[videoblogging] Time/Warner backs off bandwidth limit
After loud citizen outrage of rising prices for internet (remember, many US communities only have one or two choices for broadband), Time/Warner ended its attempt to cap people's access at 100GB/month cap for $75. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/theyre-gone-after-outcry-time-warner-uncaps-the-tubes.ars > "The whole fiasco looks like a textbook example of overreach. Even groups > like Free Press accept metered billing as a fair system (so long as the > connection remains "neutral"), so all the American ISPs had to do in order > to reframe user expectations was roll out a pricing structure that wouldn't > utterly outrage the public. " > On a previous thread, there were questions as to the financial situation of US boradband providers. Here's a good rundown: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/the-price-gouging-premiums-of-time-warner-cables-data-caps.ars Bandwidth costs (a little bit of) money, and there's certainly no reason for > customers to demand the ability to transfer 4TB of data a month for one flat > fee. But TWC's steak/salad analogy breaks down when it's crafted more > accurately. The real question is whether you would even *have* lunch with > a friend at a restaurant that charged $45 for a salad and $200 for a steak. > Certainly, in a free market, most people would go elsewhere. > Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] "Plug-ins are like boxy islands of information on a page"
Crap, sorry... I wrote that to fast. Permit me to fix my miss-types. Wicked cool. Pardon the bad pun, but this is some outside the box thinking. :) The basic concept here (in case people don't get what's so cool about it) is pulling what were once proprietary features of video formats like Flash and Quicktime and indeed military grade technology out of the video and exposing them in HTML. This demo appears to be showing just one of these features; motion tracking of the contents of a video. Once this feature is accessible via HTML, javascript and other web browser native languages they can be used to control and work with it. This is just one example on a huge new frontier that goes well beyond being able to simply play/ pause control of videos. -Mike On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Mike Meiser wrote: > Wicked cool. > > Pardon the bad pun, but this is some outside the box thinking. :) > > The basic concept here (in case people don't get what's so cool about > it), is pulling what were once proprietary features of video formats > like Flash and Quicktime and indeed military grade technology out of > the video and exposing them in HTML. This demo appears to be showing > specificaly on feature which is motion tracking of the contents of a > video. Once this feature is accessible via HTML javascript and other > web browser native languages can be used to control and work with it. > > This is just one example on a huge new frontier that goes well beyond > being able to simply play/ pause control of videos. > > -Mike > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Jay dedman wrote: >> I remember in 2004 when some of us first started videoblogging, we had >> to jump through a lot of hoops trying to figure out how to get video >> on the page easily. This challenge was really the impetus for starting >> this group. That's all we talked about the first year. >> >> Then, embedded Flash players came along and made it dead simple to >> post/share videos. >> >> But check out this mother fucking shit: >> http://standblog.org/blog/post/2009/04/15/Making-video-a-first-class-citizen-of-the-Web >> Ive been talking a lot about the new -video- tag in HTML 5 that's in >> Firefox 3.5. Not only does it use open web standards which is really >> important as we develop the language of web video, it also enables >> some very COOL possibilities for interacting with a video on a page >> (without any licensing restrictions). >> >> For those of us who like to hack and play around, now is the time to >> get energized. There are infinite possibilities with the -video- and >> -canvas- tags in HTML 5. The developers have barely even scratched the >> surface...and I imagine that it's going to take the video creators and >> storytellers here to start making the kick ass examples that really >> bring out the possibilities. >> >> So forget all the ranting and raving about Youtube. Papa's got a brand new >> bag. >> http://standblog.org/blog/post/2009/04/15/Making-video-a-first-class-citizen-of-the-Web >> Watch the screencast to get an idea of what I'm talking about. >> >> This new Firefox will be officially released the the Open Video >> Conference this June in NYC: >> http://openvideoconference.org/2009/03/mozilla-to-present-firefox-35-at-open-video/ >> Ill be there and would be great to meet you guys there as well. >> >> Jay >> >> >> -- >> http://ryanishungry.com >> http://jaydedman.com >> http://twitter.com/jaydedman >> 917 371 6790 >> >> >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> >
Re: [videoblogging] "Plug-ins are like boxy islands of information on a page"
Wicked cool. Pardon the bad pun, but this is some outside the box thinking. :) The basic concept here (in case people don't get what's so cool about it), is pulling what were once proprietary features of video formats like Flash and Quicktime and indeed military grade technology out of the video and exposing them in HTML. This demo appears to be showing specificaly on feature which is motion tracking of the contents of a video. Once this feature is accessible via HTML javascript and other web browser native languages can be used to control and work with it. This is just one example on a huge new frontier that goes well beyond being able to simply play/ pause control of videos. -Mike On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Jay dedman wrote: > I remember in 2004 when some of us first started videoblogging, we had > to jump through a lot of hoops trying to figure out how to get video > on the page easily. This challenge was really the impetus for starting > this group. That's all we talked about the first year. > > Then, embedded Flash players came along and made it dead simple to > post/share videos. > > But check out this mother fucking shit: > http://standblog.org/blog/post/2009/04/15/Making-video-a-first-class-citizen-of-the-Web > Ive been talking a lot about the new -video- tag in HTML 5 that's in > Firefox 3.5. Not only does it use open web standards which is really > important as we develop the language of web video, it also enables > some very COOL possibilities for interacting with a video on a page > (without any licensing restrictions). > > For those of us who like to hack and play around, now is the time to > get energized. There are infinite possibilities with the -video- and > -canvas- tags in HTML 5. The developers have barely even scratched the > surface...and I imagine that it's going to take the video creators and > storytellers here to start making the kick ass examples that really > bring out the possibilities. > > So forget all the ranting and raving about Youtube. Papa's got a brand new > bag. > http://standblog.org/blog/post/2009/04/15/Making-video-a-first-class-citizen-of-the-Web > Watch the screencast to get an idea of what I'm talking about. > > This new Firefox will be officially released the the Open Video > Conference this June in NYC: > http://openvideoconference.org/2009/03/mozilla-to-present-firefox-35-at-open-video/ > Ill be there and would be great to meet you guys there as well. > > Jay > > > -- > http://ryanishungry.com > http://jaydedman.com > http://twitter.com/jaydedman > 917 371 6790 > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
[videoblogging] "Plug-ins are like boxy islands of information on a page"
I remember in 2004 when some of us first started videoblogging, we had to jump through a lot of hoops trying to figure out how to get video on the page easily. This challenge was really the impetus for starting this group. That's all we talked about the first year. Then, embedded Flash players came along and made it dead simple to post/share videos. But check out this mother fucking shit: http://standblog.org/blog/post/2009/04/15/Making-video-a-first-class-citizen-of-the-Web Ive been talking a lot about the new -video- tag in HTML 5 that's in Firefox 3.5. Not only does it use open web standards which is really important as we develop the language of web video, it also enables some very COOL possibilities for interacting with a video on a page (without any licensing restrictions). For those of us who like to hack and play around, now is the time to get energized. There are infinite possibilities with the -video- and -canvas- tags in HTML 5. The developers have barely even scratched the surface...and I imagine that it's going to take the video creators and storytellers here to start making the kick ass examples that really bring out the possibilities. So forget all the ranting and raving about Youtube. Papa's got a brand new bag. http://standblog.org/blog/post/2009/04/15/Making-video-a-first-class-citizen-of-the-Web Watch the screencast to get an idea of what I'm talking about. This new Firefox will be officially released the the Open Video Conference this June in NYC: http://openvideoconference.org/2009/03/mozilla-to-present-firefox-35-at-open-video/ Ill be there and would be great to meet you guys there as well. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] work around for no fire wire?
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote: > 2+ years experience using a macbookpro everyday... > > macs are way over-hyped/over-priced. > but hey, you'll be hip like that. ;) 9 years of making a living using Apple's pro laptop (15 years going back to my Mac SE) and I have to disagree with that vigorously. All the time and frustration I've saved while just being able to get on with getting things done is not to be discounted. I'm not saying they are perfect - they're not but come on. Not wanting to start a platform war... Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com
Re: [videoblogging] work around for no fire wire?
2+ years experience using a macbookpro everyday... macs are way over-hyped/over-priced. but hey, you'll be hip like that. ;) On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 5:17 AM, RANDY MANN wrote: > > > want to trade? > jk > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Michael Sullivan > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > my macbook pro circa 2006 has both fw400 and fw800 on right side and 3 > usb2 > > ports. > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Rupert > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > When did you buy yours? I bought my 15" MBP from the Apple store > > > online three weeks ago and it has no FW400, only FW800. > > > A step down from my old G4 Powerbook, which had both. > > > I meant to say they have 800 not 400 (hence the advice about the > > > cable), but I said it the wrong way round. > > > > > > > > > On 14-Apr-09, at 7:19 PM, Brook Hinton wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Macbook Pro's DO have fw800 - it was just the first gen 15" > > > > model that > > > > didn't. I have a 2nd gen with both 400 and 800 right under my > fingers. > > > > But yes, Rupert's right, take it back and get a white macbook with > > > > fw800 or > > > > a macbook pro. > > > > > > > > Brook > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Rupert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're out of luck for linking it to your XL1, I'm afraid. > > > > > Apple's heartwarming policy of differentiation between products > > > > means > > > > > they killed Firewire in the standard Macbooks to force you to go > Pro > > > > > if you're a Firewire user, because they think you're more likely > > > > to be > > > > > an advanced or Pro user and therefore more likely to spend the > extra > > > > > cash. > > > > > Take it back and get either a Macbook Pro or a White Macbook - I > > > > think > > > > > they still have the older Macbook model available which has > > > > Firewire. > > > > > The Macbook pro doesn't have a Firewire 800, though, only 400 - so > > > > if > > > > > you get that, you'd have to also get a 9 pin FW800 to 4 pin DV > > > > camera > > > > > cable. > > > > > > > > > > Rupert > > > > > http://twittervlog.tv > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 14-Apr-09, at 5:24 PM, RANDY MANN wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i just bought a nice shinny new mac book today with my taxes > > > > > > got it home to find out there is no fire wire port > > > > > > i need to get my videos in this from my xl1 it only has a mini > > > > fire > > > > > > wire no > > > > > > usb > > > > > > > > > > > > any ideas?? > > > > > > > > > > > > randy > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ___ > > > > Brook Hinton > > > > film/video/audio art > > > > www.brookhinton.com > > > > studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] rss
witch is the best rss reader? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] work around for no fire wire?
want to trade? jk On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Michael Sullivan wrote: > > > my macbook pro circa 2006 has both fw400 and fw800 on right side and 3 usb2 > ports. > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Rupert > > > wrote: > > > > > > > When did you buy yours? I bought my 15" MBP from the Apple store > > online three weeks ago and it has no FW400, only FW800. > > A step down from my old G4 Powerbook, which had both. > > I meant to say they have 800 not 400 (hence the advice about the > > cable), but I said it the wrong way round. > > > > > > On 14-Apr-09, at 7:19 PM, Brook Hinton wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The Macbook Pro's DO have fw800 - it was just the first gen 15" > > > model that > > > didn't. I have a 2nd gen with both 400 and 800 right under my fingers. > > > But yes, Rupert's right, take it back and get a white macbook with > > > fw800 or > > > a macbook pro. > > > > > > Brook > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Rupert > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're out of luck for linking it to your XL1, I'm afraid. > > > > Apple's heartwarming policy of differentiation between products > > > means > > > > they killed Firewire in the standard Macbooks to force you to go Pro > > > > if you're a Firewire user, because they think you're more likely > > > to be > > > > an advanced or Pro user and therefore more likely to spend the extra > > > > cash. > > > > Take it back and get either a Macbook Pro or a White Macbook - I > > > think > > > > they still have the older Macbook model available which has > > > Firewire. > > > > The Macbook pro doesn't have a Firewire 800, though, only 400 - so > > > if > > > > you get that, you'd have to also get a 9 pin FW800 to 4 pin DV > > > camera > > > > cable. > > > > > > > > Rupert > > > > http://twittervlog.tv > > > > > > > > > > > > On 14-Apr-09, at 5:24 PM, RANDY MANN wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i just bought a nice shinny new mac book today with my taxes > > > > > got it home to find out there is no fire wire port > > > > > i need to get my videos in this from my xl1 it only has a mini > > > fire > > > > > wire no > > > > > usb > > > > > > > > > > any ideas?? > > > > > > > > > > randy > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > ___ > > > Brook Hinton > > > film/video/audio art > > > www.brookhinton.com > > > studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
