Encode your video in On2's VP6 (which can be very decent quality and playable by Flash, which most people have), upload it to Amazon's S3 service, and use a Flash video player to play it. Problem solved. You have complete control over your video's quality, and will pay next to nothing to serve it up. You can also have other versions on S3, such as xvid/h264, and simply link to them. It's not that difficult.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Because it's more than just copying the URL into the address bar. When I spawn a new window in IE, I like being able to click "back" and actually going to the page beforehand. When I'm posting on a forum and I want to revisit the page to which I am replying, in IE I just Ctrl+N and then backspace. That is impossible to do in Firefox or Chrome, and that is something that I, personally, find very useful.
And if enough people do this, we will ensure that no content provider ever dares to give us free movies in promotions! They'll just stick to selling them, and we can then pay for the movies instead. Yay progress!
DRM, in this case, is a choice between DRM'd content and no content at all. I'd rather have DRM'd content than none.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
I guess it's down to personal preference - I think "Oh this page is interesting - I'd like to keep that" when I'm reading a page, not when I'm about to click a link. When I'm about to click that link I'm already thinking of the next page.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Because it's added value - you can still enter your new URL in the address bar if you want to - it's not stopping you from doing anything, it just lets you do more stuff.
It doesn't close and pretend to do stuff - you asked to download a file, so it downloads a file for you. It's not done in the background, but in a shiny new window right there.
The difference is the DVR/newspaper/magazine ads aren't directly tracked. The magazine/DVR/nespaper gets the money regardless. With websites it's entirely different - the advertisers know when an ad has been served up, and pays the webmaster accordingly. Your analogy is flawed.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
That's not exactly what I want - I want to do it when I'm reading the page I want to duplicate, not pre-emptively. Also does this method's new tab/window have the history intact?
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Then shouldn't you stop using those websites, instead of abusing the technology and costing the webmaster money? That isn't like copyright infringement, as you definitely are getting something for free at the expense of someone else. You're only helping the advertisers if you actually click the ads. By blocking ads you were never going to click you're not effecting the advertiser in the slightest, but you are effecting the webmaster, who now doesn't get the money for the ad served.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
I use Ctrl+N when I'm on a long trek through different websites. If I find something I want to view later, instead of bookmarking it or relying on my history, I just Ctrl+N, and keep going. That leaves a copy of the page I want to review open (with the history intact). Also, if I'm on a forum, and I'm responding to someone, it's nice to be able to hit Ctrl+N and go back to the page I was just on if I need to look something up. With IE it's Ctrl+N and backspace, and I'm done. Otherwise I have to copy and paste URLs and such. When I want to Ctrl+N for something new, having my current page on there isn't a problem in the slightest, as I'm going to navigate away from it any way.
I guess it's just personal preference:)
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
It's missing a couple of features I really appreciate in IE (I know, I know)... When you hit Ctrl+N the window that pops up is a blank window. In IE it's a clone of the current window, which is far more useful. That and the downloads get cancelled if you close the browser - in IE they are seperate processes which live past the browser being closed.
Also, and I'm not trying to be a dick but to understand, don't you feel a bit guilty blocking adverts? I mean, you *are* using the site, and ads do pay for you to be able to use said sites... I'm prepared to be torn into shreds for asking such a question, btw:)
Most likely because their browser is an easier path for attacks, and without automatic updates, might render the user at risk. Google Earth doesn't really have that many security holes, as it's functionality is rather limited in comparison.
You have no expectation of privacy in public. That is why we have those two words - 'public' and 'private'. Unless these concerned people scream at folks who dare look at them when they are out in the street, the problem is not that they are being watched, but something rather different.
The violence in the UK? Are you mad? There's a lot less violence in the UK than in the US. And the orwellian stuff? Jesus christ, man - get a grip. You sound like Alex Jones.
I don't get the problem with DRM. The choice is not "DRM" or "No DRM" but "DRM'd content" and "No content". I'd rather have DRM'd content than not have the content in the first place. Obviously having that content without DRM would be ideal, but then that's not a problem with DRM but with the content owners not wanting to share.
Unless they have a written agreement from Chávez saying they can do this, it's commercial copyright infringement, usually a criminal offense in most western countries.
It is indeed a great record, and yeah - they're about as high-profile an airline target as you can get. The "lock the doors" idea is great. Especially if it reduces the bullshit "security" at airports.
"On 23 July 1968, El Al flight 426 operated by a Boeing 707 on route from London to Tel Aviv via Rome, was hijacked by three members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine shortly after take-off from Rome-Fiumicino airport and forcefully diverted to Algiers. The hijacking ended after 40 days and is considered to be the only successful hijacking involving an El Al jet."
Slashdot Mirror
Encode your video in On2's VP6 (which can be very decent quality and playable by Flash, which most people have), upload it to Amazon's S3 service, and use a Flash video player to play it. Problem solved. You have complete control over your video's quality, and will pay next to nothing to serve it up. You can also have other versions on S3, such as xvid/h264, and simply link to them. It's not that difficult.
Because it's more than just copying the URL into the address bar. When I spawn a new window in IE, I like being able to click "back" and actually going to the page beforehand. When I'm posting on a forum and I want to revisit the page to which I am replying, in IE I just Ctrl+N and then backspace. That is impossible to do in Firefox or Chrome, and that is something that I, personally, find very useful.
And if enough people do this, we will ensure that no content provider ever dares to give us free movies in promotions! They'll just stick to selling them, and we can then pay for the movies instead. Yay progress!
DRM, in this case, is a choice between DRM'd content and no content at all. I'd rather have DRM'd content than none.
I guess it's down to personal preference - I think "Oh this page is interesting - I'd like to keep that" when I'm reading a page, not when I'm about to click a link. When I'm about to click that link I'm already thinking of the next page.
Because it's added value - you can still enter your new URL in the address bar if you want to - it's not stopping you from doing anything, it just lets you do more stuff.
It doesn't close and pretend to do stuff - you asked to download a file, so it downloads a file for you. It's not done in the background, but in a shiny new window right there.
The difference is the DVR/newspaper/magazine ads aren't directly tracked. The magazine/DVR/nespaper gets the money regardless. With websites it's entirely different - the advertisers know when an ad has been served up, and pays the webmaster accordingly. Your analogy is flawed.
That's not exactly what I want - I want to do it when I'm reading the page I want to duplicate, not pre-emptively. Also does this method's new tab/window have the history intact?
Then shouldn't you stop using those websites, instead of abusing the technology and costing the webmaster money? That isn't like copyright infringement, as you definitely are getting something for free at the expense of someone else. You're only helping the advertisers if you actually click the ads. By blocking ads you were never going to click you're not effecting the advertiser in the slightest, but you are effecting the webmaster, who now doesn't get the money for the ad served.
I use Ctrl+N when I'm on a long trek through different websites. If I find something I want to view later, instead of bookmarking it or relying on my history, I just Ctrl+N, and keep going. That leaves a copy of the page I want to review open (with the history intact). Also, if I'm on a forum, and I'm responding to someone, it's nice to be able to hit Ctrl+N and go back to the page I was just on if I need to look something up. With IE it's Ctrl+N and backspace, and I'm done. Otherwise I have to copy and paste URLs and such. When I want to Ctrl+N for something new, having my current page on there isn't a problem in the slightest, as I'm going to navigate away from it any way.
I guess it's just personal preference :)
It's missing a couple of features I really appreciate in IE (I know, I know)... When you hit Ctrl+N the window that pops up is a blank window. In IE it's a clone of the current window, which is far more useful. That and the downloads get cancelled if you close the browser - in IE they are seperate processes which live past the browser being closed.
Also, and I'm not trying to be a dick but to understand, don't you feel a bit guilty blocking adverts? I mean, you *are* using the site, and ads do pay for you to be able to use said sites... I'm prepared to be torn into shreds for asking such a question, btw :)
Most likely because their browser is an easier path for attacks, and without automatic updates, might render the user at risk. Google Earth doesn't really have that many security holes, as it's functionality is rather limited in comparison.
Why should it get equal treatment? Or should equal resources be given to the 90% desktop market platform and to the 5%?
8.5/10. Is that ok? :)
Terrorised? "We are seizing these products pending further investigation" != terrorism.
You have no expectation of privacy in public. That is why we have those two words - 'public' and 'private'. Unless these concerned people scream at folks who dare look at them when they are out in the street, the problem is not that they are being watched, but something rather different.
I'm talking about companies providing free content that is DRM'd. I'd rather have the DRM stuff than have no content at all.
The violence in the UK? Are you mad? There's a lot less violence in the UK than in the US. And the orwellian stuff? Jesus christ, man - get a grip. You sound like Alex Jones.
Apparently no mods have a sense of humour. Meh.
One sided? Sounds like a typical marriage to me.
Maybe he could buy Hans' wife's old ring. I doubt there's much use for it any more, and it doesn't get much geekier.
I don't get the problem with DRM. The choice is not "DRM" or "No DRM" but "DRM'd content" and "No content". I'd rather have DRM'd content than not have the content in the first place. Obviously having that content without DRM would be ideal, but then that's not a problem with DRM but with the content owners not wanting to share.
Unless they have a written agreement from Chávez saying they can do this, it's commercial copyright infringement, usually a criminal offense in most western countries.
It is indeed a great record, and yeah - they're about as high-profile an airline target as you can get. The "lock the doors" idea is great. Especially if it reduces the bullshit "security" at airports.
"On 23 July 1968, El Al flight 426 operated by a Boeing 707 on route from London to Tel Aviv via Rome, was hijacked by three members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine shortly after take-off from Rome-Fiumicino airport and forcefully diverted to Algiers. The hijacking ended after 40 days and is considered to be the only successful hijacking involving an El Al jet."
But the price of a Flash Media Server license is ridiculously expensive, when compared to the alternatives.
But... but.... open source.... write it yourself...
is that how it goes again? :)