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

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

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

"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

"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.

"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

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"

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

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.

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.

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.