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

In article C8ybf.549766$xm3.473267@attbi_s21, Jay Honeck
wrote:

Try the "problem" videos again, please. Jav says he's got the problem
licked!

I'm still getting both .mpg and .mpeg files dished out as Video/MP4,
and failing to play. The other formats play fine.

I checked your site at http://web-sniffer.net and it's still sending
out the wrong content-type header in response to the http "get"
command.

It looks like your server's running Apache. The default file to set
this all up in Apache is the "mime.types" file. It tells the HTTP
server what file type to send based on its file extension.

See if your admin can locate this and edit it properly. (It's in
/etc/httpd/ on my system; it may be in a different spot on his.) Here
are a couple of relevant lines from the mime.types file on my server
(these are the defaults, incidentally):

video/mp4 mp4
video/mpeg mpeg mpg mpe


My guess is that he has "mpeg mpg mpe" on the upper line, too, so it's
never getting to the video/mpeg entry at all. It finds a match and
moves on, as I understand it. "mp4" is the ONLY thing that should be
on that first line.

Let us know, we'll try again!

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=
http://www.garnermiller.com/

Jay -- One other thought. Perhaps he needs to restart the server after
making the configuration changes? The Apache documentation mentions
that the main configuration files aren't recognized until a restart,
although I'm not sure of the mime.types file is a "main" one or not.
Worth a shot before he continues troubleshooting, at least.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=
http://www.garnermiller.com/

In article ABybf.1804$Y97.829@trndny05, George Patterson
wrote:

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.

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.


From C|NET:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-251401.html

"Under the settlement, Microsoft will pay Sun $20 million and is
permanently prohibited from using 'Java compatible' trademarks on its
products, according to Sun. Sun also gets to terminate the licensing
agreement it signed with Microsoft."

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=
http://www.garnermiller.com/

Jay Honeck wrote:

Try the "problem" videos again, please. Jav says he's got the problem
licked!

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.

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.

In article ,
says...
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.

Just out of interest, what happens if you change the file extension from
..mp4 to mpeg.

Work for you now?

--
Duncan

Jose wrote in newsyybf.4348$Lv.3094
@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:

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

You're right. That is an exception. And I can see how that could be
a problem. I wonder if there might be a registry key that can override
this, or some other solution. Yep, first hit on a google search
gives instructions. Simply delete all keys that have the value
"NeverShowExt".

This affects .shb, .url, .lnk, .pif, .scf, and .shs.

http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/627/

I'll be applying this change after I'm done here online.

Just another example of leaving hidden doors unlocked. How do you know
to lock them if you don't know they exist? Certainly not the way I'd
do it if it were up to me.

BTW, thanks.

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

This affects .shb, .url, .lnk, .pif, .scf, and .shs.

It affects quite a few others too. It's not a bug. It's deliberate on
Microsoft's part. I found this out by accident - on another machine I
had text files with extensions for the months of the year - .jan, .feb,
..mar, etc. When I transferred them over to this machine, I found that
the .mar extension was not showing up. I then created files with all
possible three-or-fewer-letter extensions, and found a dozen or more
that were super-hidden like that.

It turns out I would have never come across this if I didn't have Access
on my system. The install program creates more super-hidden file
extensions and .mar is one of them.

Furthermore, the operating system will re-super-hide these extensions
every now and then. Keep checking the registry for NeverShowExt. It
will return. Sometimes. Probably with every bug-fix and security update
they put out.

BTW, some of these extensions are executable. .lnk for example, is a
shortcut. It can be its own target and can contain the entry point for
its target (itself). .scf and .shs are also very dangerous. One of
them I believe is a "scrap object" and can contain anything. So, just
create a virus, name it clickme.txt.lnk and make it point to itself with
the right entry point. The nerds, who have set their computers to show
all extensions for JUST THIS REASON, will see clickme.txt, which is a
safe-to-click file. It will call notepad. (If it's too big, Notepad
will offer Wordpad, and nerds know to say no). Nonetheless, the nerds
get hozed by the virus, which if clever enough, uses the notepad icon
and even runs notepad in the foreground.

I have run into only one supernerd - somebody who knew this before I
told them. She was a young (and very pretty) health care worker who
happened to work for google in a prior life. I myself am no supernerd;
I just hit this by accident by doing something odd.

BTW, you're welcome.

Jose
PS - have I mentioned SONY's rootkit?
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...16223&from=rss
These companies are EVIL.
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"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"),

Of course they have. They may not have been formally accused of this,
but that MS engages in such tactics is common knowledge. But you are
confusing three different issues: 1) whether MS has been convicted of
criminal acts (they have, at least on one occasion), 2) whether MS has
been convicted of violating the law (they have, on multiple occasions)
and 3) whether MS uses illegal/unethical tactics for which they have not
been formally charged. That last one is, of course, harder to establish.

Second, engaging in a conspiracy and improving the user experience are
not mutually exclusive.

They are in this case.

No, they aren't. But I concede that this particular problem is not the
result of an MS conspiracy.

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.

That is a very short sighted view. Breaking standards has long-term
negative consequences far beyond the immediate gratification of having a
video play.

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.

HTTP was first described by Berners-Lee et al. in RFC 1945 in May 1996.
Windows95 first shipped in August 1995. So if Windows was not the
predominant OS when HTTP was invented, what was? OS/2?

Nonetheless, I will concede that it was unfair to lay this particular
problem on Microsoft's doorstep. It is a stretch to think that
Berners-Lee was catering to Windows in 1996. It was probably more Unix
than Windows that drove the inclusion of the content-type and
content-encoding headers.

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"?

It is among the findings of fact in United States versus Microsoft.
(Also, I'm fairly certain, in Sun Microsystems v. Microsoft in the Java
lawsuit.)

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
Of course they have. They may not have been formally accused of this,
but that MS engages in such tactics is common knowledge.

"Common knowledge" is a lot like "common sense". Except that it's the
second word that's in short supply, rather than the first.

But you are confusing three different issues:

No, YOU are confusing those issues with something that is relevant to this
discussion. They are not relevant at all.

No, they aren't. But I concede that this particular problem is not the
result of an MS conspiracy.

Well, your claim that it is was is what I refuted in your post. I guess
that wraps this up.

[...]
That is a very short sighted view. Breaking standards has long-term
negative consequences far beyond the immediate gratification of having a
video play.

Or maybe not...you're still arguing about it.

There's no standard that says that the media player SHOULD NOT play a file
that it recognizes. The standards only describe what the media player (or
other software) SHOULD do.

It doesn't "break" a standard to play a file even when the standard doesn't
provide sufficient information to play it. 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.)

All the media player does is to try to make an educated guess as to what was
actually intended, thus providing the end user with the experience they
expect in spite of the erroneous data.

HTTP was first described by Berners-Lee et al. in RFC 1945 in May 1996.
Windows95 first shipped in August 1995. So if Windows was not the
predominant OS when HTTP was invented, what was? OS/2?

First of all, his work predates the publication date by a significant
amount. Secondly, even in 1996 it is not my recollection that Windows held
even 50% of the total market share for operating systems. Only five years
earlier, Windows was still struggling to get over the legacy of versions 1.0
and 2.0. Plenty of people were still using DOS (Windows most significant
competitor at the time), and a host of other options.

[...]
It is among the findings of fact in United States versus Microsoft.
(Also, I'm fairly certain, in Sun Microsystems v. Microsoft in the Java
lawsuit.)

If you're going to state that as fact, I assume you have citations to back
it up. There were plenty of accusations reported in the press, but I never
heard one that complained about Microsoft's software tolerating poor
third-party developers better than their competitors.

Pete

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:ABybf.1804$Y97.829@trndny05...
Not at all. They've done this with various standards, including HTML and
XML.

Those actions were not designed to make its competitors appear inferior.
They were done in an attempt to control the standard.

Whether that's better or worse behavior is irrelevant. The fact is, the two
motivations are completely different.

The idea that the reason Windows Media Player will correctly figure out the
media type even when the HTTP header is incorrect is that Microsoft is
specifically trying to make its competitors appear inferior most certainly
IS ridiculous.

Unless, of course, you consider simply trying to make a better product to be
the same as intentionally making your competitors products look inferior.
If that's the case, I guess we'd better sic the government regulators on the
luxury car manufacturers, and the camera manufacturers (those *******s,
always trying to one-up each other), and for sure we'd better sic them on
Apple. Have you seen that iPod? Puts all the other media players to shame
(most of the time, anyway).

As the end-user, all I care about is whether my video plays. I don't give a
crap about how it plays or why it plays, and I get mad when it doesn't play.
It is absolutely ridiculous for someone to complain about a media player
that plays the video correctly.

Pete