is it?
>
> If you can break it into 10 mb "bites", you can email them to me as
> attachments, and I'll put 'em on our aviation video page.

The best solution is to upload the file to a file download host. Google
"file upload download host", or something similar, to find a whole slew of
them. I know of a few, but friends report good success with
http://www.rapidshare.de

These are web sites that allow you to upload any file, and then they give
you a URL that you can send to someone else so that they can download. Free
access is somewhat limited in that you have to wait to get the file (about a
minute), and there may be size limits, storage time limits, and number of
download limits as well (depending on the host)

But, it avoids having to break the file into pieces, as well as the roughly
30% overhead that comes from sending via email (that's right...if you send a
1MB file in email, it actually costs about 1.3MB in bandwidth and storage
space requirements).

If you do have to break something into smaller parts, the TAR or RAR formats
are relatively common ways to do that. I haven't used it much, but there's
a free program called 7-Zip that is supposed to do a good job with both
(might only be able to write one or the other of those, but I'm pretty sure
it reads both).

Hope that helps.

Pete

[Stubby]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I have a nice (U) video of the first Raptors over Norfolk. If someone
>> can tell me how to put it up on a web site, I'll be happy to make it
>> publicly available.
>
> How big is it?
>
> If you can break it into 10 mb "bites", you can email them to me as
> attachments, and I'll put 'em on our aviation video page.
>
The file is a PowerPoint (.pps) presentation. It's only 1.7 MB.

[Jose[_1_]]

> How big is it?
>
> If you can break it into 10 mb "bites", you can email them to me as
> attachments, and I'll put 'em on our aviation video page.

Not to be touting services, but there is a service called Xdrive
(xdrive.com) which lets you "share" a "hard drive on the internet". You
create an Xdrive account, and upload files (such as the aviation video)
to a folder on it. It acts like a hard drive, and can even be
configured to look like one on an internet connected computer. Then you
set folder permissions and invite specified other people (by Email
address) to "share" it.

Those people, to accept the invitation, create their own Xdrive account.
Your shared folder is visible to them as if it were on their drive.
They have whatever permissions you have set (read, write, delete, share,
etc.) and only those.

It's nifty and keeps your Email unclogged.

The account is free; it requires a (free) AOL or AIM screenname.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skywise]

Stubby > wrote in news:7Zudnb5HqJJ-
:

> The file is a PowerPoint (.pps) presentation.

You've just reduced your potential audience to a slim number.

<rant>
What is it with the urge for people to convert pictures and
video to formats other than what they were taken in? What's
wrong with JPG? or AVI? or MOV? Nope. That's not good enough.
It's got to be converted to PDF, or PPS, or flash, or shockwave,
or one of the dozens of other formats that are the fad of the
week that by the time people manage to find a player to view
them, is no longer in vogue. If file size is an issue, these
formats are already compressible - just re-encode them with
increased compression for web use.
</rant>

BTW, this rant was not directed specifically at you, Stubby.

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?

[Jay Beckman]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> Stubby > wrote in news:7Zudnb5HqJJ-
> :
>
>> The file is a PowerPoint (.pps) presentation.
>
> You've just reduced your potential audience to a slim number.
>
> <rant>
> What is it with the urge for people to convert pictures and video to
> formats other than what they were taken in? What's wrong with JPG?

JPG is a "lossy" format. Each time the file is re-saved, it re-compresses
and information is lost.

>or AVI?

AVI is relatively UNcompressed and can take up a lot of space. IIRC, AVIs
take up about 13Gb per hour.

>or MOV?

Proprietary.

>Nope. That's not good enough. It's got to be converted to PDF, or PPS, or
>flash, or shockwave, or one of the dozens of other formats that are the fad
>of the
>week that by the time people manage to find a player to view them, is no
>longer in vogue. If file size is an issue, these formats are already
>compressible - just re->encode them with increased compression for web use.

You may find it interesting that AVID (arguably the most widely used
professional video editing platform) encodes material into Quicktime files.

FWIW...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
Freelance Editor

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
...
>> <rant>
>> What is it with the urge for people to convert pictures and video to
>> formats other than what they were taken in? What's wrong with JPG?
>
> JPG is a "lossy" format. Each time the file is re-saved, it re-compresses
> and information is lost.

Except that it's likely that the original images were already JPEGs, which
someone stuffed into a .ppt file. They could've just provided the original
files instead.

Or converted it to a more uniformly supported video file, if they really
wanted to have control over soundtrack and image transitions.

For that matter, even something like Flash would be better than PowerPoint,
and allows exactly the same benefits (such as they are). I'm with
Skywise...PowerPoint is a downright silly format to distribute online media
content.

>>or AVI?
>
> AVI is relatively UNcompressed and can take up a lot of space. IIRC, AVIs
> take up about 13Gb per hour.

You misunderstand AVI. AVI is just a container. An AVI that uses 12GB (not
13GB) per hour is in the NTSC-DV format. That is, the raw (mostly) digital
stream that comes off a digital video camera.

AVI can also contain MPEG4, WMV, DivX, etc. all of which compress very
nicely and don't come close to 12GB/hour.

>>or MOV?
>
> Proprietary.

And PowerPoint isn't?

> You may find it interesting that AVID (arguably the most widely used
> professional video editing platform) encodes material into Quicktime
> files.

I'm sure some of their tools use Quicktime for certain things. What that
has to do with this discussion, I don't see.

Pete

[Jay Beckman]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> <rant>
>>> What is it with the urge for people to convert pictures and video to
>>> formats other than what they were taken in? What's wrong with JPG?
>>
>> JPG is a "lossy" format. Each time the file is re-saved, it
>> re-compresses and information is lost.
>
> Except that it's likely that the original images were already JPEGs, which
> someone stuffed into a .ppt file. They could've just provided the
> original files instead.
>
> Or converted it to a more uniformly supported video file, if they really
> wanted to have control over soundtrack and image transitions.
>
> For that matter, even something like Flash would be better than
> PowerPoint, and allows exactly the same benefits (such as they are). I'm
> with Skywise...PowerPoint is a downright silly format to distribute online
> media content.

Agreed.

>
>>>or AVI?
>>
>> AVI is relatively UNcompressed and can take up a lot of space. IIRC,
>> AVIs take up about 13Gb per hour.
>
> You misunderstand AVI. AVI is just a container. An AVI that uses 12GB
> (not 13GB) per hour is in the NTSC-DV format. That is, the raw (mostly)
> digital stream that comes off a digital video camera.
>
> AVI can also contain MPEG4, WMV, DivX, etc. all of which compress very
> nicely and don't come close to 12GB/hour.
>

Ok, noted. I've only worked with video that has been transferred straight
off tape. I've not ever heard of AVI as a "wrapper" for other formats.

>>>or MOV?
>>
>> Proprietary.
>
> And PowerPoint isn't?

No, you're right, it is as well.

>> You may find it interesting that AVID (arguably the most widely used
>> professional video editing platform) encodes material into Quicktime
>> files.
>
> I'm sure some of their tools use Quicktime for certain things. What that
> has to do with this discussion, I don't see.

It's the one file format that didn't get mentioned...and I'm pretty sure
most people don't equate Quicktime with pro-level work.

I just tossed that out as an "oh by the way."

Jay B

[Jim Macklin]

Microsoft does offer a free PowerPoint viewer
Download details: PowerPoint Viewer 2003 PowerPoint Viewer
2003 lets you view full-featured presentations created in
PowerPoint 97 and later versions.
www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=428d5727-43ab-4f24-90b7-a94784af71a4&displaylang=en
- 33k - Cached - Similar pages


http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=428d5727-43ab-4f24-90b7-a94784af71a4&displaylang=en

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
| Stubby > wrote in
news:7Zudnb5HqJJ-
| :
|
| > The file is a PowerPoint (.pps) presentation.
|
| You've just reduced your potential audience to a slim
number.
|
| <rant>
| What is it with the urge for people to convert pictures
and
| video to formats other than what they were taken in?
What's
| wrong with JPG? or AVI? or MOV? Nope. That's not good
enough.
| It's got to be converted to PDF, or PPS, or flash, or
shockwave,
| or one of the dozens of other formats that are the fad of
the
| week that by the time people manage to find a player to
view
| them, is no longer in vogue. If file size is an issue,
these
| formats are already compressible - just re-encode them
with
| increased compression for web use.
| </rant>
|
| BTW, this rant was not directed specifically at you,
Stubby.
|
| 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?

[Sylvain]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Microsoft does offer a free PowerPoint viewer

and for the rest of us who don't use MS operating
systems, openoffice handles .ppt files just fine.

--Sylvain

[john smith]

In article >,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=428d5727-43ab-4f2
> 4-90b7-a94784af71a4&displaylang=en

I cannot find a MacIntosh OS X version?

[Stubby]

Stubby wrote:
> I have a nice (U) video of the first Raptors over Norfolk. If someone
> can tell me how to put it up on a web site, I'll be happy to make it
> publicly available.

You can view some short F-22 (Raptor) videos and look at the design
specs etc on http://www.lmco.com search for F-22. There's also some
F-35 (JSF) info. However, the aforementioned shots of the first Raptors
arriving over Norfolk were not there.

[Sylvain]

john smith wrote:

> In article >,
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote:
>
>>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=428d5727-43ab-4f2
>> 4-90b7-a94784af71a4&displaylang=en
>
> I cannot find a MacIntosh OS X version?

download openoffice (http://www.openoffice.org/) or better
yet NeoOffice -- open office with neat aqua gui --
(http://www.neooffice.org/); it handles pretty much -- haven't
found any snag yet -- all MS document formats (read and write);

--Sylvain

[Stefan]

Sylvain schrieb:

> NeoOffice -- open office with neat aqua gui --
> (http://www.neooffice.org/); it handles pretty much -- haven't
> found any snag yet -- all MS document formats (read and write);

Albeit it runs a bit (very, actually) slow on slower machines. BTW:
Keynote handles PowerPoint files fine, too, if you happen to own it.
(Except if that PowerPoint file was "encoded", whatever this means. Then
you can't see it even with the full PowerPoint on Non-Windows machines.
This alone is enugh to avoid MS products.)

Stefan

[Jose[_1_]]

> For that matter, even something like Flash would be better than PowerPoint

feh.

Flash does not allow the user to control the experience, is a security
hazard on the web, and becasue it cannot be disabled, is primarily used
by advertisers to give us a "more exciting web experience". I have
ripped flash out of my system by the throat.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, noted. I've only worked with video that has been transferred straight
> off tape. I've not ever heard of AVI as a "wrapper" for other formats.

Well, for what it's worth, that's *all* AVI is. There is no inherent AVI
video codec (nor does an AVI file strictly speaking even have to have video
data in it). AVI is just a standard way of describing what video codec *is*
being used.

>> I'm sure some of their tools use Quicktime for certain things. What that
>> has to do with this discussion, I don't see.
>
> It's the one file format that didn't get mentioned...and I'm pretty sure
> most people don't equate Quicktime with pro-level work.
>
> I just tossed that out as an "oh by the way."

I see...well, it's true that Quicktime would be a reasonably good option
(and it's one quite commonly used to distribute video in the Internet, as it
happens...maybe that's why no one mentioned it...it just goes without
saying, along with the other common video formats).

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> Flash does not allow the user to control the experience, is a security
> hazard on the web, and becasue it cannot be disabled, is primarily used by
> advertisers to give us a "more exciting web experience". I have ripped
> flash out of my system by the throat.

Good for you. The world certainly can use more idealists. :) I have found
the headaches involved in not using Flash greater than the headaches in
using it. Unfortunately, far too many of the web sites that I want to use
insist on using Flash. It drives me up the wall, but my only other option
is to just not use those web sites and unfortunately, it is more
inconvenient to use alternatives than to have Flash installed.

I agree that we'd all be better off without Flash, but the fact remains that
at least it's a defacto standard on the web. It provides more functionality
than the free PowerPoint viewer, and is more widely present. In that
respect, compared to using PowerPoint, it is a superior solution.

Most people would recognize that as damning with faint praise. :)

Pete

[Jose[_1_]]

> I have found
> the headaches involved in not using Flash greater than the headaches in
> using it.

Here are two methods:

1: Use a separate, flash enabled browser, for the sites that MUST have
flash. Use your regular browser for the rest, with flash yanked out by
the viscera. (animations and sounds disabled too). Much calmer and
safer web experience.

2: Figure out how to disable Flash for your favorite browser. For IE,
(depending on the version), rename ALL instances of the file
"swflash.osx" or "flash8b.osx" or "flash.osx" (or maybe a few others).
You can do so by adding your initials to the extension, i.e.
flash.osx.jfh or something. Instead of the flash animation, you'll get
a "get flash" button, which you can ignore. Put a text file called
(say) flash8b.jfh.txt in the same directory, so that you remember what
you did and why. Then when you want to see a flash-dependent site,
rename ONE of the ...flash... files back to its original name. Don't
forget to kill it again when you're done!

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
> Here are two methods: [yes, I know]

Neither of those methods allow me to avoid having Flash installed, which is
IMHO the biggest problem.

Sure, disabling it conditionally locks down some potential for harm. But if
it's on my computer, it can theoretically be run, with or without a browser.
I'd just as soon people write web sites that worked without Flash. We've
got a perfectly viable markup language, and a style-sheet specification that
has come a long way in making web browsing efficient and easy to design for.
People should be using that, not some third-party media tool.

Pete

[Jose[_1_]]

> But if it's on my computer, it can theoretically
> be run, with or without a browser.

True, but not a significant problem, IMHO. You can have a folder full
of viruses too, but unless they are =run=, there's no harm.

The problem isn't that [flash is] on the computer, but that it =runs=
when you hit a web site that wants it. Renaming the files or using a
different (flash-disabled) browser addresses that problem.

> People should be using [HTML], not some third-party media tool.

Agreed, for the most part.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> But if it's on my computer, it can theoretically
>> be run, with or without a browser.
>
> True, but not a significant problem, IMHO. You can have a folder full of
> viruses too, but unless they are =run=, there's no harm.
>
> The problem isn't that [flash is] on the computer, but that it =runs= when
> you hit a web site that wants it. Renaming the files or using a different
> (flash-disabled) browser addresses that problem.

If the program is on the computer, it can be run.

As an example, let's suppose there's no privilege escalation vulnerability
known in Windows, but one exists (known or unknown) in Flash. But there
*is* an code execution vulnerability in Windows somewhere. Having Flash
allows code to get at the escalation vulnerability even if it's not directly
runnable while browsing.

Now, I would agree that the likelihood of a privilege escalation
vulnerability in Flash is pretty low, maybe even impossible. But that's not
to say that there can't be worse vulnerabilities in Flash than in more
mundane, more commonly used Windows components. Simply having Flash on the
computer exposes one to those vulnerabilities...if *any* code execution
vulnerability exists, then it doesn't matter whether Flash is enabled in the
browser or not. It can be run by hostile code.

Pete

[Jose[_1_]]

> If the program is on the computer, it can be run...

This is true. This is why a real virus should be =removed= from the
computer, and not simply allowed to reside peacefully. Flash however is
not in that category. It is merely an incredible irritant, which can
(at present) be programmed to turn on the microphone, and (in the
future) be programmed to do other things, which may or may not be
nefarious. Flash's primary sin is that it cannot be disabled in the
browser, like animation and other scripts. =Because= of this (I
speculate) advertisers like it, and =because= of that, the "this" will
never be changed. (Flash is free to vict... er, "users", but costs
money to programmers).

The lack of a disable switch is a deliberate choice which in my opinion
casts the evil eye on it.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> Simply having Flash on the computer exposes one
> to those vulnerabilities...if *any* code execution
> vulnerability exists, then it doesn't matter whether
> Flash is enabled in the browser or not. It can be
> run by hostile code.

On a previous Navy contract that I was on, we were not even allowed to
have Flash loaded on any machine that was on the network.... Since then,
I have ensured that no machine on my home network has it either...