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

"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

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

"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

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

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

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"

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

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"

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/

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"