Just in case this is someone I know (as I am one of a group of guys who play Magic - and Munchkin and Dominion and Settlers of Cataan - at lunchtime at work), I do understand this story:)
Appreciated, but there are two reasons we wanted the object/embed code kept:
A) future-proofing
B) a screenshot is just that, a screenshot. A picture on the page, with no context. If the screenshot is loaded by the object/embed code, the screenshot shows not only a "Play" button and QT logo on the iPhone, but the exact same code can be used for other platforms without changes, making maintenance far easier.
Uh, actually you CAN browse YT from Safari on the iPhone, and it DOES play videos, and I KNOW there's no Flash on the iPhone (I even said so in the original post).
Prick. Talk about not doing any research...
Incidentally, tell me a better way to play video through a web page than Flash and I'll listen, despite your clear lack of social and relationship skills.
So you know, I wasn't asking about the codec - YouTube seems to have a smooth way of presenting itself to the iPhone and I was looking to replicate it (since YT doesn't publish it's code, obviously). All of our videos are already in h.264 format for use with JW-FLVPlayer (won't work on iPhone) and with the exception of one clients assets, they're all 640x480 or smaller and within the bitrate limit of the iPhone (over WiFi, at least).
I appreciate your response, but read the entire question next time you feel like putting on the grumpy old bloke hat:)
Thanks to those that took a moment for a constructive answer! Turns out that using the embed/object parameters slightly differently solves both the thumbnail and auto-orientation issues.
The bad thing is that the video object (at least using Quicktime - iPhone Safari doesn't support the HTML5 video tag yet) can't be scripted via Javascript.
The ADC has absolutely no mention of scripting the iPhone video object via Javascript - it doesn't say it can't be done, but the object doesn't fire any events that I can find either.
We use JS to handle tracking - we need to know how much of the video the user watched, if they muted it extensively, etc. due to the credit requirements of one of our clients. We'd love to deliver an iPhone-capable version of the site, but without scripting capability it won't happen.
So the bonus question to this post is does anyone have (or has anyone found) information regarding scripting the iPhone 2.x video object from a web page using Javascript?
As it happens, the video in this story is being served up by Limelight (a CDN similar to Akamai, but aimed at streaming media), not Netflix itself.
That said, if Limelight is pulling the original file to its edge servers (Los Angeles, in the case of this story) from a Netflix-controlled origin point instead of a Limelight origin point, then shitty speed on Netflix's server would translate to shitty speed from Limelight for the user.
Disclaimer: the company I work for (not Netflix!) uses both types of origin points with Limelight, and we do occasionally see serious speed issues on files served from our self-run origin points. Usually only on the really big ones though (like 1GB +). And a phone call to Limelight's client support usually fixes the problem within a few minutes.
What I found most interesting in the discussion on Pidgin's site is that both the users and devs considered "arbitrary input resizing" to be a feature and not just a standard UI component. Personally, I consider being able to drag the border of that text input box a UI feature, not a program feature. Why would they override what most would consider the default (and expected) behaviour?
For what it's worth, FastServers is an excellent host itself. I've kept a pair of dedicated servers with them for several years with virtually no problems. I've had one hard drive failure (it was replaced within an hour), and a total down-time of around 2 hours in the past 12 months due to system upgrades or replacements on their end. The odd time I've needed the server cold-booted (damn windows box), it's been done within a matter of minutes at no cost. In short, I can't say enough about them - they're great, and the actions of one of their clients should not reflect on FastServers in any way.
Not an issue. The script still appears in the same place in the source document, but actual execution is delayed until the site content is fully loaded from the server. This won't affect the location of the ads at all - but it will speed the page up, especially if the ad server sucks (as most seem to).
Another option is to use the "DEFER" option in the script tag. Any script within the tags will wait until the page loads before executing. I wish ad companies would start using that *sigh*
And what I love most about them is how I often have to wait anywhere from 10 to 60 seconds for some useless P.O.S. ad-server somewhere to spew up it's flashing, seizure-inducing gibberish before the actual site content is displayed.
This is especially prevalent on sites that have been displayed on Slashdot, Digg, Reddit and Fark. I'll click the link, a new window opens, and then I see the logo of the site and likely the left-hand menu.... then nothing while my browser waits for an ad server (sometimes several) to timeout due to the load. Finally, the content will appear, but I've usually moved on by then. This has nothing to do with my browser. All these things do is annoy me to the point that I don't want to bother with sites that use them anymore.
For the record (and I don't like to blast CreativeLabs, because I love most of their consumer stuff), *never* go near Creative Labs gear for anything resembling audio recording or mixing.
Aside from their marketing lies (136db signal-to-noise is impossible in consumer hardware - even professional studios rarely make it over 120db), the converters aren't particularly good and the cards are very susceptible to ground noise - which, of course, you won't hear until you play the music back on a computer that's plugged into a different electrical circuit. On top of that, their ASIO drivers suck - expect a lot of latency on some systems (20ms or more) and a *whole* lot of latency on others (60ms and up). Even the cheapest prosumer cards (like the Delta 44 or 66) can achieve 5ms latency and record with a 112db noise floor - well worth the money.
If you're getting a clear signal recording on that SB card, more power to you. But if you really want to hear what a recording is supposed to sound like, pick up an Echo or MOTU or even M-Audio device and try it out.
I haven't used the other phones on your list, but I can weigh in on the T610 and the K300 (similar to the K500, but lesser gooda).
The T610 has great sound quality, is very well shielded (there is NO interference from the phone with my computer speakers), and the built-in software has a lot of little features to play with. The battery lasts for days (I use about 3 hours per day on this phone). I use bluetooth to get information between the phone and my T|X pretty frequently too.
On the dark side, the reception can be spotty. If you already know your reception at home is crap, this is not the phone for you. But when you have a good signal, it's as clear as a bell.
The K300 has slightly lower sound quality (still well within the usable range), and while the built-in software is simplified compared to the T610, it's also better. The reception is beautiful - I get a full-strength signal on this phone while the T610 actually disconnects from the network in places.
The problem I have with this phone is the shielding - my computer speakers go absolutely postal when this phone is about to ring. It also feels a little flimsy compared to the T610. I just wish it had bluetooth.
With PHP and ASP, I usually use classes to encapsulate related functions.
For example, many sites have an administration section - an area where the site owner/maintainer can go and change some options or add some content or whatever. Instead of writing a new authorization mechanism every time I need it, I have a class that I wrote a couple years ago and tweak every so often that can literally be dropped into the existing site code and used with minimal customization. In the site's code, all I need to do is create a new instance of the class and call the Login() function within it when I need the user to log in or to verify the user is logged in. The class file itself uses a "lite" version of a database class I wrote for myself so that it is not dependent on the back-end database to operate - currently, it can work with MySQL, SQL Server, and XML or plaintext files containing name/password information.
So there's my secret. Code chunks that might be useful later are made to be independent (totally self-contained - no reliance on any outside variables or functions), with documented requirements (in my above example, *some* kind of name/password list has to be available), and placed into files based on their function or relation with each other. I keep these files small, to avoid putting extra strain on the server.
In the case of Javascript, the same rules apply. Remember, though, that Javascript is downloaded to the client machine, so it is very important to keep your ".js" files as small as possible. I keep a few task-specific collections of functions in ".js" files, but when I need a function for a site, I usually just copy/paste the function into a new ".js" file specifically for that site.
The only problem I foresee with your method is the file size. On a fast server with a lot of RAM, a site without a lot of traffic might not have trouble with what could potentially be a HUGE "classes.php" file, but a busy site or less equipped server is going to slow down tremendously if there are a lot of open sessions.
This is compounded in the "function.js" file, since it must be downloaded by the browser. If you have 50kb of code in that file, then every page request is going to have the 50kb overhead on top of whatever size the page already is.
And in either case, isn't it hard trying to find a specific function in one of those files once they grow beyond a certain amount? What if you forget the exact name of the function, making a search useless?
In 200 years when every Tom, Dick and Harry has a little space romper, that's all fine and dandy - lots of things have fallen off various vehicles I've owned in the past, and I doubt it'll be any different for people in 5 or 6 generations.
But right now, the shuttles are arguably the most complex electro-mechanical constructions mankind has ever built. If something "just falls off", then it ain't ready to send people thousands of miles above their landing zone!
My rule of thumb regarding punctuation within quotation marks is very simple: if I'm writing dialogue, the punctuation goes inside the quotes, otherwise it's ouside.
Perhaps the rules are different in different countries (I'm from Canada), but books by Guy Gavriel Kay (Canadian), Stephen King (American), and Douglas Adams (British) all show punctuation being inside quotation marks during dialogue.
One difference I just noticed is that the Stephen King books use double-quotes, while the Canadian and British books use single-quotes.
With all these patents floating around, how, exactly, does one write an e-commerce site these days?
On one hand, it might be argued that innovation is dead in this particular genre, and that anyone who needs this patented functionality should purchase a product that is licensed to use it. There is no need for developers to continually write new ways of doing the same things. Don't reinvent the wheel.
On the other hand, if competition is so good, why are these kinds of things patentable at all? By all means, write your own e-commerce site from scratch. There's no way any company would actually stoop to suing you for fees for things like 1-click additions and wishlists and clickable help icons.
So, seriously, how the hell can I develop a *usable* e-commerce site without breaking 50 patents owned by 40 companies? Is it possible? Or will I need to set aside a quarter million dollars to pay all of the different licensing fees?
First, make the thing run under the bed instead of letting it get hung up on the clean-clothes-pile or dirty-clothes-pile or the throwing-away-pile. Then build a "thumper" into it that beats the bottom of the mattress like it owes it money when the alarm goes off the second time.
With those two changes, it might work for me. Right now I still sleep through three alarm clocks, my stereo on a timer, my cell phone, and my PDA - and these are all pretty loud (it's a cheesy-crappy little stereo).
My own idea for an alarm clock involves a car battery and a toe-ring, but I haven't figured out how to keep from getting burned by it yet...
In a nutshell, the PatRights patent covers nearly any method used by a website to verify a user's identity. It is not specific to credit card verification - even the/. login system could fall under this patent.
IANAL, but this seems to be another case of something being patented in the electronic world that would be laughed at if it were tried in the physical world.
My car, like yours, has doors. Like you, I need a key (or code) to unlock the door and gain access to the interior of the vehicle. I need to use a key (or code) to actually start the vehicle. Why the hell hasn't that been patented?! It is a secure (mostly) method of accessing a product or service (my vehicle) utilizing a transaction apparatus (the lock). The terms of use are a little different, sure (I'm allowed to distribute my login information - a key - to anyone I choose, without worrying that GM will find out and change my locks), but in practice it seems to be the exact same thing. Why are these guys going after iTunes and AVS? Why not hit Ford, GM and Toyota??
Again, IANAL, but the wording of the patent is pretty broad to me.
The address is http://www.getfirefox.com/ - the little green box in the top-right lets you download FFwin 1.0.1;)
Need other builds? Click the little linky right below that one that says "Other systems and builds" - see how all the version numbers are very clearly marked? The new ones are even in bold!
The main mozilla.org site only seems to be on the ball when it comes to Mozilla builds or major project releases. These point releases are *always* at the project sites first. Go figure that, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
Just in case this is someone I know (as I am one of a group of guys who play Magic - and Munchkin and Dominion and Settlers of Cataan - at lunchtime at work), I do understand this story :)
Appreciated, but there are two reasons we wanted the object/embed code kept:
A) future-proofing
B) a screenshot is just that, a screenshot. A picture on the page, with no context. If the screenshot is loaded by the object/embed code, the screenshot shows not only a "Play" button and QT logo on the iPhone, but the exact same code can be used for other platforms without changes, making maintenance far easier.
We do use SWFObject for publishing the Flash player, but as noted, there is no Flash on the iPhonee, so no, it won't work there.
Uh, actually you CAN browse YT from Safari on the iPhone, and it DOES play videos, and I KNOW there's no Flash on the iPhone (I even said so in the original post).
Prick. Talk about not doing any research...
Incidentally, tell me a better way to play video through a web page than Flash and I'll listen, despite your clear lack of social and relationship skills.
So you know, I wasn't asking about the codec - YouTube seems to have a smooth way of presenting itself to the iPhone and I was looking to replicate it (since YT doesn't publish it's code, obviously). All of our videos are already in h.264 format for use with JW-FLVPlayer (won't work on iPhone) and with the exception of one clients assets, they're all 640x480 or smaller and within the bitrate limit of the iPhone (over WiFi, at least).
I appreciate your response, but read the entire question next time you feel like putting on the grumpy old bloke hat :)
Thanks to those that took a moment for a constructive answer! Turns out that using the embed/object parameters slightly differently solves both the thumbnail and auto-orientation issues.
The bad thing is that the video object (at least using Quicktime - iPhone Safari doesn't support the HTML5 video tag yet) can't be scripted via Javascript.
The ADC has absolutely no mention of scripting the iPhone video object via Javascript - it doesn't say it can't be done, but the object doesn't fire any events that I can find either.
We use JS to handle tracking - we need to know how much of the video the user watched, if they muted it extensively, etc. due to the credit requirements of one of our clients. We'd love to deliver an iPhone-capable version of the site, but without scripting capability it won't happen.
So the bonus question to this post is does anyone have (or has anyone found) information regarding scripting the iPhone 2.x video object from a web page using Javascript?
That's awesome. If each of those custom tips cost $249.12 to make, then that cable is totally worth it.
As it happens, the video in this story is being served up by Limelight (a CDN similar to Akamai, but aimed at streaming media), not Netflix itself.
That said, if Limelight is pulling the original file to its edge servers (Los Angeles, in the case of this story) from a Netflix-controlled origin point instead of a Limelight origin point, then shitty speed on Netflix's server would translate to shitty speed from Limelight for the user.
Disclaimer: the company I work for (not Netflix!) uses both types of origin points with Limelight, and we do occasionally see serious speed issues on files served from our self-run origin points. Usually only on the really big ones though (like 1GB +). And a phone call to Limelight's client support usually fixes the problem within a few minutes.
What I found most interesting in the discussion on Pidgin's site is that both the users and devs considered "arbitrary input resizing" to be a feature and not just a standard UI component. Personally, I consider being able to drag the border of that text input box a UI feature, not a program feature. Why would they override what most would consider the default (and expected) behaviour?
For what it's worth, FastServers is an excellent host itself. I've kept a pair of dedicated servers with them for several years with virtually no problems. I've had one hard drive failure (it was replaced within an hour), and a total down-time of around 2 hours in the past 12 months due to system upgrades or replacements on their end. The odd time I've needed the server cold-booted (damn windows box), it's been done within a matter of minutes at no cost. In short, I can't say enough about them - they're great, and the actions of one of their clients should not reflect on FastServers in any way.
Not an issue. The script still appears in the same place in the source document, but actual execution is delayed until the site content is fully loaded from the server. This won't affect the location of the ads at all - but it will speed the page up, especially if the ad server sucks (as most seem to).
Another option is to use the "DEFER" option in the script tag. Any script within the tags will wait until the page loads before executing. I wish ad companies would start using that *sigh*
And what I love most about them is how I often have to wait anywhere from 10 to 60 seconds for some useless P.O.S. ad-server somewhere to spew up it's flashing, seizure-inducing gibberish before the actual site content is displayed.
This is especially prevalent on sites that have been displayed on Slashdot, Digg, Reddit and Fark. I'll click the link, a new window opens, and then I see the logo of the site and likely the left-hand menu.... then nothing while my browser waits for an ad server (sometimes several) to timeout due to the load. Finally, the content will appear, but I've usually moved on by then. This has nothing to do with my browser. All these things do is annoy me to the point that I don't want to bother with sites that use them anymore.
Greedy, dumbass bastards.
For the record (and I don't like to blast CreativeLabs, because I love most of their consumer stuff), *never* go near Creative Labs gear for anything resembling audio recording or mixing.
Aside from their marketing lies (136db signal-to-noise is impossible in consumer hardware - even professional studios rarely make it over 120db), the converters aren't particularly good and the cards are very susceptible to ground noise - which, of course, you won't hear until you play the music back on a computer that's plugged into a different electrical circuit. On top of that, their ASIO drivers suck - expect a lot of latency on some systems (20ms or more) and a *whole* lot of latency on others (60ms and up). Even the cheapest prosumer cards (like the Delta 44 or 66) can achieve 5ms latency and record with a 112db noise floor - well worth the money.
If you're getting a clear signal recording on that SB card, more power to you. But if you really want to hear what a recording is supposed to sound like, pick up an Echo or MOTU or even M-Audio device and try it out.
I haven't used the other phones on your list, but I can weigh in on the T610 and the K300 (similar to the K500, but lesser gooda).
The T610 has great sound quality, is very well shielded (there is NO interference from the phone with my computer speakers), and the built-in software has a lot of little features to play with. The battery lasts for days (I use about 3 hours per day on this phone). I use bluetooth to get information between the phone and my T|X pretty frequently too.
On the dark side, the reception can be spotty. If you already know your reception at home is crap, this is not the phone for you. But when you have a good signal, it's as clear as a bell.
The K300 has slightly lower sound quality (still well within the usable range), and while the built-in software is simplified compared to the T610, it's also better. The reception is beautiful - I get a full-strength signal on this phone while the T610 actually disconnects from the network in places.
The problem I have with this phone is the shielding - my computer speakers go absolutely postal when this phone is about to ring. It also feels a little flimsy compared to the T610. I just wish it had bluetooth.
With PHP and ASP, I usually use classes to encapsulate related functions.
For example, many sites have an administration section - an area where the site owner/maintainer can go and change some options or add some content or whatever. Instead of writing a new authorization mechanism every time I need it, I have a class that I wrote a couple years ago and tweak every so often that can literally be dropped into the existing site code and used with minimal customization. In the site's code, all I need to do is create a new instance of the class and call the Login() function within it when I need the user to log in or to verify the user is logged in. The class file itself uses a "lite" version of a database class I wrote for myself so that it is not dependent on the back-end database to operate - currently, it can work with MySQL, SQL Server, and XML or plaintext files containing name/password information.
So there's my secret. Code chunks that might be useful later are made to be independent (totally self-contained - no reliance on any outside variables or functions), with documented requirements (in my above example, *some* kind of name/password list has to be available), and placed into files based on their function or relation with each other. I keep these files small, to avoid putting extra strain on the server.
In the case of Javascript, the same rules apply. Remember, though, that Javascript is downloaded to the client machine, so it is very important to keep your ".js" files as small as possible. I keep a few task-specific collections of functions in ".js" files, but when I need a function for a site, I usually just copy/paste the function into a new ".js" file specifically for that site.
The only problem I foresee with your method is the file size. On a fast server with a lot of RAM, a site without a lot of traffic might not have trouble with what could potentially be a HUGE "classes.php" file, but a busy site or less equipped server is going to slow down tremendously if there are a lot of open sessions.
This is compounded in the "function.js" file, since it must be downloaded by the browser. If you have 50kb of code in that file, then every page request is going to have the 50kb overhead on top of whatever size the page already is.
And in either case, isn't it hard trying to find a specific function in one of those files once they grow beyond a certain amount? What if you forget the exact name of the function, making a search useless?
Sounds like the theme song for the old Robin Hood movie (the animated one), but it's not quite the same.
Because I felt like it, and it while it's far from the stylin' prose of Mr. Dvorak, I think it was good for me.
- commons/
http://russ.innereyes.com/2005/07/on-the-creative
Excuse me, "fell off on it's own"???
In 200 years when every Tom, Dick and Harry has a little space romper, that's all fine and dandy - lots of things have fallen off various vehicles I've owned in the past, and I doubt it'll be any different for people in 5 or 6 generations.
But right now, the shuttles are arguably the most complex electro-mechanical constructions mankind has ever built. If something "just falls off", then it ain't ready to send people thousands of miles above their landing zone!
My rule of thumb regarding punctuation within quotation marks is very simple: if I'm writing dialogue, the punctuation goes inside the quotes, otherwise it's ouside.
Perhaps the rules are different in different countries (I'm from Canada), but books by Guy Gavriel Kay (Canadian), Stephen King (American), and Douglas Adams (British) all show punctuation being inside quotation marks during dialogue.
One difference I just noticed is that the Stephen King books use double-quotes, while the Canadian and British books use single-quotes.
With all these patents floating around, how, exactly, does one write an e-commerce site these days?
On one hand, it might be argued that innovation is dead in this particular genre, and that anyone who needs this patented functionality should purchase a product that is licensed to use it. There is no need for developers to continually write new ways of doing the same things. Don't reinvent the wheel.
On the other hand, if competition is so good, why are these kinds of things patentable at all? By all means, write your own e-commerce site from scratch. There's no way any company would actually stoop to suing you for fees for things like 1-click additions and wishlists and clickable help icons.
So, seriously, how the hell can I develop a *usable* e-commerce site without breaking 50 patents owned by 40 companies? Is it possible? Or will I need to set aside a quarter million dollars to pay all of the different licensing fees?
First, make the thing run under the bed instead of letting it get hung up on the clean-clothes-pile or dirty-clothes-pile or the throwing-away-pile. Then build a "thumper" into it that beats the bottom of the mattress like it owes it money when the alarm goes off the second time.
With those two changes, it might work for me. Right now I still sleep through three alarm clocks, my stereo on a timer, my cell phone, and my PDA - and these are all pretty loud (it's a cheesy-crappy little stereo).
My own idea for an alarm clock involves a car battery and a toe-ring, but I haven't figured out how to keep from getting burned by it yet...
In a nutshell, the PatRights patent covers nearly any method used by a website to verify a user's identity. It is not specific to credit card verification - even the /. login system could fall under this patent.
IANAL, but this seems to be another case of something being patented in the electronic world that would be laughed at if it were tried in the physical world.
My car, like yours, has doors. Like you, I need a key (or code) to unlock the door and gain access to the interior of the vehicle. I need to use a key (or code) to actually start the vehicle. Why the hell hasn't that been patented?! It is a secure (mostly) method of accessing a product or service (my vehicle) utilizing a transaction apparatus (the lock). The terms of use are a little different, sure (I'm allowed to distribute my login information - a key - to anyone I choose, without worrying that GM will find out and change my locks), but in practice it seems to be the exact same thing. Why are these guys going after iTunes and AVS? Why not hit Ford, GM and Toyota??
Again, IANAL, but the wording of the patent is pretty broad to me.
The address is http://www.getfirefox.com/ - the little green box in the top-right lets you download FFwin 1.0.1 ;)
Need other builds? Click the little linky right below that one that says "Other systems and builds" - see how all the version numbers are very clearly marked? The new ones are even in bold!
The main mozilla.org site only seems to be on the ball when it comes to Mozilla builds or major project releases. These point releases are *always* at the project sites first. Go figure that, eh?